Author Topic: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant  (Read 5932 times)

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2009, 07:09:45 pm »

1: Marriage is a Biblical, Judaic, and Islamic principle that has been stated to be between a man and a woman.

While Western society evolved from the Medieval Society, which had Christian overtones, that society evolved from Roman tradition before it (and that from Greek tradition). Indeed, the Justinian Code still forms the backbone of the modern legal system.

The Romans adapted to the views of Christianity, and for a long time after their original religious practices were overwritten with Christianity, it was used as the legal religion of the Roman Empire (Though the Christian-Roman empire did do a number of bad things, similar to how it was before they were Christian, we shall not get into that).

Quote

Additionally, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have conflicting beliefs about marriage; which should be held above the others? Does a divorce only require I throw a sandal at my wife? Can I take three more? If I die without producing an heir, should my brothers be forced to sleep with my wife in order to produce one?


This is unrelated to the topic of homosexual vs heterosexual marriage.
Quote

While it is perfectly valid for individuals to vote based on their belief systems, as a society of individuals from a myriad of backgrounds, we cannot apply a single cultures definition of marriage to government laws.
We cannot apply them, true.  However, the government already did so when it was established.  The reason for religious freedom when the government was created was not because there were 1000000s of Jews and Muslims and Mormons and Buddhists etc. in America, but actually many many many different people with different views on the Bible and Christianity.  Thusly, they made the lawful version of marriage off of Christianity.

Quote
2: Being something of religion, the law should have no hand in this.

No hand in religious marriage ceremonies, I agree. However, insofar as any legal benefits are a part of marriage, the law must have a hand in it. You can't have it both ways. Either, legally, no marriage can be recognized or, legally, every marriage must be recognized. I'd be largely happy either way.

So either remove the legal rights that a heterosexual spouse has, or grant those legal rights to a homosexual spouse.

Did you miss my entire argument?  My entire argument was for getting homosexual couples to have the ability to achieve the same sets of rights and benefits that are part of a legal marriage.  My only stipulation for this was that it be a legal marriage but under a different name, as to be able to easily dispell the radicals and such who are 100% against it.

Quote
It may have been "proven" that people are born homosexual, but many other things have been so-called "proven" and then proven otherwise.

As said above, genetics is a red herring. Let us assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is entirely a choice; so what? Being a Republican is entirely a choice, being an Atheist is entirely a choice, seeing the new Star Trek movie is entirely a choice. If we allow freedom in what religious, political, or entertainmental beliefs a person might have, why not in sexual practices as well?

To note, at least some forms of homosexuality are genetic (there are, at the least, different genetic variations that can manifest as homosexuality). A recent study, for example, linked male homosexuality to a gene that increases either the fertility or sexual drive in women (their aunts, specifically). And by recent, I mean in the last year. And by last year I mean “I can’t remember yesterday with details, I doubt I can provide any more information on this.”

I wasn't arguing about the freedom of choice my friend.  Let them have whatever sexual practice they want.  I was just trying to argue that being homosexual isn't entirely genetic.  Even if it was genetic, it doesn't mean you can't grow and change.

Religiously, homosexual marriage is wrong.

Actually, I'd argue that, as a Christian, you should be a supporter of homosexual marriage. As a Christian, you should be imitating Jesus, yes?

[/quote]
ima going to have to quote the Bible on this one...
Matthew 19: 4-5 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? "

Truthfully the Bible never truly outright defines marriage like "Marriage is a sacred covenent between a man and a woman etc...", however the above quote is specifically referencing marriage.  Marriage is a way for a man and a woman to become "one flesh", and also in the Bible it is stated that when a man and a woman have sex they are, in God's eyes, considered to be "one flesh", and married in God's viewpoint.

And though it is not specifically stated that Homosexual marriage is wrong, what is stated is this:
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.  Compiled with sex being a way for a man and woman to marry (though not exactly the BEST way) in God's eyes, it can be deducted that homosexual marriage, in a religious standpoint, is not Biblical.

Quote

Do you recall the Sermon on the Mount? If someone strikes you on your right cheek, offer the left. If they force you to go with them one mile, go with them two. And I take from that: if someone tries to "infringe" on what you say sex should be, give them what you say marriage is as well.

Do you recall the disparaging remarks made about Jesus? That he was a friend of "sinners and tax collectors"? Christians should be the friends of homosexuals (regardless of if homosexuality is a sin or not). However, Christian opposition to homosexual marriage has become a barrier to this possibility. And, if you are Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you should want these people to be saved? Excessive Christian opposition to homosexual marriage (and indeed, homosexuals in general) forms a barrier to the very potential. If a homosexual hears "God hates fags" from the mouth of a "Christian," why should they listen to anything else they have to say? Christians, then, are a barrier to homosexuals accepting Christian beliefs.

Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).

Hahahaha so funny... I love how you missed it when I said:
Quote
I'm not saying I hate gays.  Some of my best friends are gay.  Some of the coolest people I know are gay.
PRETTY Damn sure that I have some gay friends, and though my religion speaks against homosexual activities, it also speaks out against being an asshole to people.  I may not support what my friends believe but I do support my friends.
Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.

It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.

I like to assume everyone's a democrat.

Fix'd

Nice  :lol:

HAHAHAHA =D nice

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2009, 07:28:30 pm »
Quote from: Carrie Prejean
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

This is what this whole debacle is about?

You know what, fuck all of you.  Fuck the entire damn world.

Bullshit knows no ends.

FaustWolf

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8972
  • Fan Power Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2009, 07:31:07 pm »
Quote from: Thought
Given the context, it is quite possible that she was referring to the situation in Vermont and the other states specifically. Or, alternately, she could have been referring to voter choice, and not explicitly marriage choice. That is, she could have been saying that it is great that voters can decide if they want to allow it or not (which indicates she isn't aware that voters have had no say in some of those cases), not that individuals get to be married or not.
Aww, I totally forgot to post the question, and didn't pick up on this. In that case, I'll have to give her more credit for the internal logic of her answer. So she was basically saying she was glad she lives in a country where people can decide whether gay marriage should be legal. In this context, she appears to be a States' rights advocate more than anti-gay marriage; so the argument here should more rightly focus on whether States' rights should be allowed to trump individual rights.

Quote
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.

To split hairs, Leviticus says male homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say you can't lie with a woman as with a man, so Sappho, you go girl!
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 07:37:44 pm by FaustWolf »

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2009, 07:45:07 pm »
Quote
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.

To split hairs, Leviticus says male homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say you can't lie with a woman as with a man, so Sappho, you go girl!

Not to mention that Leviticus also contains things like the Jewish dietary laws--sorry, Christians, but you don't get to invoke that passage against homosexuality unless you also don't eat pork, but do sew tassels to the hems of your garments, keep the Festival of Shelters, and follow all the other injunctions therein, 'cause if those bits aren't valid, why should the bit about homosexuality be? Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose.  Either it's all important, or none of it is.

nightmare975

  • Architect of Kajar
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3263
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2009, 07:59:30 pm »
Quote from: Carrie Prejean
Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.

This is what this whole debacle is about?

You know what, fuck all of you.  Fuck the entire damn world.

Bullshit knows no ends.

It Perez Hilton we're talking about here, the faggot knows no bounds.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2009, 08:50:36 pm »
Quote
Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
This states that Homosexual acts are wrong.

To split hairs, Leviticus says male homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say you can't lie with a woman as with a man, so Sappho, you go girl!

Not to mention that Leviticus also contains things like the Jewish dietary laws--sorry, Christians, but you don't get to invoke that passage against homosexuality unless you also don't eat pork, but do sew tassels to the hems of your garments, keep the Festival of Shelters, and follow all the other injunctions therein, 'cause if those bits aren't valid, why should the bit about homosexuality be? Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose.  Either it's all important, or none of it is.


Oh, sorry, my bad.  Make sure to remind me to kill the next person I see who I know has most definitley had sex with more than one person... and sometimes more than one at a time.

First of all, not even all Jewish people abide by all of those laws.  Especially not the death to someone laws.

Second, it is a common belief among Christians that many laws in the Old Testament had been overwritten with some of the things in the new testament.

Considering I cannot explain things amazingly well, and I dont have the time to either, for the example of not eating pork, I'm going to cite someone's interpretation of I Timothy 4: 1-5 for you.

Quote
(AV)

1Timothy 4
1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

I Timothy 4:3 {1} Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from
meats, {2} which God hath created {3} to be received {4}
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

(1) He sets down two types of this false doctrine, that is, the
law of single life, and the difference of meats.
(2) He proves that he justly called such doctrines devilish,
first, because the teachers of them make laws of things
which are not their own: for have they created the meats?
(3) Secondly, because they overthrow with their decrees the
reason why they were created by God, that is, that we
should use them.
(4) Thirdly, because by this means they rob God of his glory,
who will be honoured in the use of them. And here with
this, the apostle declares that we must use the liberality
of God solemnly, and with a good conscience.


So we are not under any law not to eat it. Christ has superseded the Old Testament law.
-quote from http://boards.history.com/topic/History-Of-Christianity/Why-Do-Christians/600006478&start=0

That would be a moderate explanation, in my opinion

alfadorredux

  • Entity
  • Mystical Knight (+700)
  • *
  • Posts: 746
  • Just a purple cat
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2009, 09:11:49 pm »
The dietary laws were possibly a bad choice of example, but you're still dodging my point, which is that many sections of the Old Testament are ignored by Christians even if they were never specifically superseded in the New. (What Jews do or don't do is irrelevant--we aren't talking about Jews, and they don't have a history of trying to impose the contents of their holy books on people not of their religion.) The injunction against homosexuality in Leviticus is in the Old Testament; therefore, it's as much of, and no more of, a part of your holy law as the sections that are being ignored. Therefore, using it to condemn homosexuality is pure hypocrisy designed to appeal to certain people's prejudices, because it's exactly as outmoded and irrelevant as the bits about the proper actions to take when you find mildew in your house.

teaflower

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
  • Dreams are the gateway to reality.
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2009, 09:24:20 pm »
I don't know if we knew this, but many Christian practices were adopted from Roman and Greek mythology. For example, Christmas is in December because that's when Saturnalia was. They take the practices of 'heathens' and 'pagans' and morph them into their 'civilized' beliefs. Though, if you ask me, how much more civilized to have one dude send his son down to earth to have him get his ass kicked? Sure, Roman mythology is bloody as hell (Kronus/Kronos/Cronos/Cronus ripped his dad's parts off), but... honestly, no religion is king.

I like the concept of the 'civil union'. It's essentially a marriage in everything but name. I know Vermont had something like that until the bill was made for actual marriage. This way, you can have all the benefits of marriage (wills, inheritance, etc..) but none of the religious freaks saying 'YOUR LIFE GOES AGAINST GOD FOR SHAME!'.

Though, when you look at it, a lot of Christian practices go against what should be taught, according to what Jesus said. Didn't he say you shouldn't eat shellfish? Mm... shrimp cocktail... And didn't he say something about spreading the word peacefully? Yay, Crusades! Wasn't there something about helping thine neighbor? He broke his wagon wheel, so screw him! I think there might've been something about treating others as you want to be treated... so obviously every person who swears at me deserves to be sworn at.

And the whole thing about 'saving' people? What is redemption? Ultimately, we're doomed from the start. The first time we crush an ant under our feet is murder. The first time we tell someone 'You look fine' when they look like crap is a lie. The first time you see a cute girl/guy and you want to sleep with them, that's lust. The first time you sleep in on a Saturday and sit and do nothing but play video games, that's sloth. Deadly sins, people...

If you ask me, redemption is finding inner peace. It's hard to grasp, but... when you find it, it's awesome. I think.

Also, hey look! Another religious debate!

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8340
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2009, 10:54:17 pm »
So is the gaybashing segment before or after swimsuits? There is swimsuits, right? But serious (if ever), how does that even come up? And how many gays are probably involved with a beauty pageant?

nightmare975

  • Architect of Kajar
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3263
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2009, 10:56:44 pm »
And how many gays are probably involved with a beauty pageant?

Who designs their dresses? The stage, the music, the swimsuits?

Gays, that's who. You better thank them for all the fashion in your life.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2009, 12:15:51 am »
The dietary laws were possibly a bad choice of example, but you're still dodging my point, which is that many sections of the Old Testament are ignored by Christians even if they were never specifically superseded in the New. (What Jews do or don't do is irrelevant--we aren't talking about Jews, and they don't have a history of trying to impose the contents of their holy books on people not of their religion.) The injunction against homosexuality in Leviticus is in the Old Testament; therefore, it's as much of, and no more of, a part of your holy law as the sections that are being ignored. Therefore, using it to condemn homosexuality is pure hypocrisy designed to appeal to certain people's prejudices, because it's exactly as outmoded and irrelevant as the bits about the proper actions to take when you find mildew in your house.


You are saying that I am condemning people?  What the FUCK dont you understand about what I have said?  Let me get one thing very straight and very clear:
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.  What I understand my belief to be is based around a philosphy of love.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  Love the Lord your God.  Love your enemies.  Christ died because he loved us.
I also believe that Man and Woman were meant for eachother.  Gays exist.  So what?  It is my belief that being homosexual is wrong.  So what am I going to do about it?  Am I going to go out and murder every single one of them?  Fuck no!  I'm going to love them.  There are many fools in this world that believe that they should take up arms and crusade against homosexuality.  Do you NOT realize that I am just as appauled at this as you?
As for the things in Loviticus?  Hah!  Please, go ahead and name them!  I truly wish to know of what you speak.  List them out so that I may either strengthen my beliefs or cast them aside like dirty laundry!
And if you wish to speak to me about anger, consult Matthew 21:
"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. "
Jesus got angry at them for insulting the temple by trading and selling there.  You have insulted me and my beliefs, not by calling it old or ignorant, but by directly accusing me of being prejudiced and of condemning homosexuality.  I have stated a number of times that I do not condemn nor hate homosexuals.  It is my belief that it is wrong, however that doesn't mean I go around beating gays with a cross!  It is their belief that it is not wrong, and my beliefs tell me to respect other people's religions and beliefs.  I stated my belief in a homosexual equivalent of marriage, so that they may recieve the same benefits and pleasures that heterosexual couples do, but you have taken my statement and twisted it as if to say that I am against gay rights!  It is not I that is condemning anyone, sir.  It is you, sir, that are condemning me.


Though, if you ask me, how much more civilized to have one dude send his son down to earth to have him get his ass kicked?

I like the concept of the 'civil union'. It's essentially a marriage in everything but name. I know Vermont had something like that until the bill was made for actual marriage. This way, you can have all the benefits of marriage (wills, inheritance, etc..) but none of the religious freaks saying 'YOUR LIFE GOES AGAINST GOD FOR SHAME!'.
If you would read above, you would know that this is exactly my belief.

Quote
Though, when you look at it, a lot of Christian practices go against what should be taught, according to what Jesus said. Didn't he say you shouldn't eat shellfish? Mm... shrimp cocktail...
Could you please advise me on where to find this?  I would dearly appreciate it.

Quote
And didn't he say something about spreading the word peacefully? Yay, Crusades!
Their intentions were good. HOWEVER before you or someone else even DARES misquote me, their methods were some of the greatest amounts of foolishness in history.

Quote
Wasn't there something about helping thine neighbor? He broke his wagon wheel, so screw him! I think there might've been something about treating others as you want to be treated... so obviously every person who swears at me deserves to be sworn at.
I really really REALLY hope that you are not applying this to me...

Quote
And the whole thing about 'saving' people? What is redemption? Ultimately, we're doomed from the start. The first time we crush an ant under our feet is murder. The first time we tell someone 'You look fine' when they look like crap is a lie. The first time you see a cute girl/guy and you want to sleep with them, that's lust. The first time you sleep in on a Saturday and sit and do nothing but play video games, that's sloth. Deadly sins, people...
You would think I didn't already know this?  The basis behind Christianity and Judaism is EXACTLY that.  People are inherently sinful.  Judaism uses Old Testament (called the Torah by them) beliefs to keep themselves as Godly as possible, and Christians believe that Jesus died for us and his purity nullified all sins for whoever believes in him.  Which yes, under the circumstances, Gays CAN be Christian and just because they're gay doesn't mean they're going straght to hell.  Just like all other sins, it is forgiven too. 

Im not even sure how to end this post anymore.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2009, 03:05:25 am »
Did you miss my entire argument?

A valid concern. My arguments tend to very quickly move from specific commentary to a broader exhortation; the latter can be easily mistaken for the former. But no, I didn't miss your entire argument.

Now, a proper response must be divided into two parts. You brought up one element that needs specific and in depth addressing, while the other points are more along the lines of technical corrections. As such, this will be a little out of order.

ima going to have to quote the Bible on this one...

And unfortunately you've gone on an unnecessary tangent by doing so. If you look at my arguments again they were pointed at how Christians in general should act towards homosexuals, specifically in the context of homosexual marriage. Nothing I said was a commentary on the conceptually ideal potential of the word, what marriage should be, etc.

I took a rather different approach to the matter, a more direct approach, I believe. It does not matter how marriage should be defined from a biblical standpoint; that can be debated. What does matter is how Christians, believing in the basic tenants of Christianity, should behave. I thus drew from the teachings of Christ; specifically, that the sin of the individual is unimportant in regards to how one should treat them. I am proposing that in order to best live and communicate the fundamental tenant of Christianity (love and forgiveness of sin through Jesus), Christians should support homosexual marriage.

In short, I am claiming that the proper definition of marriage is unimportant. Thus, what the book of Matthew says about marriage is unimportant. Likewise, what the book of Leviticus says about homosexuality is unimportant. And thus, in turn, if homosexual marriage is biblical or not is unimportant. That is a non-issue; what is important is how Christians are to fulfill the Great Commission. Insofar as a political and social opposition to same-sex marriage hinders that goal, such opposition is harmful and, indeed, sinful.

Let us take a conservative standpoint for a moment: "marriage should only be between a man and a woman" and "homosexuality is a sin." That is exactly why Christians should support same-sex marriage; it is not by alienating or attacking same sex marriage, or indeed homosexuals, that Christians can fulfill the Great Commission. At any point did Jesus attempt to force people to give up sin or a sinful way of life? Consider the story of the adulterous woman in the book of John as an example; Jesus first saved the woman's life and then urged her to "go and sin no more." We should connect with individuals on a personal, fundamental level before attempting to correct what we might see as flaws. Care about the person first and the sin second, as it were.


What is to follow is the aforementioned technical corrections:

Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).
Hahahaha so funny... I love how you missed it when I said:
"I'm not saying I hate gays.  Some of my best friends are gay.  Some of the coolest people I know are gay."
[/quote]

Please do note the lack of second person pronouns. I did not say "you should be the best friend homosexuals have," but rather "Christians." How many homosexuals see the Westboro Baptist Church as friends, for example? I intended my statements to be for all Christians which (unfortunately) does include groups like that.

... the government already did so when it was established. The reason for religious freedom when the government was created was ... Thusly, they made the lawful version of marriage off of Christianity.

Sorry, I'm going to have to call BS on that one. The people who established religious freedom through the First Amendment were not the same people to establish federal marriage laws. In fact, you might notice a great gap in the Constitution in terms of references to marriage. However, since it wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, the "right" of marriage is reserved for the states. So the "lawful version of marriage" was created by state governments first, not the federal government (which is what established religious freedom).

Did you miss my entire argument?  My entire argument was for getting homosexual couples to have the ability to achieve the same sets of rights and benefits that are part of a legal marriage.  My only stipulation for this was that it be a legal marriage but under a different name, as to be able to easily dispell the radicals and such who are 100% against it.

The radicals who are 100% against it aren't going to care what you call it; a rose by any other name, and all that. Likewise, homosexuals who are 100% for it aren't going to be happy with an alternate name. Your stipulation satisfies neither side while pissing both off. Besides, it has already been discovered that separate but equal is nothing of the sort.

I don't know if we knew this, but many Christian practices were adopted from Roman and Greek mythology. For example, Christmas is in December because that's when Saturnalia was.

The practice of specifically absorbing Greek and Roman "mythology," and indeed pagan elements in general, did not formally begin until the rise of Pope Gregory that Great. Given that early Christians, until around the 5th century, specifically attempted to distance themselves from Pagan religious elements, it is highly improbable that they willingly assimilated anything pagan. The earliest specific mention of the birth of Christ comes from the 4th century, and records can tentatively place the date of the birth of Christ being believed to be in December/January as early as the 2nd century.

You are essentially stating a historical theory (and I should note that, in history, the word “theory” does not have the same meaning as what the word “theory” means in science) from the 1800’s that was never well supported. It was postulated but with no actual historical evidence to back it up. Certainly Christians did absorb some pagan elements; we have records of it occurring. But that can not be applied to different time periods without proper evidence.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2009, 03:40:54 am »
Quote
The radicals who are 100% against it aren't going to care what you call it; a rose by any other name, and all that. Likewise, homosexuals who are 100% for it aren't going to be happy with an alternate name. Your stipulation satisfies neither side while pissing both off.

Yours is just one of two possible outcomes...
I could see them pissed that it would be called something different... but I could also see them happy that they get what they wanted.  ..."would smell as sweet", to finish off your quote.

I could see them pissed that homosexuals get marriage... but I could also see them happy that they don't get marriage per say, but merely the benefits and pleasures (In truth, I have alot of Christian friends who agree with this idea, but sure, 100% radicals would really never agree to this, considering they dont want gays to have ANY rights.... but really, it would be just-deserts if you consider the persecution they placed upon them (100% rads = someone who hates gays, 100%))

Giving them marriage in itself would:
make gays happy, piss off christians.

Not giving them marriage would:
make christians happy, piss off gays.


ZeaLitY

  • Entity
  • End of Timer (+10000)
  • *
  • Posts: 10795
  • Spring Breeze Dancin'
    • View Profile
    • My Compendium Staff Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2009, 03:48:10 am »
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.

And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.

Jutty

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 614
  • The Most In-Frequent Poster Ever
    • View Profile
Re: Fuck Carrie Prejean and the California Beauty Pageant
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2009, 04:05:28 am »
I live by what I personally understand Christianity to be.

And gay people mostly don't. But since you believe Christianity is the one truth, you punish them with your Christian-influenced laws and disparage them. That's not the kind of freedom America is all about.

You can disagree with people's lifestyles in America. You can even hate people for things they can't help like race/sex/mental state. You may be an asshole for doing it, but you can definitely do it.