Fasting against marriage equality

[thebrucebeat]

So everyone on Earth was a Hebrew? I call bull. Yes, in their culture that's the way it was but not always. I never heard of a daughter being sold to a woman for marriage though.

So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.

You really suck at this, can you make a post without lying? I'm beginning to think you're incapable. Are you able to follow a conversation? I'm beginning to think not. Where did the poster you quoted ever in anything he/she said gave you the impression or allowed you to come to the conlusion that they were 'standing up' for any cause, let alone heterosexual misogyny? You have to reach to ridiculous extrapolations to even come up with your assinine comments and accusations that it enters the realm of pathetic.

Simple.
He was using the historicity of marriage to defend the status quo. I clearly pointed out they have nothing to do with each other and the idea of marriage morphs culturally over time, and is doing so again.
I'm sorry you couldn't follow what seems to me a very simple argument to follow.
Clearly I overestimated your intellectual abilities.
For that I'm sorry. My mistake.
There was no evidence to make that assumption.

 

[Newby]

That "special relationship" was having a fully owned slave that stabilized the family through an enforced servitude that provided a domestic labor force.
Some Christians still long for these 'good old days'.Should a Woman Work or Stay Home with Children? - Probe Ministries

That's your interpretation of 'special relationship' and not what the poster was saying. Again, you have to add, embelish, twist, distort, etc.. to even remotely be on topic with your posts, it's no wonder no one can follow them.

Bolded is rather amusing, I'd say it would be more accurate if it said 'Some men...' Since marriage as you described it wasn't limited to christian marriage and still exists that way today in other cultures that are clearly not christian. So again, your point is moot to the topic being addressed.

By "embellish" you mean providing evidence and defending my argument...
Guilty!
We were discussing gay marriage in the U.S., right?
The citation is from an American Christian ministry.
Or was your point that you want to be as backward as some sharia dominated countries?

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

 

[thebrucebeat]

That's your interpretation of 'special relationship' and not what the poster was saying. Again, you have to add, embelish, twist, distort, etc.. to even remotely be on topic with your posts, it's no wonder no one can follow them.

Bolded is rather amusing, I'd say it would be more accurate if it said 'Some men...' Since marriage as you described it wasn't limited to christian marriage and still exists that way today in other cultures that are clearly not christian. So again, your point is moot to the topic being addressed.

By "embellish" you mean providing evidence and defending my argument...
Guilty!
We were discussing gay marriage in the U.S., right?
The citation is from an American Christian ministry.
Or was your point that you want to be as backward as some sharia dominated countries?

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

I'm really sorry you can't follow this. I can't dumb it down any further.
I do notice you don't address my points at all.
Probably wise.
So you think discussing the restrictions on women's rights is easier if framed within a Christian meme?
Perhaps you're right.

 

[Newby]

So you are standing up for the cause and relative righteousness of heterosexual misogyny.This was the standard for marriage all across the globe.

You really suck at this, can you make a post without lying? I'm beginning to think you're incapable. Are you able to follow a conversation? I'm beginning to think not. Where did the poster you quoted ever in anything he/she said gave you the impression or allowed you to come to the conlusion that they were 'standing up' for any cause, let alone heterosexual misogyny? You have to reach to ridiculous extrapolations to even come up with your assinine comments and accusations that it enters the realm of pathetic.

Simple.
He was using the historicity of marriage to defend the status quo. I clearly pointed out they have nothing to do with each other and the idea of marriage morphs culturally over time, and is doing so again.
I'm sorry you couldn't follow what seems to me a very simple argument to follow.
Clearly I overestimated your intellectual abilities.
For that I'm sorry. My mistake.
There was no evidence to make that assumption.

If you had said that to begin with you might have a valid point, but you did not. You orginally said that his historical facts were inaccurate, at which point I highlighted them for you and asked what was inaccurate. And of course, there was nothing historically inaccurate in his post, it was just another lie you made in order to go off on your own tangent about the treatment of women in marriages during biblical times, as if that had any relevance to gay marriage in the U.S. But I understand why you need to lead down a different path in order to continue your christian bashing and try to turn the topic to that, but you really don't do a very good job of it at all.

 

[Newby]

By "embellish" you mean providing evidence and defending my argument...
Guilty!
We were discussing gay marriage in the U.S., right?
The citation is from an American Christian ministry.
Or was your point that you want to be as backward as some sharia dominated countries?

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

I'm really sorry you can't follow this. I can't dumb it down any further.
I do notice you don't address my points at all.
Probably wise.
So you think discussing the restrictions on women's rights is easier if framed within a Christian meme?
Perhaps you're right.

Ah, so we're back to insults... and lies... again... ho hum...

 

[thebrucebeat]

You really suck at this, can you make a post without lying? I'm beginning to think you're incapable. Are you able to follow a conversation? I'm beginning to think not. Where did the poster you quoted ever in anything he/she said gave you the impression or allowed you to come to the conlusion that they were 'standing up' for any cause, let alone heterosexual misogyny? You have to reach to ridiculous extrapolations to even come up with your assinine comments and accusations that it enters the realm of pathetic.

Simple.
He was using the historicity of marriage to defend the status quo. I clearly pointed out they have nothing to do with each other and the idea of marriage morphs culturally over time, and is doing so again.
I'm sorry you couldn't follow what seems to me a very simple argument to follow.
Clearly I overestimated your intellectual abilities.
For that I'm sorry. My mistake.
There was no evidence to make that assumption.

If you had said that to begin with you might have a valid point, but you did not. You orginally said that his historical facts were inaccurate, at which point I highlighted them for you and asked what was inaccurate. And of course, there was nothing historically inaccurate in his post, it was just another lie you made in order to go off on your own tangent about the treatment of women in marriages during biblical times, as if that had any relevance to gay marriage in the U.S. But I understand why you need to lead down a different path in order to continue your christian bashing and try to turn the topic to that, but you really don't do a very good job of it at all.

Thank you for finally realizing my point is valid.
The rest is an attempt to cover up you are too stupid to have understood the point the first time.

 

[Newby]

By "embellish" you mean providing evidence and defending my argument...
Guilty!
We were discussing gay marriage in the U.S., right?
The citation is from an American Christian ministry.
Or was your point that you want to be as backward as some sharia dominated countries?

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

I'm really sorry you can't follow this. I can't dumb it down any further.
I do notice you don't address my points at all.
Probably wise.
So you think discussing the restrictions on women's rights is easier if framed within a Christian meme?Perhaps you're right.

If you want to discuss that, I suggest you start a new thread. Can you do so without lying about it? Highly doubtful.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

I'm really sorry you can't follow this. I can't dumb it down any further.
I do notice you don't address my points at all.
Probably wise.
So you think discussing the restrictions on women's rights is easier if framed within a Christian meme?
Perhaps you're right.

Ah, so we're back to insults... and lies... again... ho hum...

No response.
Noted.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

I'm really sorry you can't follow this. I can't dumb it down any further.
I do notice you don't address my points at all.
Probably wise.
So you think discussing the restrictions on women's rights is easier if framed within a Christian meme?Perhaps you're right.

If you want to discuss that, I suggest you start a new thread. Can you do so without lying about it? Highly doubtful.

This was YOUR point. I simply agreed with you.
I can quote you if you like.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I didn't say that but that's what your brain interpreted because apparently you can't discuss the issue fairly. The mistreatment of women doesn't correlate to endorsing gay marriage, that's two separate issues. How do two guys marrying fit in?

How does painting a warm and fuzzy about historical marriage fit in?
Marriage is a cultural institution. Cultures define it.
Once again, the times they are a'changin'.

I posted the fact that marriage was always between a man and woman and you spun off into woman abuse. Times are achangin, more and more like you who are unfamiliar with honesty and logic. Culture determined how marriage was defined but it wasn't culture that is changing it, it's propaganda and legislation from the bench. There's nothing unequal about defining marriage as being between a man and a woman any more than it's unequal to say only two can marry. if tradition doesn't matter you can't use it as a guide.

Which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

That a given jurisdictions has perceived a law or practice as ‘traditional’ carries no merit or weight whatsoever:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, there is no “propaganda and legislation from the bench,” as the courts are correctly and in accordance with the Constitution invalidating laws designed only to disadvantage a particular class of persons, which is offensive to this Nation’s fundamental tenet of individual liberty.

To deny same-sex couples access to marriage law is in fact to make them unequal, as the states may not make American citizens a stranger to their laws, where same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage.

 

[Newby]

Simple.
He was using the historicity of marriage to defend the status quo. I clearly pointed out they have nothing to do with each other and the idea of marriage morphs culturally over time, and is doing so again.
I'm sorry you couldn't follow what seems to me a very simple argument to follow.
Clearly I overestimated your intellectual abilities.
For that I'm sorry. My mistake.
There was no evidence to make that assumption.

If you had said that to begin with you might have a valid point, but you did not. You orginally said that his historical facts were inaccurate, at which point I highlighted them for you and asked what was inaccurate. And of course, there was nothing historically inaccurate in his post, it was just another lie you made in order to go off on your own tangent about the treatment of women in marriages during biblical times, as if that had any relevance to gay marriage in the U.S. But I understand why you need to lead down a different path in order to continue your christian bashing and try to turn the topic to that, but you really don't do a very good job of it at all.

Thank you for finally realizing my point is valid.
The rest is an attempt to cover up you are too stupid to have understood the point the first time.

Except that wasn't your point to begin with, your point was to put words in another's person's mouth that they never said, accuse them of positions that they never held, all so you can create your own little point of reference that never existed, and argue against it. It's called a strawman, and it's all you ever do since you're not smart enough to come up with a valid rebuttle on your own.

What's even funnier is that I'm not even against 'gay marriage', I could care less what they do or what they call it or how much they legitimize it in current culture. It is what it is, and it will always be an abnormal existance since it so obviously goes against the norm both physically and mentally for 98% of existing humans. If they want to pretend that most of the population has acceptetd it as normal because they're no longer allowed to voice their honest opinion on it, then that's their call.

 

[Newby]

I'm really sorry you can't follow this. I can't dumb it down any further.
I do notice you don't address my points at all.
Probably wise.
So you think discussing the restrictions on women's rights is easier if framed within a Christian meme?Perhaps you're right.

If you want to discuss that, I suggest you start a new thread. Can you do so without lying about it? Highly doubtful.

This was YOUR point. I simply agreed with you.
I can quote you if you like.

Ah no, once again, you have distorted my words to fit your own little psychosis you have going...

If you go back and read carefully, I said if it was easier for you to discuss it under such restrictions... not me... but I understand why that was so difficult for you to follow..

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

 

[thebrucebeat]

If you want to discuss that, I suggest you start a new thread. Can you do so without lying about it? Highly doubtful.

This was YOUR point. I simply agreed with you.
I can quote you if you like.

Ah no, once again, you have distorted my words to fit your own little psychosis you have going...

If you go back and read carefully, I said if it was easier for you to discuss it under such restrictions... not me... but I understand why that was so difficult for you to follow..

Your 'citation' was a joke, and as Ice pointed out earlier, completely off the topic, which you just reiterated was gay marriage in the U.S. So, do you want to discuss women's rights and frame them only within the Christian religion to make this a little easier for you, or do you want to 'discuss' gay marriage in the U.S. Can you make up your mind and stay on topic? Probably not.

You said it would make it easier for me, not me.
Once again, I agree.
Thanks for the quoted confirmation.
You have shown that your reinvention of your post to include "if" was an utterly transparent lie.
Well done.
I never have to do the heavy lifting with you. You take care of all that for me.

 

[thebrucebeat]

If you had said that to begin with you might have a valid point, but you did not. You orginally said that his historical facts were inaccurate, at which point I highlighted them for you and asked what was inaccurate. And of course, there was nothing historically inaccurate in his post, it was just another lie you made in order to go off on your own tangent about the treatment of women in marriages during biblical times, as if that had any relevance to gay marriage in the U.S. But I understand why you need to lead down a different path in order to continue your christian bashing and try to turn the topic to that, but you really don't do a very good job of it at all.

Thank you for finally realizing my point is valid.
The rest is an attempt to cover up you are too stupid to have understood the point the first time.

Except that wasn't your point to begin with, your point was to put words in another's person's mouth that they never said, accuse them of positions that they never held, all so you can create your own little point of reference that never existed, and argue against it. It's called a strawman, and it's all you ever do since you're not smart enough to come up with a valid rebuttle on your own.

What's even funnier is that I'm not even against 'gay marriage', I could care less what they do or what they call it or how much they legitimize it in current culture. It is what it is, and it will always be an abnormal existance since it so obviously goes against the norm both physically and mentally for 98% of existing humans. If they want to pretend that most of the population has acceptetd it as normal because they're no longer allowed to voice their honest opinion on it, then that's their call.

You're talking about the "strawman" you later characterize as "valid"?
You are hilarious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(Sarcasm)


The truth is, for a hate group, these christians are pretty limp.

We could point to any other hate group and we could associate all types of atrocities.

From active destruction of property, to denial of certain human rights, We could demonstrate that active hatred comes with actual demeaning activity.

But these christians are pretty pathetic in their acts of hatred!! They are going to fast. Fast! No bomb throwing, no vote taking, no herding the gays into camps.

They are going to Fast!! Makes me wonder if these hate-filled Christians are even serious about their hatred..........

Well, fasting can be an effective tool. When Gandhi fasted, he changed the world. Let's see if these people are made of the same stern stuff.

Gandhi fasted to protest a new Indian constitution endorsed by the British that relegated the lowest classes to separate and unequal political representation.

These Christians fast seeking to relegate gay Americans to a separate and unequal legal status.

No they are not, they are fasting to get closer to
god and find his will. The funny thing about fasts like that is you often come out of them with a different purpose than when you went in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Certainly.
They would use the canard of hating "the sin".
The rest of us would notice they have never fasted for the elimination of greed.

You notice all sorts of things that aren't true.

Provide the evidence.
If it isn't true this should be easy.
Without it you're just crying.

They never said anything about fasting to hate sin, so your entire post is based on seeing something that isn't there. Does that mean that you are the one that is crying?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And this would be an example of an American freely exhibiting his ignorance and hate.

Actually, it is an example of an American exercising his right right to freedom of speech and religion, which explains why you are confused.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Which is the only thing that keeps you and Jones posting.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You notice all sorts of things that aren't true.

Provide the evidence.
If it isn't true this should be easy.
Without it you're just crying.

They never said anything about fasting to hate sin, so your entire post is based on seeing something that isn't there. Does that mean that you are the one that is crying?

So they don't hate the sin?
What is the purpose then?
Do you have evidence of fasts against greed?
What is the lie?

 

[Clement]

These Christians fast seeking to relegate gay Americans to a separate and unequal legal status.

Homosexual relationships aren't equal to heterosexual ones. The left repeats lies to make them true. No one got here by way of a homosexual relationship. And what do you mean separate? They want homosexuals to lose voting rights or have separate water fountains?

A better way to put it would be to say that they are not interchangeable. How can something that is not interchangeable possibly be equivalent?

The term "gay marriage" in itself is oxymoronic.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Actually, it is an example of an American exercising his right right to freedom of speech and religion, which explains why you are confused.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Which is the only thing that keeps you and Jones posting.

This is a non-response.