Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[Tribesman]

The coined term was used less than a year by scientists. Not closed minded American as sooperman suggests
look at the context there as you appear way off.

[u crank]

I have to point out that as a relative newcomer you, as they say, ain't seen nothin' yet. In the great scheme of General Topics this has actually been fairly tame.



Thanks for the heads up Steve.:up:

Am putting on hard hat and safety goggles for future reading.:D

[nikimcbee]

I left this thread after realizing how ludicrous the "discussion" had become. I jumped back in when I innocently offered up a correction to something very trivial. Now I'm leaving again because this has turned just as pants on head stupid as it was before.

http://i.imgur.com/Oogkw.gif

http://rt.com/files/art-and-culture/news/schwarzenegger-slams-terminator-salvation-572/i14a4044bdcc9e90dc1d3ef89ff095ef3_terminator.n.jpg

He'll be back.

Let's play a little drinking game. Everytime Mookie checks this thread after this post; everybody take one drink. Every time he posts after this post everybody take two drinks.

Three drinks if he posts another funny gif.


http://www.carmelsfinest.com/webart/products_large/1208.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

look at the context there as you appear way off.

You lost me. Much as I lost you. :hmmm: What's wrong with the context?

[Tribesman]

What's wrong with the context?
It seems he is not going on about closed minded scientists who had quickly rectified their error, he is going on about people who still seem to hold a 30year old erroneous viewpoint.

[AVGWarhawk]

It seems he is not going on about closed minded scientists who had quickly rectified their error, he is going on about people who still seem to hold a 30year old erroneous viewpoint.

This is how I read the context of soopamans post. However, bundling all "closed minded folks" as believing the erroneous viewpoint does not fly.

[Tribesman]

This is how I read the context of soopamans post. However, bundling all "closed minded folks" as believing the erroneous viewpoint does not fly.
Indeed, but in the context it was used it appeared to be bundling one person on account of their views.

[mookiemookie]

He'll be back.

Let's play a little drinking game. Everytime Mookie checks this thread after this post; everybody take one drink. Every time he posts after this post everybody take two drinks.

Three drinks if he posts another funny gif.



Line 'em up, boys!

http://bavatuesdays.com/files/2012/05/dgddjcmf_653c83zf7hq_b.gif

[nikimcbee]

Line 'em up, boys!

http://bavatuesdays.com/files/2012/05/dgddjcmf_653c83zf7hq_b.gif

:haha:May god have mercy on our livers.

[August]

:haha:May god have mercy on our livers.

I have created a Monster! :DL

[nikimcbee]

I have created a Monster! :DL

You mean monstah.:D:dead:

[antikristuseke]

Line 'em up, boys!


http://i48.tinypic.com/34dq1iq.gif

[AVGWarhawk]

Indeed, but in the context it was used it appeared to be bundling one person on account of their views.

Understood.

[Safe-Keeper]

But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...Of course not. That is because those of us who criticize the religion of Christianity know to separate the Scripture from the believers. We know that even though Jesus says slavery is okay, Christians in the Western world are opposed to slavery.

Whenever Islam or its holy book are questioned, however, it's invariably by people who for some reason or other seem to be believe that if they can just find enough medieval crap in the Qur'an, that justifies their bigotry towards actual, real-world Muslims (because apparently Muslims are all apparently schooeld in the Qur'an, and all adhere to the belief that it should be taken 100% litterally. Yeah:shifty:).

There is a difference between criticizing someone's mythology, knowing full well it's not actually adhered to, and criticizing scripture in an effort to smear a group of people you for some reason dislike.

There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality.Either drop the argument or apply it consistently and ban everyone with health risks over a certain treshold from marrying.

Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times (...) I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling..... But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage. Treat someone poorly, expect to be treated likewise. See also reciprocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_of_reciprocity). Human relations 101.

There's also the fact that the anti-gay side must know it's losing anyway, and that every discussion on gay marriage (though they're thankfully growing more and more rare) revolve around the same debunked logical fallacies and misconceptions. Frankly, it makes me sick and tried, and I'm not even homosexual.

[August]

...those of us who criticize ......We know that ....

But you can't lump such a large and diverse group of people like everyone thinks the same way. Some do and some don't. Some manage to get their skepticism across politely and some have to do it with insults. Some have genuine questions and others are there just for the fun of pissing people off.

Same thing goes for the other side too. There are true believers and there are those who just go through the motions of believing and every opinion in between.

[u crank]

We know that even though Jesus says slavery is okay,




Sorry my fellow member but I think you should back up that statement with some kind of reference, scripture maybe.

[Safe-Keeper]

scripture maybe. I swear, discussions on the Bible would be so much easier if people actually read it (goes for all the quotes taken out of context, too -- such as people cherry-picking Deuteronomy for anti-gay quotes, disregarding all the other wacky laws in the book).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+on+slavery
First bloody result.
There's even an illustrated edition here (http://www.thebricktestament.com/epistles_of_paul/instructions_for_slaves/1tm06_01.html).

There seems to be a widespread misconception that the Bible 100% agrees with all of the modern standards and views we take for granted in 2012. Guess what, when a book is 2000 years old, it won't.

How about you give me a single quote where Jesus speaks out against slavery. I'm waiting.

[antikristuseke]

that illustration is racist :88)

[CaptainHaplo]

I swear, discussions on the Bible would be so much easier if people actually read it.

You know what else would be much easier? If everyone understood Greek, Latin and Hebrew!

The word "slavery" as we use it today is translated from the Hebrew "ebed" which has a much wider meaning that just slave. It is more often translated accurately as servant or hired worker.
# Jewish Encylopedia - published by Funk and Wagnalls.

It also helps if you look at the what slavery meant in the Hebrew world - it was not lifelong, it did not require hard labor, the "slave" was to be treated as extended family, etc.

How about you give me a single quote where Jesus speaks out against slavery. I'm waiting.

You really want a disertation on this? Fine - it SHOULD be in a new thread - but what the heck, this is already way off the tracks.

Slavery is an institution in which one man "owns" and is above another. There is a reason why the Bible speaks to this, yet Jesus didn't directly scream about it AS a social ill. Know why? Its because Jesus wasn't here to cure social ills - He was here to offer a solution to the SOUL issue of sin. He knew this existence is passing - the one that matters is beyond here.

The Bible does speak about slavery quite a bit - just as it speaks about charity to the poor. But lets deal with the idea that all men are equal, not one above the other first. We will come back to the social aspect in a moment.

The Bible is clear - we all shall be judged before God - not on the basis of our race, nationality, gender - but on whether our names are written in the book of life, or by our works for those not written. The Bible is also clear that works fall short of the glory of God, and that God is an impartial judge. So, an impartial judge weighing evidence clearly demonstrates that we are all equal - IN GOD's EYES! Which is why Jesus was here in the first place - to insure that every person had the ability to be covered by His sacrfice. Thus there is no "slave" or "master", no "property" or "owner" in the Grand view of God.

*References: Romans 3:23, II Cor. 5:10, Romans 14:10, Colossians 3:24-25, Romans 2:2-6, Rev. 20:12, Romans 10:12

Want to know what God says about slavery? Colossians 3:9-11

9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all

To God - and thus to Jesus - slavery doesn't exist as a real topic.

Now, lets deal with the social aspect - since your gnashing your teeth over the view of God on slavery. Both Peter and Paul wrote that slaves were to behave toward their masters as to the Lord, and not to men - in other words - to serve as they would the Lord God. Seems pretty accepting of slavery, huh? Well, before you go "AHH HAH! Got ya now!" further reading will show you that slave owners were to behave exactly the same way - as to the Lord and not to men. You can't get more equal than telling a slave owner he should be serving his slave as he should serve the Lord. Paul in fact encourages a slave owner (Philemon) to consider a returning slave as more than such - to consider him as a brother instead. The Bible also encourages actual slaves to purchase their freedom where possible, and instructs everyone to consider any follower of Christ as a brother in Christ. Know anyone who considers his brother as a slave?

Galatians 3:28 is very clear on this....
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

You see, people want to deal with the here and now - Jesus (and God the Father) are much more concerned about eternity. People have suffered here on this earth for thousands of years - yet the Lord knows that each life here suffers but a moment compared to the eternity that awaits each soul. Jesus was focused on that eternity. He offered guidance - He LIVED His entire life in voluntary service to mankind.

You say He never said a word against slavery? I tell you His whole life was a testimony against slavery of a more damaging kind - that of the slavery of sin.

He provided the way for you to have the purchase price of your slavery paid in full. Who chooses to take it?

[u crank]

I swear, discussions on the Bible would be so much easier if people actually read it





I have read it . More than a few times. How about you?

Answering a request for a reference by posting links to anti-Christian web sites isn't going to cut it. An attempt to link your statement " We know that even though Jesus says slavery is okay", to the biblical or historical or even the mythical person Jesus is going to take more than what you have offered. I'm waiting.

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

[Tribesman]

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.
So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.

Thus there is no "slave" or "master", no "property" or "owner" in the Grand view of God.

Interesting, then why does god set out the conditions for treating slaves? Or was gods rules on how to do slavery a bit of the bible which was just made up?

The word "slavery" as we use it today is translated from the Hebrew "ebed" which has a much wider meaning that just slave. It is more often translated accurately as servant or hired worker.
# Jewish Encylopedia - published by Funk and Wagnalls.


Would that be funk and wagnalls? then......
The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49).
.....So it is slave when it means slave but is written as bondsman sometimes when it means real slaves.

[CaptainHaplo]

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

:timeout:

It almost wrote itself - I don't get the credit for that one.... :yeah:
It was a blessing for me to do it.

[u crank]

So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.

He is correct in that He didn't speak against it.

He is incorrect in that He did not say " slavery is okay."

[Tribesman]

He is correct in that He didn't speak against it.

He is incorrect in that He did not say " slavery is okay."
Not quite, as he said he didn't come to change to old rules and the old rules do say slavery is OK and he should know because .....well he is the one who is also the one so its his rules isn't it.
Now if he had said the old rules are OK apart from that bit about slaves you may have more of a point.

[MH]

According to ancient Halaha master could own Jewish slave/eved(its written with Bet but pronounced as v in this case) for no more than six years and had to give him freedom.
None Jewish slaves could be owned for unlimited period of time but the law said that it was forbidden to cause any physical harm to the slave.
Physical abuse could be a reason for realise and killing the slave could be death sentence to the master.

[Tribesman]

None Jewish slaves could be owned for unlimited period of time but the law said that it was forbidden to cause any physical harm to the slave.

No it doesn't, it says if you harm them to the extent that they lose part of their body they can get their freedom.

Physical abuse could be a reason for realise and killing the slave could be death sentence to the master.
Depends on if the slave dies on the day after the beating doesn't it.
If the slave is beaten so badly it dies quickly or beating it so it dies not so quickly are differentiated.
Makes sense really as having a slave die two days after a beating could just be put down to normal wear and tear.:yeah:

[MH]

It could be that or anything else....direct link needed to be established as evidence so you could not wait a week...;) those had been harsh times also forensics wasn't so much of high standards.:haha:

[MH]

No it doesn't, it says if you harm them to the extent that they lose part of their body they can get their freedom.


Yes including teeth....teeth are important issue....:D

I guess some slapping was allowed...:oops:

[u crank]

Not quite, as he said he didn't come to change to old rules and the old rules do say slavery is OK and he should know because .....well he is the one who is also the one so its his rules isn't it.
Now if he had said the old rules are OK apart from that bit about slaves you may have more of a point.

I'll give you some of that, but we should note this. I'm sure that 1st century Palestine was ripe with many social and human ills that are still with us today. Spousal abuse, incest, cruelty to animals.... you get the idea. If Jesus made no comment on those or any other human failings does that mean He was giving His approval to them?

The Bible describes the personality and character of Jesus of Nazareth quite well. Whether you believe him to be Divine, just a man or a myth doesn't matter. The qualities described there remain the same. To interject into that characterization the idea that "slavery is okay" seems unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just need some proof. Quotes from the O.T. and other writers in N.T. about slavery won't do. Did He actually say or impart this idea to others? My opinion is no.

[Safe-Keeper]

You really want a disertation on this?Um, no, I used Jesus' and the early Christians' view on slavery as an example of how we don't follow the Bible litterally, and didn't intend for anyone to write a whole novel in return, or for the whole thread to be derailed to the extent it was.

So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.http://www.ezeegaming.com/images/smilies/troll.pnghttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ 4jJzIqIyUvJR4kKzssLzM1ODg4ISo9QTw2QTg3MikBCQoKBQUF DQUFDSkYEhgpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKS kpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKf/AABEIAEAAQAMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAEAAgIDAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAGBAUABwIDCAH/xAA1EAABAwMDAgQFAgQHAAAAAAABAgMEBQYRABIhMVETFCJBB0 JhcYEykRUWI7NSYoKhscHR/8QAFAEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP/EABQRAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AN46zUGuVdmg0aRUZCHXG2Eg7Gk7lrJIASkdySB+dGn49fqkNM quVFVFaeUEtU6Co+IM9At0AqUv6I2j6nroGDrzbCN7ziG091KA Gq526aEwcPVqmtkey5bY/wC9C1/D2iJcL02kLmOrIAelLfd5PcLK8asmbBgQm1uvwqVGYbSVEoZ3Y A+wRoL9N328o4TXqWT2Exv/AN13JuOjrTuTVoCk9xJRj/nVD/LSG2guLSWORkf0AhX9wY/31GjJitTPL1KhRXgr2ciN7/wdoCvsQD2KjxoGrTrb7SXGVpcbUMpUk5BH0OuegkxlqwKjEqdI T4VvT30sT4g4bjLWcIfQPkG4gKHTkcZ070GvLlr5uK4RR4qVmm 02W2qatBAVJeQQpLKc8BIO0qV9gNI61Uau9SHXbbhwJk9sgN+L JBSnP6s49x2yOv7mKfGbpt5V+iTY6nm5sjz6eDhxh4KQv9OSMK UR27kZ1TWzHte6LhqzNOcXQX6dIWiIKSRHdkR9oSonaP6g3pUR 7jdoO+VeV90JKnLuttD1IStJckxCjxGhuHqwFqB5+3308qtamf yRJqkGjSXpXglbdPkICXFHOMKSCfvjrjjropcDkufUoNv1ZqVR bWKUN+cdcStcxxO0oaWsklsHHU8qIxkE6UV26FQ4qP4XAnVMyG 1FqTBjpkNNnoCr1pzz7A5ONBrWvG8qzRVT6VU620Wh4z857bAi pbCSVBtkDxSBx6jnodXVjP3lEZSu4lxK1SlMLcRUDKaUhHHpws clJ6HcOODn21eUu8pEanTXbll0uM3GkrjNvu74okBIGVJQvJxk lPGf0kjOdF5kq2arVo0O27JanypxUtp6WwY0JRSMqUNw9eM54T 7jQIKpfluV6gvQX3WnmJKSxJWfF8sjI5AkBGzI75xqXaldqNPX God0BPmVDZCnoVubmADIBPs5t57KwSPcaNUWTXEfEB6BTp9Jq7 TMJCanDbb8CLHTvO1tnbuyoblE7uucHHthS4zZlHpCm3G6gups GDGXy5HT5lTqAe2xgc9gQDoF1xtBu+rUlIGHFOyYyiPdCmVKwf ygHXnKlXBS6Ut2JWKSp9cfzRQ624UOeYXs8NRIIICS2eh+Y8a9 HVxYc+Idtsk8MszJKs+2EoQP7h1ru8fhbNNcqUuhw4VXbmpEhm Ot5DbkZZcCyrChhaCdwxkcLI7aA298QKc5bcOGi6bgdU8Wm6gx OjsyG9nHilO5JJ+gJ1OZ+IFvJqqIz9zXM5RmYiUoaZCY5LgVjb hoJwnbjA18nWkyzAq7C7CqLEhx9EimuBKHPDOE7mlkL5RkEDrw ruNJgIrFfo0y2fh/Uo6YTrqpKPJstFYU2Up9RXzgkHnQH4FRdN6x5NjWi7vnxVNMu1 zJ3rQrcp1KlqJPpVg4V21Juqh1lm6aPKvKWqvTZjTzUelU5XhI S56dqDyFeGeSpWPlGc6S3LJuKvyoDz0KJa6qe/5hiS/IEmV0KSEtN8YIPIUca40+dT7SU5VFJMudL9K6nUndzrx/wo2g8dkNBftkjQJbVt6D8OrMeW8GULShcue82nalSsZIT/lA4SOw7k6+WVQnVIFxVlANWnN7kNfLCaVyGkD2PTcepOo7UGrX yphdcjGnUNpSXPJLG16aoHILqcnY2DzsySfftppoCd0OfwS66Z cEpsqpjUZ6HLcSkq8uHChSXFAfJlGCfbIPTUv+GNVZtp+DPizY yDujqPqU0OyHW1A4/fSAgKBBGQeoOjcr4b2rMkKeXRYzbijlSmNzOT9dhGgnPJTBj5n SojSB88hZOPypWjM69aAuUIseozKk5napFGjOOgfdScg/vq8ifD21oTgcaoUJax0U834pH5XnV+20hlsNtIShCeAlIwB+NA Ej0OpVlzMCnooMQ8mVOSH5jn1S2SUt/dWT9NIqPaFLo0ozENuS6goYXOmLLz6v9R/SPonA+mrvWaDNZrNZoP/Z

[Tribesman]

I'll give you some of that, but we should note this. I'm sure that 1st century Palestine was ripe with many social and human ills that are still with us today. Spousal abuse, incest, cruelty to animals.... you get the idea. If Jesus made no comment on those or any other human failings does that mean He was giving His approval to them?

Well for that to come into play you would need to look at any of the 600+laws to see if they came into play on any of those subjects.
Incest certainly fits that category which could lead to an old joke about the location which started this particular round of the "oh no its the gays again" game.
So there you go, by saying he hadn't come to change the laws he was saying don't have sex with your aunt but you can screw your cousins

I just need some proof. Quotes from the O.T. and other writers in N.T. about slavery won't do. Did He actually say or impart this idea to others? My opinion is no.
Can you see a problem there?
Identify the writers of the NT, which do you call the others?

[Sailor Steve]

I'm loving the talk about Jewish slaves. It wasn't the Jews keeping slaves that they were talking about, it was the Romans. Roman slavery could be as bad as some think, but on the whole it was relatively benign. A Roman slave could rise to run the household. He could even purchase his own freedom, and any Roman slave could join the army for twenty years and then get his freedom and that of his family. Paul telling a slave to be faithful to his master was nothing like saying the same thing to a 19th century American slave. If Jesus didn't condemn slavery in his own time it was likely because for most of them slavery wasn't worth running away from.

I'm also failing to see what something said about slaves two thousand years ago has to do with gay marriage today. I have to agree with August and Haplo on this one - it sounds like it's skirting the edge of being about how Jesus didn't care about certain people. What's that about?

[Tribesman]

I'm also failing to see what something said about slaves two thousand years ago has to do with gay marriage today. I have to agree with August and Haplo on this one - it sounds like it's skirting the edge of being about how Jesus didn't care about certain people. What's that about?
Well for starters someone tried to make a bad point about how we all live to his religious laws, leaving aside that theology flies straight back in his face the slavery issue does make a nice additional counter. Plus of course if you look at NC and amendments over marriage that comes nicely round to the legacy from the slavery.

[u crank]

Can you see a problem there?
Identify the writers of the NT, which do you call the others?

I am sorry. I should have explained. The others would not be the writers of the four gospels, who to my knowledge did not record Jesus saying "slavery is okay". Any of the other writers or books of the New Testament. Sorry for the confusion.

[Tribesman]

No worries, but the first part of that identity question matters also in relation to the 4.
Have you any thoughts on the letter Q and its relation to 2 of the 4?
Or for that matter why the 4th seems to sit differently?

I mean we could go into any of the many non canonical gospels too, but of course they were all heretics.:03:

[u crank]

No worries, but the first part of that identity question matters also in relation to the 4.
Have you any thoughts on the letter Q and its relation to 2 of the 4?
Or for that matter why the 4th seems to sit differently?

I mean we could go into any of the many non canonical gospels too, but of course they were all heretics.:03:

Well, as to all the acceptable writers of the New Testament each to his own. Pick your team I guess. I would not consider myself a biblical scholar in any way so I can't really say. As to the Q source, I have only read briefly about this and it is an interesting possibility. As to whether it matters, I guess it depends on how you view the Bible; inspired writing, historical document or work of literature. I'm comfortable with all three but very tolerant of those who are not.

In regards to the 4th, it seems to have the most thump, if that's the right word. Its position seems strange though, between the 3rd and Acts.

Then there is The Book Of Mormon, which may become more popular this November.:D

[Tribesman]

Pick your team I guess.
Yeah tricky isn't it, but a fascinating subject all the same.
However the point was that reeling out religion as a supporting angle generally tends to backfire and it is often done when the points someone was trying to make have already fallen apart ( that isn't directed at your points, and I did like your comeback when Safe Keeper over stated)

Then there is The Book Of Mormon, which may become more popular this November.
Is that the error free personally authenticated one or another one they printed?
And thats in less than 200 years with "one" language and modern printing, which serves to illustrate a problem in the other regard as far as ancient texts go.

[u crank]

However the point was that reeling out religion as a supporting angle generally tends to backfire

Yes this can happen. I believe that when it comes to debates on what some would consider a moral issue reason goes out the window on both sides. It's to bad. People get defensive and they say things. As far as I am concerned Christianity is a religion of love and compassion. Anything less is a failure. Yes morality comes into play but it only involves me. I'll let God worry about everybody else. My role as a Christian is to treat all the other human beings with respect. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not that smart.:O:


Is that the error free personally authenticated one or another one they printed?


I believe it's the personally autographed one with bonus DVD.:smug:

[Tribesman]

Yes this can happen
Such is the nature of scripture, it can be made to fit many opposing arguements, but any decent arguement should be able to stand by itself or with supporting facts.

My role as a Christian is to treat all the other human beings with respect. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not that smart.:O:

Hey its a very big book which in essence can be summarised with the new covenant into just two words...."be nice"


I believe it's the personally autographed one with bonus DVD.
Now that is divine foresight and marketing at work, truly inspired:rotfl2:

[u crank]

Hey its a very big book which in essence can be summarised with the new covenant into just two words...."be nice"

:up:

Dare I say it without offending anyone,


Amen.

[Sailor Steve]

Dare I say it without offending anyone,


Amen.
Why not? The word, despite its religious use and connotations, literaly translates as "Verily", "Truly", "It is so" or "I agree".

Nothing arguable in that. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

Nothing arguable in that.
I disagree.

[Sailor Steve]

I disagree.
You usually do. :O:

[Tribesman]

You usually do.
Amen:D

[soopaman2]

Why not? The word, despite its religious use and connotations, literaly translates as "Verily", "Truly", "It is so" or "I agree".

Nothing arguable in that. :sunny:

I disagree.

You usually do. :O:

Amen:D

This is why I keep coming back. This exchange made my day better, after a brutal 14 hour shift. (Yeah, all doubletime pay, roads need to be fixed for the *Bennies!) Otherwise I would have opted for beer, sex and BBQ instead of working. (NIGHTS!!)

Thank you subsim.:yeah:

*(Bennies= tourists from New York, and North Jersey, who infest the shore with bad aggressive city driving, and ruining a nice laid back place for 3 months out of the yea
I wish had more time with you guys.
Though with some of my asinine drunk posts, I bet some of you wish different. :)

No consequence I still love ya's...(and your stuck with me, I like this place)

[yubba]

The Three Stoogeshttp://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Dem-Lawmakers-270x195.jpg (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ready-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-dems-accuse-gop-of-economic-sabotage-again/)Hey, Moe let's pass it so we can see what's in it whoooop whoop whoop nuk nuk nuk arf arf arf.

[Sgt_V3n0m]

Trying to find a mod, and this thread is (for some reason) one of the results. Let me say this please: as a North Carolinian: I'm SO very very very sorry for the actions of my State. Can you guys take solace that at least my entire family voted against it? Can't believe that my State is now the laughing stock of the rest of the Nation. :oops:

[CaptainHaplo]

Trying to find a mod, and this thread is (for some reason) one of the results. Let me say this please: as a North Carolinian: I'm SO very very very sorry for the actions of my State. Can you guys take solace that at least my entire family voted against it? Can't believe that my State is now the laughing stock of the rest of the Nation. :oops:

Considering that 60% or more of the nation agrees with the outcome.... the only laughing stock is you claim that NC is one....

[Sgt_V3n0m]

Considering that 60% or more of the nation agrees with the outcome.... the only laughing stock is you claim that NC is one....

Considering that we're supposed to be the "freest nation on the planet", we sure restrict our citizens rights a lot. What ever happened to the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I feel that people ignore it and try to make it up as we go.

Considering that the majority of people who voted for it voted because of their religious beliefs, they sure forget a lot that there's no such thing as a sin that's worse than another sin.

I am not a church going person, nor am I really all that religious, but from what I found online about gossip (which a LOT of so called "Christians" partake in), this is what the bible says about that:

Proverbs 6:16-19

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." (Bolded relevant part).

Since people are saying that it's in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, and thus should be outlawed, why not make gossip a crime? It's in the bible that it's not right to spread lies against your fellow man.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Trying to find a mod, and this thread is (for some reason) one of the results. Let me say this please: as a North Carolinian: I'm SO very very very sorry for the actions of my State. Can you guys take solace that at least my entire family voted against it? Can't believe that my State is now the laughing stock of the rest of the Nation. :oops:


You make up for it, don't worry

http://images.picturesdepot.com/photo/c/carolina_panthers_mascot-14337.gif

:salute:

[CaptainHaplo]

Considering that the majority of people who voted for it voted because of their religious beliefs

So your claiming that 60% of the nation refutes gay marriage for the same reason? Did Prop 8 in Cali pass because everyone out there is a fundy bible thumper?

Yea - I didn't think so...

I am not a church going person, nor am I really all that religious, but from what I found online about gossip (which a LOT of so called "Christians" partake in), this is what the bible says about that:

Since your not religious, it would behoove you not to spout theology - else the following happens....

Proverbs 6:16-19

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." (Bolded relevant part).

There - I fixed what should be bolded and underlined for ya. Your welcome for the correction, though I doubt it will do any good.

Since people are saying that it's in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, and thus should be outlawed, why not make gossip a crime? It's in the bible that it's not right to spread lies against your fellow man.

Nice strawman - no one suggested making outlaws out of gays. Big difference in refusing to allow them to subvert traditional marriage and locking them up for buggering each other. And gossip, really? Is that the best you can do? You do realize that even tongue wagging women yapping over the backyard fence often are not telling lies, but are gossiping about facts known. Should lies be outlawed? Well, in some ways they are - try fibbing to the FBI sometime and watch em charge you for it.

Its ok to feel strongly about your position, but lecturing others when you don't have facts - or your theology - accurate - is what makes you look foolish. Throwing in baseless comparisons because they "sound good" does the same.

[Tribesman]

So your claiming that 60% of the nation refutes gay marriage for the same reason?
Off to see the wizard.....

Since your not religious, it would behoove you not to spout theology - else the following happens....

Please someone tell me he didn't really write that, not mr. "christian" with a problem about scripture
:rotfl2:
but lecturing others when you don't have facts - or your theology - accurate - is what makes you look foolish. Throwing in baseless comparisons because they "sound good" does the same.
Bolded underlined and made big the important parts, would you like me to put your words in CAPS LOCK to emphasise how wrong that is for you to say:yeah:

[BossMark]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but I have just seen this on sky news :nope:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16232772

[Bilge_Rat]

Considering that we're supposed to be the "freest nation on the planet", we sure restrict our citizens rights a lot. What ever happened to the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I feel that people ignore it and try to make it up as we go.

Considering that the majority of people who voted for it voted because of their religious beliefs, they sure forget a lot that there's no such thing as a sin that's worse than another sin.

I am not a church going person, nor am I really all that religious, but from what I found online about gossip (which a LOT of so called "Christians" partake in), this is what the bible says about that:

Proverbs 6:16-19

"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." (Bolded relevant part).

Since people are saying that it's in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, and thus should be outlawed, why not make gossip a crime? It's in the bible that it's not right to spread lies against your fellow man.

:agree:

great post, glad to have you aboard.

[Armistead]

I have lived in NC all my life, almost 50, so seen a lil bit. As a young man I remember racism, most of the adult white men around me were racist, including those where I attended a fundy church. I saw much racism towards blacks, gays and even women. I recall one pastor that made the statement preaching he wanted to start a program "kill a queer for Christ". Certainly I became racist to a degree. The south is the bible belt and many so called morals are pushed into politics, but even with religion there remains a level of closet hatred towards those that don't accept religious morals. I certainly saw and lived it for years.

As I grew older I became sickened by the so called fundy morals pushed by so many in religion, using tools of fear and guilt to control people. Why can't people live by the scripture "do no harm". Gay people do me no harm, they live all around us, most just want to live with those they love, even in marriage. Seems the best we can do is to offer civil unions, sort of a marriage lite, words just to suit our bias.

I think most agree legally our constitution does or should provide gays the right to marry, that equal rights cannot be determined by religious standards.
Sometimes the majority can be wrong, our history has proven that and the legal system should follow the constitution as they did with blacks and women and give gays equal right. It is now beyond medical doubt that gays are born that way.

[Digger Heinz]

This is a slippery slope... no matter what viewpoints are expressed SOMEONE is going to get upset... so I'll toss my ring into the hat here...

Gay Marriage...

From a legal standpoint... I see no reason why a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, should be denied the benefits of a permanent union... for instance, insurance rates are lowered when the people are "married". That's just one example... there are many others... But you see my point, yes?

Fair skies,

Digger

[CaptainHaplo]

Why can't people live by the scripture "do no harm".

Because such "scripture" does not exist.

The tenant or rule of "do no harm" originates in pagan theology - often quoted today in the Wiccan Rede. "An it harm done, do what ye will". It is also one of the "three rules" attributed to John Wesley, the "founder" of the Methodist faith.

It would be silly for the Bible to command "do no harm" - since there are many instances where the Jews were instructed to do great harm (as perceived by our standards).

One again - people trying to use "scripture" by either taking it out of context, or simply just making it up.... :88)

[Armistead]

Because such "scripture" does not exist.

The tenant or rule of "do no harm" originates in pagan theology - often quoted today in the Wiccan Rede. "An it harm done, do what ye will". It is also one of the "three rules" attributed to John Wesley, the "founder" of the Methodist faith.

It would be silly for the Bible to command "do no harm" - since there are many instances where the Jews were instructed to do great harm (as perceived by our standards).

One again - people trying to use "scripture" by either taking it out of context, or simply just making it up.... :88)


Wow, you know so lil about the bible. The entire theme of the NT is love and how it connects to "do no harm" Christ and apostles often taught instead of codes we have a new law that fulfills all law.......

Love your neighbor,,,,how do we love, by doing no harm. If you knew your bible they're many passages that states do no harm is not only good, it fulfills the law, that the best way to love others is by doing them no harm.

Gal 5.4

The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

What is this love that fulfills the law and how do we do it...

Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Love fulfills the law by doing no harm. You won't find love fulfilling the law except by "doing no harm.


I can quote many scriptures that state "love does no harm, thus fulfills the law"....the bible is full of it, it's not a pagan theme.

As a Christian maybe you should learn this most important principle:yeah::yeah:

[Safe-Keeper]

Trying to find a mod, and this thread is (for some reason) one of the results. Let me say this please: as a North Carolinian: I'm SO very very very sorry for the actions of my State. Can you guys take solace that at least my entire family voted against it? Can't believe that my State is now the laughing stock of the rest of the Nation. :oops:I feel you. Just remember it's a losing fight for them. They're winning battles, but losing the war. Only wish they'd realize that themselves and give it up already and go back to lobbying for more torture or fighting for harsher jail sentences for children or clubbing to death baby seals or whatever the heck it is they're up to these days. You just never know with them, do you:doh:? Maybe we should be happy they've got gay marriage to distract them:nope:.

Considering that we're supposed to be the "freest nation on the planet", we sure restrict our citizens rights a lot. What ever happened to the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I feel that people ignore it and try to make it up as we go.Oh, but any nation subjected to horrendous terrorist attacks would--

http://static.forskning.no/00/29/47/68/rosetog_None.full.jpg

****.

Since people are saying that it's in the bible that homosexuality is a sin, and thus should be outlawed, why not make gossip a crime? It's in the bible that it's not right to spread lies against your fellow man.I tried that. It led to a lengthy derail about slavery. Learned my lesson there:-?.

[CaptainHaplo]

Wow, you know so lil about the bible. The entire theme of the NT is love and how it connects to "do no harm" Christ and apostles often taught instead of codes we have a new law that fulfills all law.......

Remember the bolded part - we are going to come back to it.....

Gal 5.4
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Struggle to read? Galatians 5:4 is not what you quoted. It is:
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace"

I assume you meant Gal 5:14?

The commandments were in 2 parts - love your neighbor completes the final 6 - which is dealing with your fellow man. It entirely neglects the first 4. This is NOT a Biblical error - its is about the context of the passage - those who held to "law" alone were not justified - for redemption and salvation comes only through Christ, not through the law.

Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Context - Romans 12:9
"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Count em up - there are not 10 commandments there. Given that this was in reference to the dealing of a man to his society - and not to God, its accurate. However, your showing a distinct lack of scholarship and understanding if your suggesting that loving your fellow man (as in mankind - not as in gay sex) somehow equates to accepting salvation, following the will of the Lord and worshipping HIM.

Love fulfills the law by doing no harm. You won't find love fulfilling the law except by "doing no harm.

Really? Yet the law is repeatedly held in abeyance under the direct command of God. Or were orders to kill ever man, male child and non-virgin woman of the Midianites love that did no harm? There are multiple examples of that in the Bible too.

Oh - and since you want to quote Paul - and I find it quite funny given the original topic as well... perhaps you would like to address and explain Romans 1:27-32 - in which Paul clearly states that homosexuals - along with others - are "worthy of death". Kind of a harsh statement from a guy who later says "just love everybody", isn't it?

I can quote many scriptures that state "love does no harm, thus fulfills the law"....

Yes - just like everyone else can. But anyone can take something out of context to make it LOOK like something else. Its a favorite tactic of those who don't like what the Bible actually has to say - who feel it just doesn't fit their own personal morals. Its also readily transparent and easily pointed out.

As a Christian maybe you should learn this most important principle:yeah::yeah:

And as someone who is doing your best to continue the perversion of the Christian faith by throwing out such misinformation - take a bit of correction. You forget or are intentionally ignoring the fact that Paul was writing to fellow believers and those who would be fellow believers. To seek to apply its tenents globally is yet another fallacy often put forth by those that seek to ultimately discredit the Word of God. Again - nice try - but its a failure.

Oh - and fulfill the law - remember Matthew 5:17 - we don't need to "fulfill the law" - for the Lord Jesus came and did exactly that.

[u crank]

Only wish they'd realize that themselves and give it up already and go back to lobbying for more torture or fighting for harsher jail sentences for children or clubbing to death baby seals or whatever the heck it is they're up to these days. You just never know with them, do you:doh:? Maybe we should be happy they've got gay marriage to distract them:nope:.



Please tell us who "they" are. You forgot to mention it. Please warn us so we can build a fence to keep "them" out. Or have "them" arrested for their crimes. Maybe there is an anti-virus available. If you know you must tell us so we can watch out for "them".

[Ducimus]

The video in this CNN article is too good to not share.

Video of North Carolina pastor's plan to 'get rid of' gays goes viral (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/video-of-north-carolina-pastors-plan-to-get-rid-of-gays-goes-viral/?hpt=us_t5)

I'm not sure which is worse. This Pastor, or the "Amen"s of approval from the sheeple.. err i mean flock.

[Jimbuna]

I had to view it to believe it :nope:

[Tribesman]

What is it with these NC "christians"?
Is there something in the water down there?

[Safe-Keeper]

Please tell us who "they" are."They" is a word used when you have described people earlier in the text. In this case, "they" refers to the people out there who are "lobbying for more torture or fighting for harsher jail sentences for children or clubbing to death baby seals or whatever the heck it is they're up to these days."

Happy?

[u crank]

"They" is a word used when you have described people earlier in the text. In this case, "they" refers to the people out there who are "lobbying for more torture or fighting for harsher jail sentences for children or clubbing to death baby seals or whatever the heck it is they're up to these days."

Happy?

In this case "they" is quite vague as it refers to a wide ranging group of bad people you have somehow connected to the same sex marriage debate. If you can't name them that's all right, I'm just puzzled as to why.

I'm I happy? Always.:DL

[Armistead]

Remember the bolded part - we are going to come back to it.....



Struggle to read? Galatians 5:4 is not what you quoted. It is:
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace"

I assume you meant Gal 5:14?

The commandments were in 2 parts - love your neighbor completes the final 6 - which is dealing with your fellow man. It entirely neglects the first 4. This is NOT a Biblical error - its is about the context of the passage - those who held to "law" alone were not justified - for redemption and salvation comes only through Christ, not through the law.



Context - Romans 12:9
"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Count em up - there are not 10 commandments there. Given that this was in reference to the dealing of a man to his society - and not to God, its accurate. However, your showing a distinct lack of scholarship and understanding if your suggesting that loving your fellow man (as in mankind - not as in gay sex) somehow equates to accepting salvation, following the will of the Lord and worshipping HIM.



Really? Yet the law is repeatedly held in abeyance under the direct command of God. Or were orders to kill ever man, male child and non-virgin woman of the Midianites love that did no harm? There are multiple examples of that in the Bible too.

Oh - and since you want to quote Paul - and I find it quite funny given the original topic as well... perhaps you would like to address and explain Romans 1:27-32 - in which Paul clearly states that homosexuals - along with others - are "worthy of death". Kind of a harsh statement from a guy who later says "just love everybody", isn't it?



Yes - just like everyone else can. But anyone can take something out of context to make it LOOK like something else. Its a favorite tactic of those who don't like what the Bible actually has to say - who feel it just doesn't fit their own personal morals. Its also readily transparent and easily pointed out.



And as someone who is doing your best to continue the perversion of the Christian faith by throwing out such misinformation - take a bit of correction. You forget or are intentionally ignoring the fact that Paul was writing to fellow believers and those who would be fellow believers. To seek to apply its tenents globally is yet another fallacy often put forth by those that seek to ultimately discredit the Word of God. Again - nice try - but its a failure.

Oh - and fulfill the law - remember Matthew 5:17 - we don't need to "fulfill the law" - for the Lord Jesus came and did exactly that.

You said the term "do no harm" was pagan and not in the bible, I simply showed you otherwise and you went into some silly lecture instead of admitting your error.

Show me anywhere where I said loving your fellow man or doing no harm equals salvation....didn't say it, I said it's the new law in which we should live by, because love and doing no harm fulfills the law. The 10 commandments fit because they're moral law, it is the levitical law that was put away, which only the jews lived by anyway. However, I don't accept that all levitical law was given by God, much was cruel and cultural, moreso to women, course I suspect you believe it was God given and probably believe the earth is 6000 years old, a global flood happened, etc..

If the bible was so poorly translated to latin and english, you would find the subject material related more to prostitution and pederasty which was common.

However, I don't take everything literal in the bible as you, much spoken was due to culture, women still property with no rights, etc....

All you had to do was say you made an error, but I guess you would rather
put gays behind electric fences and let them die out like the nut preacher
here in NC would do.

All cultures gave credit to their God or Gods for battle, saying God told them to do this or that, much like Bush and Palin would do, we killed a lot of women and children ourselves in our God blessed wars.

Geesh, no reason fundy christians scare me, thankfully we have secular law or many christians here would be no better than the Taliban. Maybe we should bring back Polygamy since God endorsed it and concubines "shacking up" as other God blessed forms of relationships

[CaptainHaplo]

You said the term "do no harm" was pagan and not in the bible

No, I said it originated as a pagan idea - which paganism predates the age of grace as found in the NT. As for the "scripture" that says "do no harm" - if you want me to admit I misunderstood your reasoning fine. Yes - its "in the bible" - but not as a commandment or instruction except in dealing with other believers. So if you want a "well I was wrong", there ya go. I am not to big to admit that we were on different pages.

The problem is that you tried to state that people should "live by the scripture" that states do no harm - but you totally ignore the fact that this is only in regards to other believers. Given that - according to the same scripture - including Paul in Romans whom you quoted - homosexuality is worthy of death - its clear that a person worthy of being killed obviously doesn't fall under "do no harm". Therefore - do no harm is limited to those in "good standing" with Christ - as in those who follow Him. By definition, since homosexuality is a choice in its ACTION - a person who practices such cannot be in Christ - and therefore does not fall under "do no harm" - and in "Biblical" times would have been killed for their action.

See - you want people to follow a suggested path of action - but not even in the way it was put forth. This was my point - and while I may have stated it badly - I suspect its clear now.

[Tribesman]

Therefore - do no harm is limited to those in "good standing" with Christ - as in those who follow Him.
wow pluck a duck.
haplo is continuing to dig himself into a hole.
I do like how his latest attempt to try and save his viewpoint puts him directly at odds with the central tenets of the faith he claims he follows.
But hey what did jesus know eh "christians"?:nope:


poor haplo has slid into bad old time religions death to the unbelievers:88)

[Armistead]

No, I said it originated as a pagan idea - which paganism predates the age of grace as found in the NT. As for the "scripture" that says "do no harm" - if you want me to admit I misunderstood your reasoning fine. Yes - its "in the bible" - but not as a commandment or instruction except in dealing with other believers. So if you want a "well I was wrong", there ya go. I am not to big to admit that we were on different pages.

The problem is that you tried to state that people should "live by the scripture" that states do no harm - but you totally ignore the fact that this is only in regards to other believers. Given that - according to the same scripture - including Paul in Romans whom you quoted - homosexuality is worthy of death - its clear that a person worthy of being killed obviously doesn't fall under "do no harm". Therefore - do no harm is limited to those in "good standing" with Christ - as in those who follow Him. By definition, since homosexuality is a choice in its ACTION - a person who practices such cannot be in Christ - and therefore does not fall under "do no harm" - and in "Biblical" times would have been killed for their action.

See - you want people to follow a suggested path of action - but not even in the way it was put forth. This was my point - and while I may have stated it badly - I suspect its clear now.

Nope, when I said we should follow the scripture " do no harm" your reply was "Because such "scripture" does not exist." In the bible this message was preached to all people, not just followers of Christ, but it certainly is how christians should live by, not all the codes they make up deciding what is right and wrong, judging others, etc..

There is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality isn't a choice, as stated, PET and MRI scans now show several parts of the brain of gay men match exactly those of s8 women, gay women matches s8 males. Here is one study...look at the imaging.
http://oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/christianity-apostle-paul-accepts-homosexuals/

Course I agree every scientist either excludes or includes evidence based on his or hers presuppositions and views, but say homosexuality is a choice, our constitution and BOR protect that choice as long as it follows the law "basically doing no harm" to other people. They have the right to happiness without my morals standing in the way as long as they abide by all the same laws I do.

I don't see Paul condoning the death of gays anywhere, in the greek this verse is complex and would read somewhat different than the many translations today, but even most fundies agree that it refers to spiritual death. I see no where in the bible for any sin that denotes people should be tortured or killed, cept sin against the spirit. The apostles preached more against other sins, seems if homo behavior was worthy of death they would be consistent in preaching physical death for other sins they preached more strongly against.

However, religion has nothing to do with it, we're not a theocracy, sadly instead of living by the constitution and BOR, we're letting religious morals decide law, no better than the Taliban. If our laws are based on religious morals, where does it stop and end, what other morals...be a mess of conflict the same reason we have 1000's of denominations of Christians that can't agree on doctrine. What's the future, will women be forced to be property again because they were in the bible by God's law, no more eating pork, stoning bad children...well, that may be worth considering.:haha:

When we deny rights based on sects of morals, be careful, eventually it may be you on the end of bias, what if one day the majority tires of the hate spewed by many churches and limits speech, closes the doors and votes in enough politicians to do so...you'll scream constitution and BOR then should protect your rights.

By your views, people that divorce, commit adultery, etc...should not be allowed to legally remarry, but even most fundy churches have a 50% or more divorce and remarriage, they are hypocrites. morals only go so far with most christians.

It's only when we insure the civil rights of all people that we protect our own, regardless of who is in the majority.

[andwii]

TLDR all of it, but I will say yes its the states rights, but then again gov is involved in marriage with tax benefits, why not allow the gays to have these? Have a judge marry them and get it over and done with! im sick of hearing about it, from both sides!

[Bilge_Rat]

It's only when we insure the civil rights of all people that we protect our own, regardless of who is in the majority.

:sign_yeah:

[Armistead]

TLDR all of it, but I will say yes its the states rights, but then again gov is involved in marriage with tax benefits, why not allow the gays to have these? Have a judge marry them and get it over and done with! im sick of hearing about it, from both sides!

Yea, states rights. the reason blacks were enslaved for so long, Obama was wrong for saying this should still be a state issue.

Civil rights trump state rights, this is a done deal. We're starting to look like the 1800's, where states will be split into gay and non gay states. Civil unions don't cut it, like people saying " we'll give you rights, but we want to call it something different" how silly and immature.

Many gays are religious, go to church, it is illegal to say they can't have religious weddings if they choose to do so.

[Sailor Steve]

Many gays are religious, go to church, it is illegal to say they can't have religious weddings if they choose to do so.
While it is obvious that I agree with you almost completely on this subject, this particular subject does bring up the question of religious freedom. Where do you draw the line between the right to marry and the right of a group of believers to have their worship remain private, even in a group setting? Yes, I support the right of gays to marry, but I also support the right of individual churches to decree whom they will and will not perform the ceremonies for.

That said, I believe it is not the government's place to determine this one way or the other. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

[Skybird]

. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

Oh-oh. Can of worms there.

While it may or may not be desirable what you(somebody) say (depending on where you(somebody) come from), the duty of a governemnt is far less romantic and much more pragmatic. In a nutshell the duty of a government is to execute on behalf of the policies a state is aiming to realise in legislation and executive. These can be prioritizing your goal of "equal rights for all", or can instead prioritize for example common good before individual good - or can prioritize some very other general direction.

By example practiced in reality, most modern western states, including America and Germany, are of the second category, prioritizing national interest, communal interest, by securing longterm survivability of the community and civilisation. And often it is the jurisdiction, the courts, that are used to tip the balance more in favour of the first category of prioritizing equal rights for everybody that you desired.

I also have a far less romantic view of what governments in Wetsenr states are. Governments simply are political parties that are in power. That they won power in elections, or a coup, does not make them any less a political party, with all disadvanatges that brings: block-thinking, corruption, lobbyism, ideological missionising, etc. None of the many miseravble problems we expoerience from the hands of poltical parties seizes to exist just because this party claims government office for the next couple of years.

This is not meant as hair-splitting. I indeed think it is of utmost importance that people become clear about what means what in our current systems. Else people cannot make it transparent, cannot become aware of the consequences and why they are like they are (and not different), cannot make educated judgements, and cannot emancipate themselves from the system of the status quo. And I see it as indispensable that people start to show this system the middlefinger. The failed wars we have had and the missionary attitude that where behind them, this megalomaniac idealism I mean, the financialand economical crisis, and the destruction of Europe by the EU due to the criminal example this Soviet-style organisation has set, should make it clear to the open mind that the political mechnaism we took for granted to function properly, have failed. If we do not realise that and correct what is to be repaired and replace what is FUBAR, our passivity and lacking determination will only realise right those threads and destruction that we want to avoid, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Bilge_Rat]

While it is obvious that I agree with you almost completely on this subject, this particular subject does bring up the question of religious freedom. Where do you draw the line between the right to marry and the right of a group of believers to have their worship remain private, even in a group setting? Yes, I support the right of gays to marry, but I also support the right of individual churches to decree whom they will and will not perform the ceremonies for.

That said, I believe it is not the government's place to determine this one way or the other. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.


On that issue, if you look at jurisdictions which have legal gay marriage, like Canada or New York state, they usually have a provision which gives churches/practitioners the right to refuse to perform Gay marriages if it goes against their religious beliefs, so everyone is happy: Gays can legally marry and anti-gay churches/practitioners are not obliged to marry them. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Oh-oh. Can of worms there.

While it may or may not be desirable what you(somebody) say (depending on where you(somebody) come from), the duty of a governemnt is far less romantic and much more pragmatic. In a nutshell the duty of a government is to execute on behalf of the policies a state is aiming to realise in legislation and executive. These can be prioritizing your goal of "equal rights for all", or can instead prioritize for example common good before individual good - or can prioritize some very other general direction.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...
It goes on from there, but the point is that while governments are created for many reasons, not all of them altruistic, good government is created for that very reason. This is the purpose for which the United States was created in the first place. While we have never followed that purpose as well as we should have, "liberty and justice for all" is and should ever be our guiding light.

[Armistead]

While it is obvious that I agree with you almost completely on this subject, this particular subject does bring up the question of religious freedom. Where do you draw the line between the right to marry and the right of a group of believers to have their worship remain private, even in a group setting? Yes, I support the right of gays to marry, but I also support the right of individual churches to decree whom they will and will not perform the ceremonies for.

That said, I believe it is not the government's place to determine this one way or the other. It is the government's place to secure equal rights for all.

I totally agree, you can't force any private or religious group to marry. Many Pastors refuse to marry people for numerous reasons, they should have that right, but they're many religions that will marry gays, it's not a matter of forcing denominations to marry gays, it's the right to a religious marriage in a church that will. I don't see this as an issue that even concerns lawmakers.

Much is the same with free speech. They're are liberals that would love to shut down what they deem is hate speech by pastors in their own church. This could be a legal test in the future as we now deem certain speech as hate and criminal. The issue I see if a church opens it's door to the public that anyone can enter, a gay walks in, pastor makes a gay killing comment.......criminal hate speech or religious rights, on the street you can be charged? If this ever happens you'll have people filling out mass legal agreements before they can walk in and churches will start accepting only members. With many pastors making radical statements towards gays, this could be an issue in the future. What happens when one of their members decides he needs to kill a gay because the pastor said all gays should die?

We know religions have numerous legal civil protections to protect them, the result is the many fake TV pastors making millions off trickery, no taxes, free speech, even if hate, etc....the church demands all these civil rights, yet would refuse civil rights to others based on their codes of morality.

[Sailor Steve]

We know religions have numerous legal civil protections to protect them, the result is the many fake TV pastors making millions off trickery, no taxes, free speech, even if hate, etc....the church demands all these civil rights, yet would refuse civil rights to others based on their codes of morality.
Agreed, it's a tricky, sticky situation. I believe the best we can do is use the government to monitor things and take action when someone actually crosses the line. The problem is always where the line actually is and what action government should be allowed to take. That has always been one of my basic tenets: That in any situation government needs to be allowed to do whatever it does, rather than expected to or trusted to.

[Armistead]

Agreed, it's a tricky, sticky situation. I believe the best we can do is use the government to monitor things and take action when someone actually crosses the line. The problem is always where the line actually is and what action government should be allowed to take. That has always been one of my basic tenets: That in any situation government needs to be allowed to do whatever it does, rather than expected to or trusted to.


I agree, many fine lines. Churches know the civil freedoms they have result in much fraud, but willing to accept it to insure their rights, simply, if obvious frauds abuse the system, we accept that to protect our tax status, etc...

The issue is government has connected so much legality to marriage, tax codes, property rights, insurance laws, etc...be better if they had stayed totally out of it, but we can't go back. With so many rights government made marriage a civil issue with civil rights, instead of a spiritual agreement only.

Marriage today is a civil union more than spiritual, but churches only want to recognize the spiritual part and enforce their codes of morality, why still taking advantage of civil laws/laws that benefit them...taxes, etc...and deny others rights based on spiritual morality.

It's very difficult, norms of society versus civil rights, since marriage is a government legal process we will somehow have to define marriage as other groups will eventually step up, polygamist, etc...Imagine if polygamist demand the civil rights to multiple partners, all adults that don't harm others, it could certainly open up a lot of abuse, mass people marrying to get medical insurance, tax breaks, etc...Heck, Canada had a big debate on it and almost passed it, thinking combined families would have better lives in bad economies. Somewhere a norm will be set, as the youth today become more liberal, the norm will be to allow other forms of marriage. Regardless, our nations operates more on the norms of the majority, civil rights be damned...

[Fish]

Marriage takes 1 man + 1 woman. Simple.

.

Mariage is just what it say, mariage. Why should it only take 1 man and 1 woman?
Because of tradition, because of culture?

[Skybird]

Mariage is just what it say, mariage. Why should it only take 1 man and 1 woman?
Because of tradition, because of culture?
Yes, right that. Because cultures since a very long (and I mean very long) time found it very healthy to give special protection to the status of a social constellation that due to natural biologica evolution has followed the heterosexcual design of our species that needsa 1 male and 1 female to reproduce it'S genes in babies and thus is the only way by which a small community can ensure its survival.

The taboo against incest sexual rerlations has the very same reason. It is about minimising the chance for genetic defects or unwanted mutations. The health of ourt spoecies is better served, say Madame Evoltuioon, when our genes get constantly mixed, instead of freezed in generations of always the same clusters.

You can give homo couples equal rights regarding last wills and legal power to decide for the bother if he becomes temrinally ill, I have nothing against it. If they think their relation wins in quality if they get a paper with stamp anbd some cameraman's recognition, okay, give them a paper with a stamp and hope that makes them lucky.

But do not think that two men or two women living together in a relation is for the community in any way as important as the constralltion of a hetero couple that creates babies. The simpel truth is, their relations is as interesting and relevant for the communal inteewrst as is my relation to that brown cat that I sometimes meet in the garden.

I also do not see why homosexual relations should benefit from tax reliefs that were once meant to give special status and kind of protection and support to families (some states, like Germany, even have that in their constitution!). Our social communty and age structurses are terribly messed up, and that ahs somethign to do with families beign discouraged and materialsitically hindered to raise babies. Not to menmtion that in the eU it is seen as an offence if a mother actually is called a mother and a distinction between mother and father is beiong made, they should minstead be called parent 1 and parent 2. The deconstruction of this hated thing "family" is going on sicne many years.

I also do not see why homosexual couples should gain such tax benefits hat they do not qualify for, but singles like me should not. Now that is a discrimination of us singles.

Where have you been the past months and years? I think I have explained right these arguments four or five times in the past 12 months alone.

Yes, I am for maintaining a ban on incest sexual relations. I am also against rewriting culture history and deleting the traditional meaning of marriage as the constellation of 1 male and 1 female (potentially parents with children, that is the calculation behind that), and I am againmst claiming the homo couple is as important for the communal interest as is the hetero couple, potnetially, and often: really. Homosexual couples do not create babies, they do not raise future citizens of the community, they do not raise future tax payers (let'S face it, the whole thing last but not least if about trivial money), they do serve no biological function to support the future survival of the "tribe".

Scripture and religious insanity has nothing to do with my position, at least not for me (I cannot speak for some scripture-obsessed medievalists). It is simple economic sanity, and anger over just another lobby trying to push something down my throat, and recognition and acceptance of some vital biological facts that have consequnces for mankind and communties/societies whether we like it that way or not, and that will not just go away just because somebody wants it to be different. I want to fly by will's power or at least by wings, but I have neither the one skill nor the other feature, so heck, my only option is to get over it, be what I am and think I am okay the way I have come into this life.

I do care for the sexual preferance of people as much as I care for their precious relgions - not at all, as long as the community must not constantly take note of them, they do not interfere with communal vital interwsts, and do not try to play bongo with my intellect. Keep thy sex in the bedroom and thy faith in thy cabin, and we can be good friends, maybe. Notoriously bother me with the one or the other, and all I have for you is my boot.

[CaptainHaplo]

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

The fact is that government has no role in marriage at all - either allowing or denying it. Religions can make such a determination based upon their own theology.

The problem is that government is involved where it shouldnt.

Oh and Armistead - I pointed you to Romans 1 for where Paul talks about homosexuals being worthy of death. There is no use in having a discussion with you since you want to "pick and choose" what parts of "scripture" you want to have everyone apply. Either people should obey the Laws of God, or they should not. Make up your mind.

For those actually interested in Biblical scholarship - many who seek to overthrow the bible start quoting laws of men recorded in the Bible. They want to equate one set of laws for the laws of God. God provided 10 laws for mankind. Not a one of them advocates slavery, "ownership" of a wife, or any other such thing as many claim.

The rest were laws made by man or specific indications of things - such as homosexuality - that God finds unacceptable.

On the issue of homosexuality being a biological requirement rather than a choice...... I specifically stated ACTION as the key. While biologically there may be reasons a person would be attracted to the same sex, God does not find this reprehensible. He created people uniquely - with unique struggles in this life. It is the person's choice to ACT on their desires (or dwell on the the thoughts) to have sex with someone of the same gender that is sinful. God knows full well that he places challenges in front of every person - and they have the CHOICE to act rightly or wrongly. It is that choice which defines whether a person sins against God or not.

[Skybird]

It goes on from there, but the point is that while governments are created for many reasons, not all of them altruistic, good government is created for that very reason. This is the purpose for which the United States was created in the first place. While we have never followed that purpose as well as we should have, "liberty and justice for all" is and should ever be our guiding light.

No contradiction to what I say. I am just more precise in detail, since there is consequences from that differentiation I made. Because other people may think other things are more desirable than those you mentioned.

With what you quoted, you would not win a golden pot in many countries of the ME, for example. Heck, even many europeans find the pursuit of happiness strange, romantic, vague. While you and me would not want the state to serve what many people there think should be the basis of the state: Shariah. Or take the German Basic Law, where your constitution mentions a pursuit of happiness, the Grundgesetz says that the dignity of man is untouchable. What if the pursuit of happiness is claimed to be able to be realised only at the price of allowing something that somebody else claims to be violating the dignity of man? And take the German article to the ME now, and see how it also fails to be implmemented there in the meaning it was written down in germany under the impression of the war and the demand of the allies. What to their Sharia would be the dignity of Muslim man (women and infidels is something different), to us is the total abolishement of human dignity both in males and females, Muslims and non-Muslims.

[yubba]

The democrats couldn't have picked a better weapon, to use in the war on women, than having a man have the same rights and benifits as a married women, that is married to a man. I didn't know we had found a cure to aids, to promote gay marriage, no body said they couldn't get married, we don't have recgonize it.

[razark]

...reproduce it'S genes in babies...
...hetero couple that creates babies...
...protection and support to families
...raise babies...
...potentially parents with children
Homosexual couples do not create babies...
...biological function to support the future survival of the "tribe".
If we go by that rationale, then why do we allow marriage to infertile couples or couples that do not intend to have children? There's a lot more to marriage than making babies.

[yubba]

If we go by that rationale, then why do we allow marriage to infertile couples or couples that do not intend to have children? There's a lot more to marriage than making babies.
Ok tell me some, and tell me why we should subsidize it, why should we take away from one group to give to another, and why is this issue more important than the economy and the dept, this is nothing more than a distraction to both of them, because they, and you have no answers for any of it.

[Tribesman]

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

Prove that there was no government oversight, some bloke saying that the princes of his government should become involved in the deal proves absolutely nothing either way.:know:
Or does it?
Can it be that it proves it was always a goverment issue and since NC is in a place where there is a seperation of church and state the political administrators of the church shall have no role whatsoever in marriage

For those actually interested in Biblical scholarship
Yeah right, as yeah verily it is written, only be nice to "christians":har::har::har::har:
Biblical scholarship delivered way back in the early pages of this topic when liitle St. Paul jumped up to say you were talking bollox on law.

[Armistead]

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.

The fact is that government has no role in marriage at all - either allowing or denying it. Religions can make such a determination based upon their own theology.

The problem is that government is involved where it shouldnt.

Oh and Armistead - I pointed you to Romans 1 for where Paul talks about homosexuals being worthy of death. There is no use in having a discussion with you since you want to "pick and choose" what parts of "scripture" you want to have everyone apply. Either people should obey the Laws of God, or they should not. Make up your mind.

For those actually interested in Biblical scholarship - many who seek to overthrow the bible start quoting laws of men recorded in the Bible. They want to equate one set of laws for the laws of God. God provided 10 laws for mankind. Not a one of them advocates slavery, "ownership" of a wife, or any other such thing as many claim.

The rest were laws made by man or specific indications of things - such as homosexuality - that God finds unacceptable.

On the issue of homosexuality being a biological requirement rather than a choice...... I specifically stated ACTION as the key. While biologically there may be reasons a person would be attracted to the same sex, God does not find this reprehensible. He created people uniquely - with unique struggles in this life. It is the person's choice to ACT on their desires (or dwell on the the thoughts) to have sex with someone of the same gender that is sinful. God knows full well that he places challenges in front of every person - and they have the CHOICE to act rightly or wrongly. It is that choice which defines whether a person sins against God or not.

You seem to miss the points of Romans 1. The people Paul were talking to were probably former Christians and heterosexual. In Rome many hetero married men preferred other men, even boys. The point Paul was making that under Levitical law, these were sins that equaled death because they broke the law
Leviticus 20:13 (NIV)
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

However, you never see Paul gathering a mob, trying to kill them, bring them into courts, anything. Paul often compared the law or qouted it because many still lived by it, he did so mostly for comparison, law vs grace. These people were condemned because they were going against their heterosexual orientation and engaged in same-gender sexual behavior. If you read the chapter you'll see a host of sins being commited other than homo behavior. No doubt under jewish law many of these acts would have deserved death. that was Pauls point. However, we are no longer under those laws and no where will you find any the apostles preaching people should be put to death because of sin. Sure, several verses stating it would be better to die than do this or that, but none of the apostles sought the physical death for sinners, they sought salvation.

Your theory that God would make some attracted to the same sex, but it would be sinful for them to engage in that attraction is silly. Why would God place an impossible burden on someone, sexual attraction is probably the strongest force known, did he think it would be funny. It never ceases to amaze me what some fundies will come up with to support bias. Did God also give the Pedophile, alcoholic, etc....the same burden?

God gave 10 commandments, laws for the jewish people, who also claimed their many cultural laws were God given, many OT saints wrote that God gave them the laws, about 700 total, laws on marriage, sacrifice, war, punishments, etc...These laws insured women were property, allowed polygamy "most all Saints had many wives", etc...The bible claims God gave these laws, although myself I believe they're cultural laws that the Jews of course said came from God. God replaced this system with grace, but many, including jewish christians still lived by many of them. Jews and Gentiles Christians often argued about differing cultural laws, this was dealt with by the "Royal Law" of love others and do no harm. Paul often tired of arguing with Christians that had different customs and basically said..live and let live, love each other and do no harm..why he often referred to jewish law for reference, he preached grace, love, etc..

We have many more commandments by the apostles, you stated
"many who seek to overthrow the bible start quoting laws of men recorded in the Bible." This doesn't even make sense, we seek to overthrow the bible by stating what those in the bible said, what else are we to do, do you ignore the 100's of apostolic commands?

I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it should only enforce civil rights to insure marriage

[Tribesman]

I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it should only enforce civil rights to insure marriage
Good point, as haplo pointed out Iggy started it all, as was written in his pistle on the postle he turned round and said ....."oi ceasar no, you ain't having your govenments laws on marriage and its rights and finacial implications here in the roman empire, this is our patch so get your government out of the old marriage business as I am starting it now."

[Armistead]

Prove that there was no government oversight, some bloke saying that the princes of his government should become involved in the deal proves absolutely nothing either way.:know:
Or does it?
Can it be that it proves it was always a goverment issue and since NC is in a place where there is a seperation of church and state the political administrators of the church shall have no role whatsoever in marriage


Yeah right, as yeah verily it is written, only be nice to "christians":har::har::har::har:
Biblical scholarship delivered way back in the early pages of this topic when liitle St. Paul jumped up to say you were talking bollox on law.


Hard to say government wasn't involved in marriage when religious Priest ran the government and made the laws and inflicted punishments. If Priest and Popes decide the law and punishments, that's theocratic governing......something haplo seems to endorse.

Enforced religious law is theocracy, a form of government, been around since man, simply government in one form or the other has always been involved in marriage, cept where government didn't exist you could just jump over a broom and say " I'm married."

[Tribesman]

Honestly though Armistead, his efforts are getting so lame you could almost feel sorry for him.
I mean seriously antioch in the first century??????? that was part of the roman empire whose government had created a huge pile of marriage laws in the preceeding couple of hundred years, and the romans were only developing further on from marriage laws that the greek states had been using in their governments.

cept where government didn't exist you could just jump over a broom and say " I'm married."
Even then though, it would still usually involve the head of some sort, top dog will always want his say and his cut.(which is probably why Iggy wanted his boys to get in on the action too)

[Wolfpack345]

Either let them marry or ban all marriage I say.

Makes utterly no sense to ban Gay Marriage, absolutely none.

I agree why should it realy matter any way....people:nope:

[Sailor Steve]

In 110 AD, the union of marriage began to be overseen by the Church. This started with the writing of bishop Ignatius of Antioch to the bishop Polycarp of Smyrna in which he advocated such unions be done with the blessings of the Church.

There was no governmental oversight of marriage at that time. Such oversight came much later.
So, who was running the marriage game before that?

[Sailor Steve]

With what you quoted, you would not win a golden pot in many countries of the ME, for example. Heck, even many europeans find the pursuit of happiness strange, romantic, vague.
And so would many Americans, including our Founding Fathers themselves. "pursuit of happiness" is only mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. In the Constitution English Law is followed in the injunction "No man shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property without due process of law."

While I disagree with your take on social causes behind marriage your arguments are good ones and deserving of consideration.

[Skybird]

If we go by that rationale, then why do we allow marriage to infertile couples or couples that do not intend to have children?
Because basic design of cultural patterns runs by the rule, and not by the exception from the rule, also because administration needs to focus on the basic idea and tends to fizzle up things if a thoisuand special conditions and exceptions get recognised in law-making - just look at tax systems, they are a mess. Also, couples forming up and getting divorced again quickly and not planning families, is a relatively new phenomenon that people of just a couple of decades ago would hardly comprehend. Being married until high age and having a diamoin wedding ceremony, today makes it into the newspaper. For the generation of my grandparents, it was the unspectacular norm.

Comfort and luxury wreak havoc on Western mentality in many different ways.



There's a lot more to marriage than making babies.
Agreed, but these must not be of concern for the society around. They are private interests, so - keep them private. No matter whether you are homo or hetero.

Marriage is a communal and cultural recognition of a potential function of hetero couples forming up, a function that is of vital interest for the community. Why singles like me and homo couples should hjave the same benefit although we do not fulfill that function, remains a mystery to me. And if homo couples now are given these additonal benefits - and let'S face it, many of them are about money! - then I demand the same for singles like myself, since I do not see anything in homo couples that justifies to rate them as more valuable for communal interest, than singles like me.

Needless to say that this relativisation of families' specially marked status (at least by intention and on paper) gets reduced. A great help in our overaging societies with people putting careers before raising familie already now. :yeah:

There is a lot of social dysfunctionality in our rotten culture, and pour problöems certainly do not come just from nowhere: their evolving and unfoldinmg can be explained. Whether people want to hear these explanations, since they are anything but compliments for our intelligence, is something that can be doubted. Making homo marriages equal to hetero marriages is just another nail in the cultural coffin.

In some country - don'T ask, I forgot which one it was - in Southern Africa some years ago a minority of Chinese went to court over being excluded from some native payment fonds becasue they were not recognised as native African blacks, which they obviously were not, since they were indeed Han, and the Han race is not black, one cannot help it. It ended with the constitution or at least some very basic law they had being changed, now saying that Chinese are blacks.

If such a distortion is possible in distorted cultures, than everything else should not come as a surprise.

[Armistead]

I do agree with much of what Skybird says, due to government involvement in marriage and the many benefits it gives to married couples, homos and singles are denied many of the same benefits.
Married couples can leave property easier, pay less taxes, etc. Heck, if
I already paid taxes on what I own I should be able to leave it to who I want tax free.

[Tribesman]

In some country - don'T ask, I forgot which one it was - in Southern Africa some years ago a minority of Chinese went to court over being excluded from some native payment fonds becasue they were not recognised as native African blacks, which they obviously were not, since they were indeed Han, and the Han race is not black, one cannot help it. It ended with the constitution or at least some very basic law they had being changed, now saying that Chinese are blacks.

Yeah right:doh:
Payments were made available to people who were discriminated under apartheid. They don't say that now "chinese are blacks" as a race they say that the previous regime classed most asians as coloureds and any asians that were classed as coloureds by the white supremacist government are eligible for the same payment scheme as any other person the previous regime classified that way.

If such a distortion is possible in distorted cultures, than everything else should not come as a surprise.
That such a distortion of facts is possible from that person should not come as a surprise

[AVGWarhawk]

I like the zoo. :DL