"Pro-Family" poll that's anything but

Eronarn · **Posted:** Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:10 pm

Remember, the Bible also tells you to stone to death angsty teens!

RMG · **Posted:** Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:25 pm

The bible says all kinds of crazy shit. I don't think that even the most hardcore fundamentalist Christian could obey everything in it and still be a functioning member of society.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:57 pm

revolutio wrote:

I am for marraige simply because I think it is a waste of effort to change everything from the word "married" to "civily unified" or whatever the fuck the adjective would be. I think the religious people just need to swallow their pride and let homosexuals say they are married. They act is if it actually does something more than make them uncomfortable around and suspicious of their fellow man.

Dumbest. Arguement. Evar. "Oh d00d, just stop arguing for your morality and go with the flow."

SMRT.

RMG got it right though, I mean the Bible was made as a handbook for the time, it contains morals/ideals that arn't present today. Thats how it needs to be viewed, if we're really to take it seriously.

-MiB

revolutio · **Posted:** Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:37 pm

The Man In Black wrote:

Dumbest. Arguement. Evar. "Oh d00d, just stop arguing for your morality and go with the flow."

I suppose I should clarify since you actually took me seriously. You must be really dull company. Anyways..

By Christianity's standards being an atheist or non-Christian is immoral since you reject Jesus Christ as your savior. Now if they banned all immoral acts by Christian standards I would have no problem with this, however they are not. Atheists are running free through the streets (naked most likely). Hell people are even eating shellfish unrestrained. If all sins are equal in God's eye then why are people so opposed to this one?

EDIT: For the record most Christians (almost all that I have talked to) view the Scriptures as 'God breathed' and inerrant in their original form. Thus they are valid through the ages.

The concept of marraige is hardly a Christian one so that title is not up to them alone to manage. If it were a Christian institution it would be another matter entirely, however it is not, it has existed in virtually every culture in mankind. For this reason it should never be asked of a church to oversee (or whatever you call it) a homosexual marraige.

You need to have show how homosexual marraiges would hurt our society and nation from a secular stance for a law banning them to be upheld. I have no problem with legislating morality, I just have a problem with people being hypocritical and inconsistent about the morality they are legislating.

Finally I don't give a flying fuck what it is called. Nor do I care if queers get to marry. As long as every gets to fuck the brains out of whoever the want to I am cool.

Ever take something I say seriously again and I will kill you MiB.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:09 am

Rev wrote:

Ever take something I say serious again MiB and I will kill you

Besides poor sentence structure...

Alright, I'll just laugh at your previous post. :lol:

-MiB

DaiDreamer5 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:57 pm

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,128 ... story_top5

Here's an update on the matter. According to the AFA, we have been branded as a "Homosexual Activist Groups"

We surely did "a number" on them!!!!

lol

revolutio · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:11 pm

Haha, they took the poll down.

Yevaud333 · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:36 pm

Holy shite, it worked! :o

Thanks for the update, DaiDreamer; I'd actually forgotten about that. 8)

Skjie · **Posted:** Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:04 pm

CinderyRabbit wrote:

A: No, because the Government shouldnt moderate something as inherently civil as marraige, period
.

Quick question: isn't civil stuff the job of the government?

Clay_Allison · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:49 am

I am all for banning marriage, no, not a missprint, no missing word, ban marriage. Recognise no unions, no religious ceremonies, turn a blind eye to who lives together and who fucks whom. None of the Gov's goddamn business. You want Polygamy? Go for it! Want Polyandry? Have at it! want a hippie commune marriage with multiples on either side? Be my fucking guest. Why the fuck is there a law against bigamy? Who is against it? It was the thing to do in the bible! Do it the other way around if you can find guys that won't pull knives on each other. Hell as long as you leave me out of it have a Bisexual Commune! Everyone makes their own decisions these days. Women are liberated and free to do their own things. Alimony is outdated and patronizing.

DaiDreamer5 · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:27 pm

Yevaud333 wrote:

Holy shite, it worked! :o

Thanks for the update, DaiDreamer; I'd actually forgotten about that. 8)

I just find it funny they thing that it is the homosexual activist groups that did a "number" on the poll. Not just everyday internet idiots.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:04 pm

Clay_Allison wrote:

I am all for banning marriage, no, not a missprint, no missing word, ban marriage. Recognise no unions, no religious ceremonies, turn a blind eye to who lives together and who fucks whom. None of the Gov's goddamn business. You want Polygamy? Go for it! Want Polyandry? Have at it! want a hippie commune marriage with multiples on either side? Be my fucking guest. Why the fuck is there a law against bigamy? Who is against it? It was the thing to do in the bible! Do it the other way around if you can find guys that won't pull knives on each other. Hell as long as you leave me out of it have a Bisexual Commune! Everyone makes their own decisions these days. Women are liberated and free to do their own things. Alimony is outdated and patronizing.

A wise, wise stance.

-MiB

revolutio · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:53 pm

I like that as well. Seems the safest method.

Vaergoth · **Posted:** Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:02 pm

krylex wrote:

Christianity is against homosexuality if you go right to the text. Its in the book. Black and white as can be. Just because a group tolerates it, does not mean in any way that it is morally acceptable by thier code. If they say its not a Christian sin to be a homosexual, then they might as well ignore the rest of the Bible as well.

See this and this. They have a very balanced and informative essay about the exact meaning of those verses.

Forevergrey · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:04 am

Vaergoth wrote:

a very balanced and informative essay

Why the hell does a klaxon sound and red lights start flashing everytime you claim something is informative and balanced?

Wark · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:17 am

A few things: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com and http://www.godhatesfigs.com . I'm going to assume you all know which site they're parodying.

Second, I'm all for abolishing civil marriage. To me, marriage is strictly a spiritual ceremony, a joining of two people (or more, should that be case) who have decided, "Hey, we seem to love eachother enough, let's celebrate it and make it official!" Not, "Hey, it would be rather convenient if we got married, what with the tax benefits and all..."

[EDIT: Almost forgot. The AFA had planned to send the poll to Congress, but has since been, uhh, rather quiet about the whole situation.]

krylex · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:43 pm

http://www.godhatesfags.com is not a parody site. A branch of that church was recently in my city protesting a pair of Elton John's sunglasses in the Buddy Holly museam and protesting a local highschool's new program called GSA (Gay Strait Alliance).

Yevaud333 · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 6:16 pm

krylex baby, he didn't say godhatesfags was a parody site.

Wark wrote:

A few things: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com and http://www.godhatesfigs.com . I'm going to assume you all know which site they're parodying.

Wark · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:40 pm

No, it's not a parody site, I meant, the sites were a parody of godhatesfags.com. Even still, it's awfully hard to tell that it's for real. It's just so unbelievably ridiculous.

Skjie · **Posted:** Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:27 pm

The Man In Black wrote:

Clay_Allison wrote:

I am all for banning marriage, no, not a missprint, no missing word, ban marriage. Recognise no unions, no religious ceremonies, turn a blind eye to who lives together and who fucks whom. None of the Gov's goddamn business. You want Polygamy? Go for it! Want Polyandry? Have at it! want a hippie commune marriage with multiples on either side? Be my fucking guest. Why the fuck is there a law against bigamy? Who is against it? It was the thing to do in the bible! Do it the other way around if you can find guys that won't pull knives on each other. Hell as long as you leave me out of it have a Bisexual Commune! Everyone makes their own decisions these days. Women are liberated and free to do their own things. Alimony is outdated and patronizing.

A wise, wise stance.

-MiB

I'm happy with this idea, lord knows Civil marriage is just another way for the govt to get $$ from you.

ZOMBIE FORUMS

"Pro-Family" poll that's anything but

Who is online