Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 4798 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:53:55 PM
Angilion aren't you a little old to be such a bitchy troll? Go sit down before you break a hip. |
|
 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9676 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:32:44 PM
Bravo! You're getting a little better at silly ranting. Now work on your English and maybe I'll get you a silly pointy jester's hat with bells on it. |
|
xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
4798 Posts
|
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11:47 AM
Angilion, im so sorry that your obviously awesome life of the "important things, such as reading and playing games", is constantly disrupted by you having to come on the internet and correct all the silly little people that make up the world below you. I feel sad about the fact that you lose sleep because someone on the internet is wrong about something.
You know what Angrylillyb*tch, if being as intelligent as you is as miserable as you make it sound, maybe ignorance is bliss. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9676 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:33:58 PM
Does Angilion have to be smarter than everyone on every goddamned post? Seriously dude, STFU!!!
I could probably pretend to dumb down enough for you, but what would be the point even if you aren't intelligent enough to realise that's patronising? You're not the only person here, so why should everyone dumb down to your level? |
|
 Howler81
Male, 18-29, Southern US
233 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:24:43 AM
See, usually when anyone posts anything about the Bible on this site its a poorly researched strawman argument with little or no context from some hipster taking a cheap shot at religion. This is actually a well-researched, interesting post. Score: 1 - 11,732. |
|
Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
2109 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:05:09 AM
@CrakrJak
"Angilion: IF marriage was not a religious institution then why is it mostly performed by practitioners of religion ?"
Because it's a holdover from when it was a religious institution...at a time when EVERYTHING was a religious institution.
We're talking about times when EVERYTHING in some way or another was tied in with religion.
You can no more say marriage today is a religious institution than eating food is: some people today still pray over their food, and in the past pretty much everyone in our cultures did, so should eating be something only the religious are allowed to do? |
|
xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
4798 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:51:47 AM
"I have lots of spare time because I've arranged my life that way. Gives me plenty of time for the things important to me, like reading and playing games. It doesn't take up that much time, since it only takes me a few minutes to type a couple of hundred words. There aren't any proper debates here, so little thought or research is required. I don't even check my spelling or grammar here."
God I hate you |
|
xCYBERDYNEx
Male, 18-29, Southern US
4798 Posts
|
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:49:29 AM
Does Angilion have to be smarter than everyone on every goddamned post? Seriously dude, STFU!!! |
|
 Quackor
Male, 18-29, S. America
2692 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 6:29:00 PM
thats the best book ever |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9676 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 5:45:53 PM
"which traditionally had the local blacksmith as the official."
Keeping that in mind, let's say anyone wants to marry people... what are the requirements?
When and where? Traditionally in Britain the only requirement was to be able to witness the couple wedding each other. Nobody married them - they married themselves. Someone could arrange witnesses, arrange a venue and make a bit of ceremony about it. In Gretna Green, that someone was usually the local smith. The smithy was a focal point of the place, on the main road. But it could just as easily have been done by anyone else. A letter from a cleric in medieval England, as the church was stepping up its power grab on marriages, describes a wedding in an inn, carried out without any ceremony at all. The couple vowed marriage, more than 1 person (other customers at the inn) witnessed them doing so, job done. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9676 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 5:25:29 PM
Angilion: I have to very much disagree with you on your supposed dating there. The Jewish ritual of marriage long predates the Romans, even the Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Japanese, Chinese, and Native Americans have had religious ceremonies for weddings led by either a king, priest, chief, tribal leader, or spiritualist.
i) Are you sure they were religious rituals first and had legal and social results added on later? Can you prove it? After all, many people believe the same about Christianity in Europe and Britain and that's easily proven untrue.
ii) The only things provably relevant to the word 'marriage' are Roman, French and English and then only during certain periods of time. That matters, as the main argument is specifically about the word itself. |
|
wheresmyskul
Male, 40-49, Western US
248 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 3:10:41 PM
What has this got to do with gay marriage? |
|
 McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
10539 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 10:06:02 AM
I can haz concubinez!?!?!?! |
|
 TruTenrMan
Male, 30-39, Southern US
2215 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 7:49:23 AM
I love how all these are from the Old Testament.
Old Testament = mainly for pre-Jesus Jews only.
New Testament = for post-Jesus everyone. |
|
 Spocom
Female, 13-17, Southern US
712 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 7:28:02 AM
Luniz, I love you. Fully and truly. My virginity is yours now. |
|
 Luniz82
Male, 18-29, Western US
590 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 6:49:57 AM
Who cares? The bible should not dictate any law in this country at all, they should all be based on common sense and equality for everyone. It's about time we stop turning to the bible to answer the questions that effect everyone in this country when not everyone believes in what the bible teaches or has to say. |
|
 Serpentchick
Female, 18-29, Western US
379 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 6:29:00 AM
jacos27 They actually spell it wrong in a different way
Polygyny: Multiple wives for one man, the one practiced in the bible.
Polyandry: Multiple husbands for one wife
Polygamy: More than 2 people in a marriage |
|
jacos27
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
227 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 6:03:24 AM
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that they spelled polygamy wrong...it's with an M not an N |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14458 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 5:47:01 AM
Angilion: I have to very much disagree with you on your supposed dating there. The Jewish ritual of marriage long predates the Romans, even the Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Japanese, Chinese, and Native Americans have had religious ceremonies for weddings led by either a king, priest, chief, tribal leader, or spiritualist. |
|
 LazyMe484
Male, 18-29, Canada
10503 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 5:13:28 AM
which traditionally had the local blacksmith as the official.
Keeping that in mind, let's say anyone wants to marry people... what are the requirements? |
|
 614188
Male, 18-29, Australia
215 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 5:12:20 AM
no gays?? |
|
 Frankii
Female, 18-29, Europe
439 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 1:54:42 AM
The brother's wife thing is contradicted in Deuteronomy saying that if a man marries his brother's wife they will be childless. It's how Henry VIII justified his divorce from Catherine of Aragon even though the Catholic Church was having none of it |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9676 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 12:16:20 AM
Angilion: IF marriage was not a religious institution then why is it mostly performed by practitioners of religion ?
Power grab by religious authorities. It's a fairly recent thing in Europe - late medieval at the earliest. In many places, it was only briefly required. In England and Wales, for example, it was only required between 1753 and 1836. In some places, it has *never* been required. For example, Gretna Green is very famous for marriages...which traditionally had the local blacksmith as the official.
Yes, We have made the word marriage a legal term, but that's supplementary to usual religious traditions.
Other way around, since the legal involvement predates the religious involvement and religion was only briefly a required add-on.
The essence of marriage is the vows, which are the actual wedding. Everything else is an add-on. |
|
 DoctorSlutba
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
46 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 12:15:50 AM
We are supposed to have separation of church and state, show me a good argument against gay marriage that has nothing to do with religious bias and I will consider it, but I've not come across one yet.
The definition of marriage has changed many times, at it was not long ago that marriage had to do with property- not love. Now it's pretty clear marriage is about two consenting people who are in love; I don't see the problem with making it legal. |
|
 IceDragon77
Male, 18-29, Western US
498 Posts
|
Monday, June 27, 2011 12:00:49 AM
@Angilion Well said, those whom do not realize that the new testament does not object to homosexuality itself and instead more as a pagan ritual are sadly mistaken. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}