Yes, I support it
No, I don't support it
Other (no clue what this would be)
I've already addressed this.Give me one example of a case where this very naughty child was stoned to death. If it's such an important case, you would be able to find multiple cases of this happening.
Nowhere does it say "X's child was very bad. The court stoned him"
Furthermore, there is no need for an example for my point to still be made. It was commanded. Whether or not it was carried out, and I see no reason to think it wasn't, is entirely immaterial.
If only there was a network of information, stretched all over the world, that contained the things necessary for you to do this...You doubt a lot of things. Just because I don't have the books in front of me, doesn't mean I can't/ or anyone can't contradict you.
There is no solid argument to claim that two humans of whatever sex should be allowed to "marry" (we can argue about what we call it) that doesn't come from a religiously backed opinion. And that's why it's wrong for it not to be legal. Period.
this my sig
Man of 1000 Lederhosen
What you are attempting to do, still, is justify slavery. The fact that you're trying to justify it's practice in the past makes really no difference at all. You are, as I said, doing this in 2012. I didn't say you were trying to justify modern-day slavery.You're great at analyzing things...
Because I "said" that I would agree with slavery in 2012. That is exactly what I said.
I said at the time, when in financial straits, they would sell themselves into slavery. In 2012, I am justifying choice back then.
As you have already acknowledge, there were children born into slavery. They, clearly, had no choice in the matter. Neither did their children, or their children, or their children. Whole generations that could be born, live, and die in slavery, because of the choice of a great great grandfather. This is far from the "I'll repay my debt by folding your laundry!" picture you're trying to paint here.
You have utterly no basis from which to make this statement. Something being printed as opposed to digital does not automatically make it better, give it more authority, or make it more correct.That's because you believe everything you read on the internet.
They're called books.
Nor did I claim you had.And I don't think I said I have any opinion on homosexual marriage; thus I voted option 3.
Last edited by natepro; 11-28-2012 at 11:25 PM.
Just my personal thoughts.
2 men or 2 women is something I struggled with when I was younger. I felt very uncomftorable in the company of blatantly homosexual people. While I didn't dislike them, or think they were wrong for being how they were there was just the feeling of uneasiness in me when in their presense.
I went on a family vacation in which my moms college friend came and stayed with us a long with his partner. It took me a day or so to process it all but his partner was super cool, and extremely knowledgeable about sports. I sort of gained a familiarity/comfort with them and a bit of a understanding that as simple as it sounds needed to be learned thropugh experience. There is no difference. People are people.
That being said my roots are extremely catholic. I know my aunt and uncle would probably have a hard time if I was gay. I know that as a whole they don't want gay mariage in their church. My thought is can't both sides be happy? Don't allow gay marriage in the catholic church, due to it conflicting with their beliefs. (I can't gice anywhere near the explanation on how it conflicts that my uncle can.) But allow a marriage certificate to be given to those who want it?
Ebbs, I suspect that a lot of people have that reaction. People change their opinions, even drastically so in some cases, when they know/meet a gay person. It stuns me how drastic the change can be in some people when an attack on another person hits a little closer to home.
Originally Posted by MrPoon