QuoteInterracial couple denied marriage license in La.
By MARY FOSTER (AP) – 1 hour ago
NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.
Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.
Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.
"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."
Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.
"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.
According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.
The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.
"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."
The beautiful part is that this guy's gonna have the hell sanctioned out of himself, and he's going to blame everyone except the one responsible. I gar-on-tee it.
Is it a common thing in America to describe the quantity of one's friends in "pile" units?
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2009, 06:56:55 PM
Is it a common thing in America to describe the quantity of one's friends in "pile" units?
Is it common for a justice to immediately start defending himself with the tired old "I have lots of black friends" line? That alone should point to competency issues. :P
hott.
This is a bizarre decision by this judge... :huh: I'm doubtful that he can even deny it on that basis of being a mixed race marriage. Sheesh.
Is he culpable for refusing to sign a marriage license, or is it "discrimination" that's going to get him?
Regardless, that someone should follow their moral conviction instead of pandering to vociferous whining is an outrage. :mad:
Oh snap doesn't seem enough.
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 08:23:56 PM
Regardless, that someone should follow their moral conviction instead of pandering to vociferous whining is an outrage. :mad:
If this is what he wanted to do, he should have become a minister, not a JoP.
Quote
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.
This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 08:23:56 PM
Regardless, that someone should follow their moral conviction instead of pandering to vociferous whining is an outrage. :mad:
If this is what he wanted to do, he should have become a minister, not a JoP.
Quote
"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. "The Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1963 that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.
This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.
Separate issue.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.
FWIW the ACLU (to which I donate :cool: ) is a strong supporter of gay marriage equality and of gay rights in general.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 09:17:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.
FWIW the ACLU (to which I donate :cool: ) is a strong supporter of gay marriage equality and of gay rights in general.
Then they should certainly know that that comment is ignorant, and an affront to 10% of our population, plus those who support them. Meh... not worth derailing the thread over, but still stupid.
Meri,
Why can't you be part of the silent minority sheesh :rolleyes:
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 08:23:56 PM
Is he culpable for refusing to sign a marriage license, or is it "discrimination" that's going to get him?
Regardless, that someone should follow their moral conviction instead of pandering to vociferous whining is an outrage. :mad:
He's absolutely culpable. Judges and justices of the peace are intended to put aside their personal beliefs when administering powers of their office; in fact, it's part of the job description. The only belief that would allow him to refuse to issue the marriage license is belief that the couple hadn't fulfilled the requirements outlined by the state. Apparently, he was catching a power nap when the Illinois attorney general refused to sign off on Roland Burris.
Yes. Marti would not enjoy being a justice of the peace in the US. :)
Quote from: katmai on October 15, 2009, 09:48:01 PM
Meri,
Why can't you be part of the silent minority sheesh :rolleyes:
I'm female. It's not possible. :(
Seems a non story to me. He refuses to marry any mixed race couples and there are other Justices of the Peace in the parish who can do the same job, at very likely the same price. :shrug:
Quote from: sbr on October 15, 2009, 09:50:43 PM
Seems a non story to me. He refuses to marry any mixed race couples and there are other Justices of the Peace in the parish who can do the same job, at very likely the same price. :shrug:
Except that he's not allowed to do that. :contract:
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 09:43:41 PM
Then they should certainly know that that comment is ignorant, and an affront to 10% of our population, plus those who support them. Meh... not worth derailing the thread over, but still stupid.
10% of the population isn't gay. You are an enemy of order.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 09:56:57 PM
Quote from: sbr on October 15, 2009, 09:50:43 PM
Seems a non story to me. He refuses to marry any mixed race couples and there are other Justices of the Peace in the parish who can do the same job, at very likely the same price. :shrug:
Except that he's not allowed to do that. :contract:
I must have missed that in the article, I will go back and re-read it. Since he mentioned that he has done this previously, and there are other JoP in the parish who can sign the license I assumed it was legal.
Meri's opinion is not to be trusted. She's not an expert, and she's an enemy of order.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 09:43:41 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 09:17:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.
FWIW the ACLU (to which I donate :cool: ) is a strong supporter of gay marriage equality and of gay rights in general.
Then they should certainly know that that comment is ignorant, and an affront to 10% of our population, plus those who support them. Meh... not worth derailing the thread over, but still stupid.
10% :rolleyes:
My understanding is that priests, judges, JoP have the legal authority to marry people, but no one is required to actually do it, it is like a side job. I was married by a judge, the first one I called didn't perform any marriages. I called another and I was 5 year from a divorce.
Quote from: sbr on October 15, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
My understanding is that priests, judges, JoP have the legal authority to marry people, but no one is required to actually do it, it is like a side job. I was married by a judge, the first one I called didn't perform any marriages.
It's not that you're not allowed to discriminate: you are. But you can not discriminate based on illegal grounds.
In this instance: you can discriminate because you don't do weddings, or you don't work weekends, or only if you get paid a certain amount. But discrimination based on certain criteria, like race, would be prohibited.
Quote from: sbr on October 15, 2009, 09:50:43 PM
Seems a non story to me. He refuses to marry any mixed race couples and there are other Justices of the Peace in the parish who can do the same job, at very likely the same price. :shrug:
The reason it's news is that it's shocking to many people that someone in a position of authority like that would choose to deny a license on those grounds. It's 2009, not 1949. Whether or not he *can* choose to deny a license on those grounds is immaterial to the value of the incident as a news story.
There's no legitimate statistics that say what percentage is gay versus straight, so I went with the number I hear most often thrown around. Plus, I like nice even numbers and 10% is that. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 10:12:40 PM
There's no legitimate statistics that say what percentage is gay versus straight, so I went with the number I hear most often thrown around. Plus, I like nice even numbers and 10% is that. :)
It is Alfred Kinsey who came up with the 10% by conducting a "study" which consisted of interviewing his friends. The only thing he proved was that he had a lot of gay friends. The 10% is thrown around by the gay lobby a lot because they of course want to inflate their importance.
From surveys I've seen the percentage is 2-4%, depending on how you ask the question (about 2% outright admit in being gay, while another 2% claim to be bisexual or having "experimented" wirh gay sex).
Quote from: sbr on October 15, 2009, 10:00:45 PM
I must have missed that in the article, I will go back and re-read it. Since he mentioned that he has done this previously, and there are other JoP in the parish who can sign the license I assumed it was legal.
You could make a racial discrimination case because he opened his big fat mouth; he admitted he made it a policy to render inequal service with racial considerations. That was outlawed in
Loving v. Virginia.
As to the gay marriage question, I think Loving v. Virginia should be cited- if the state can't legislate the
races party to a marriage, then it shouldn't be able to legislate the
genders party to a marriage.
10% :rolleyes:
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 15, 2009, 10:18:02 PM
It is Alfred Kinsey who came up with the 10% by conducting a "study" which consisted of interviewing his friends. The only thing he proved was that he had a lot of gay friends. The 10% is thrown around by the gay lobby a lot because they of course want to inflate their importance.
From surveys I've seen the percentage is 2-4%, depending on how you ask the question (about 2% outright admit in being gay, while another 2% claim to be bisexual or having "experimented" wirh gay sex).
According this this report, an estimate of 5% is closest:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000491_gl_partner_households.pdf (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000491_gl_partner_households.pdf)
And there are quite a few other studies that range from 4% to 13% based on a quick check on Google. (Based on numbers alone on the 2000 Census, the number would be 4%, though, as you said, the way the question was worded was fairly confusing.)
And I did say roughly. :mad:
5% is not roughly 10%. :P
When I read the thread title I was OUTRAGEDTM. After the first sentence I was all fired up and ready to call him out as a bigot and racist and DEMAND EQUALITY.
Then I finished the article and saw that he had refused to sign marriage licenses before, and the couple was married by another JoP, in the same parish, for the same price, and very likely on the same weekend they had intended in the first place. While I am not arguing the law, this just seems much ado about nothing.
I am white, grew up in the suburbs, and was raised in a very upper middle-class home. I am about the least oppressed person you will ever meet, I also despise racists and bigots of any sort. To me this seems like one of those occasional instances of "racial injustice" that is going to be blown up into more than it really deserves; every time the race card is played out of turn it devalues it the next time a legitimate injustice happens.
Quote from: Slargos on October 15, 2009, 08:23:56 PM
Regardless, that someone should follow their moral conviction instead of pandering to vociferous whining is an outrage. :mad:
Moral conviction? How can you have a moral conviction that Americans of different "races" shouldn't intermingle when we've been intermingling since the beginning?
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 09:17:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 08:42:27 PM
This is obviously bullshit as gays can't marry. Stupid comment to make by the ACLU.
FWIW the ACLU (to which I donate :cool: ) is a strong supporter of gay marriage equality and of gay rights in general.
Tell them to stop ignoring the 2nd Amendment at your next meeting :angry:
This is in fact not "NOTHING".
Because I can walk across the street and buy groceries in another store doesn't justify the first to put up a "No niggers" sign.
He needs to lose his position and be made an example of. There is no need to destroy the man personally but there is no room in America for racist filth like this to be in positions of power with authority over other peoples lives.
The man stood on his principles. He is obstructing nobody; I find it admirable.
But then, I would. I dont automatically assume someone having opinions on race other than radical egalitarianism makes them a monster.
Quote from: sbr on October 15, 2009, 10:28:39 PM
When I read the thread title I was OUTRAGEDTM. After the first sentence I was all fired up and ready to call him out as a bigot and racist and DEMAND EQUALITY.
Then I finished the article and saw that he had refused to sign marriage licenses before, and the couple was married by another JoP, in the same parish, for the same price, and very likely on the same weekend they had intended in the first place. While I am not arguing the law, this just seems much ado about nothing.
I am white, grew up in the suburbs, and was raised in a very upper middle-class home. I am about the least oppressed person you will ever meet, I also despise racists and bigots of any sort. To me this seems like one of those occasional instances of "racial injustice" that is going to be blown up into more than it really deserves; every time the race card is played out of turn it devalues it the next time a legitimate injustice happens.
That is totally true, since he has done it many times = NOT A PROBLEM!
Quote from: dumbfuckBut then, I would. I dont automatically assume someone having opinions on race other than radical egalitarianism makes them a monster.
I think of them like the religious, its cute that they have such wild imaginations. :)
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 15, 2009, 10:32:52 PM
The man stood on his principles. He is obstructing nobody; I find it admirable.
But then, I would. I dont automatically assume someone having opinions on race other than radical egalitarianism makes them a monster.
There is nothing admirable about this, retard. He IS obstructing somebody, the article made that clear enough. Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions about race. If it bothers you so much, don't date or marry outside your own. You can absolutely NOT prevent others from doing so based on YOUR convictions. The fact I'm even having to argue this with you guys is really disgusting.
That's it. It is time to blow up Louisiana. Then California.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 10:31:57 PM
Tell them to stop ignoring the 2nd Amendment at your next meeting :angry:
This is the only item on their platform that angers me. I'm not a fan of their affirmative action stance but it doesn't bother me as much.
Quote from: Jaron on October 15, 2009, 10:32:05 PM
This is in fact not "NOTHING".
Because I can walk across the street and buy groceries in another store doesn't justify the first to put up a "No niggers" sign.
He needs to lose his position and be made an example of. There is no need to destroy the man personally but there is no room in America for racist filth like this to be in positions of power with authority over other peoples lives.
I agree with this :yes:
Interesting that the judge would make this argument in the year that the first "mixed-race" President was inaugurated.
Obama needs to have Bardwell, Humphrey, and McKay come to the White House for a beer. That should get him the NPP for next year as well.
Ah, nice. Just when all this shit about homos is taking the limelight out comes a good old fashioned racist. Gotta love a return to the old school.
If it were actually that anyway.
Quote"I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Some kind of weird gay mormon orgy cult? :unsure:
The "they use my bathroom" quip is very odd and suggests that to me that he thinks black people are dirty, e.g. "I love Jews! I have oodles of Jewish friends and THEY ARE DEFINITELY NOT EVIL GREEDY DEMONS! :shifty:"
I don't see how this could be construed as discrimination, but failure to grant gay marriages isn't. After all, white and black people are free to marry anyone they want - as long as they are of the same race. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 10:08:08 PM
It's not that you're not allowed to discriminate: you are. But you can not discriminate based on illegal grounds.
In this instance: you can discriminate because you don't do weddings, or you don't work weekends, or only if you get paid a certain amount. But discrimination based on certain criteria, like race, would be prohibited.
What if you're religion opposed interacial marriages?
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2009, 10:23:13 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 15, 2009, 10:18:02 PM
From surveys I've seen the percentage is 2-4%, depending on how you ask the question (about 2% outright admit in being gay, while another 2% claim to be bisexual or having "experimented" wirh gay sex).
According this this report, an estimate of 5% is closest:
4% reported being "gay, lesbian, or bisexual" in CNN's presidential exit polls in 2008 and 2004 (and 2000, but that link is down now).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
I think this is an interesting lower bound, since it wouldn't catch the severely closeted, and assume the real number is something in the 4-8% range.
This is a license, though, not performing a marriage. Of course, this is Napoleonic Code (LA TM) so YMMV. Fucking Napoleon.
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
This is a license, though, not performing a marriage. Of course, this is Napoleonic Code (LA TM) so YMMV. Fucking Napoleon.
True, but it's questionable whether as a representative of the court, he had the right to withhold the service. Once he gave the rationale, all I can think of is that he should have kept his damn mouth shut.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:46:54 AM
4% reported being "gay, lesbian, or bisexual" in CNN's presidential exit polls in 2008 and 2004 (and 2000, but that link is down now).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
I think this is an interesting lower bound, since it wouldn't catch the severely closeted, and assume the real number is something in the 4-8% range.
That's assuming gays vote in the same proportion as the general population. I tend to think they're overrepresented in the voting population.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 07:16:39 AM
I don't see how this could be construed as discrimination, but failure to grant gay marriages isn't. After all, white and black people are free to marry anyone they want - as long as they are of the same race. :cool:
That marriage is a man and a woman is a fundamental law.
That mixing the races is bad is hidden in some retarded part of the bible if it exists (probally does...i'm sure I remember some weird quote)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 08:54:56 AM
That's assuming gays vote in the same proportion as the general population. I tend to think they're overrepresented in the voting population.
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 08:54:56 AM
That's assuming gays vote in the same proportion as the general population. I tend to think they're overrepresented in the voting population.
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
Agreed. Also, it seems like there's a lot of pessimism and cynicism still with respect to gays "outing" themselves to the general public, so I'd lean towards underrepresentation as well.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
You think gays vote less frequently than straights? Gays are more educated, which correlates with voting, and more politicized, which correlates with voting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:06:21 AM
You think gays vote less frequently than straights? Gays are more educated, which correlates with voting, and more politicized, which correlates with voting.
More politicized, but that doesn't necessarily indicate more sense of political efficacy.
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 08:57:04 AM
That marriage is a man and a woman is a fundamental law.
That mixing the races is bad is hidden in some retarded part of the bible if it exists (probally does...i'm sure I remember some weird quote)
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
I am curious, though. What if your religion did see interracial marriage as sinful?
I'm thinking of that University which banned interracial dating until fairly recently on religious grounds, and was denied federal funding as a consequence.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 09:14:09 AM
I am curious, though. What if your religion did see interracial marriage as sinful?
I'm thinking of that University which banned interracial dating until fairly recently on religious grounds, and was denied federal funding as a consequence.
Religious freedom is guaranteed only so far as it doesn't interfere with other rights granted, and is by no means universal: see restrictions on animal sacrifices.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:06:21 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
You think gays vote less frequently than straights? Gays are more educated, which correlates with voting, and more politicized, which correlates with voting.
Out gays are generally younger than the general population, which correlates negatively with voting and more cynical, which correlates negatively with voting. And then there's the impact of the clubbing lifestyle.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:06:21 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
You think gays vote less frequently than straights? Gays are more educated, which correlates with voting, and more politicized, which correlates with voting.
Out gays are generally younger than the general population, which correlates negatively with voting and more cynical, which correlates negatively with voting. And then there's the impact of the clubbing lifestyle.
Which is?
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 10:06:28 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 09:50:22 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:06:21 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
You think gays vote less frequently than straights? Gays are more educated, which correlates with voting, and more politicized, which correlates with voting.
Out gays are generally younger than the general population, which correlates negatively with voting and more cynical, which correlates negatively with voting. And then there's the impact of the clubbing lifestyle.
Which is?
Negative towards voting.
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
This is a license, though, not performing a marriage. Of course, this is Napoleonic Code (LA TM) so YMMV. Fucking Napoleon.
Regardless of the content of state law, a state official can't act in violation of the federal constitution. Hurray for the 14th Amendment.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2009, 10:18:17 AM
Quote from: Scipio on October 16, 2009, 08:48:52 AM
This is a license, though, not performing a marriage. Of course, this is Napoleonic Code (LA TM) so YMMV. Fucking Napoleon.
Regardless of the content of state law, a state official can't act in violation of the federal constitution. Hurray for the 14th Amendment.
Yes, I know. My point is, that he is not obligated to perform marriages; however, he cannot deny them a marriage license.
Sounds like a lot of us are arguing the same side; it's possible his office has enough authority to withhold service on an assumption made in good faith, but his rationale is certainly not one; even if you accept his concern to be about child welfare rather than race (which it's not, since his assumption is based on the ethnicity of the possible offspring), a quick glance at the breakdown of Louisiana courts shows that that's outside his purview.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 07:56:13 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 10:08:08 PM
It's not that you're not allowed to discriminate: you are. But you can not discriminate based on illegal grounds.
In this instance: you can discriminate because you don't do weddings, or you don't work weekends, or only if you get paid a certain amount. But discrimination based on certain criteria, like race, would be prohibited.
What if you're religion opposed interacial marriages?
Are there any credible religions that oppose interacial marriages?
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 07:56:13 AM
What if you're religion opposed interacial marriages?
Are there any credible religions that oppose interacial marriages?
Besides one has bigger issues to think about if one is a religion.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:01:49 AM
Are there any credible religions that oppose interacial marriages?
Bob Jones University, which is I think Baptist affiliated, until recently didn't permit interracial dating.
Mormons until a few decades back didn't ordain blacks, which is kind of related.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 11:16:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:01:49 AM
Are there any credible religions that oppose interacial marriages?
Bob Jones University, which is I think Baptist affiliated, until recently didn't permit interracial dating.
Mormons until a few decades back didn't ordain blacks, which is kind of related.
I had the mormons in mind when I wrote that, knowing they'd changed that policy 30 years ago.
Are there any credible religions left that don't permit mixed-dating?
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 11:17:38 AM
Are there any credible religions left that don't permit mixed-dating?
Pretty sure there aren't any that would revoke church membership over it.
The Mormon church frowns upon it. Remember that only 30 years ago blacks weren't allowed in heaven by their rules.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2009, 09:06:21 AM
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 08:58:13 AM
Yes, plus assuming voting gays answer exit polls in the same proportion as the voting population. I tend to think they are underrepresented in the voting population (supported by Meri's 5% stat), but YMMV.
You think gays vote less frequently than straights? Gays are more educated, which correlates with voting, and more politicized, which correlates with voting.
Open, out-of-closet vocal gays are more educated because their educated non-homosexual peers are usually more open-minded, tolerant and accepting.
However, this certainly does not mean gays are more educated than the general populace.
In fact, I would say that considering difficulties gay kids face (social ostracism, family rejection, lack of access to religious education, tendency towards depression as a result of the above, tendency towards drugs due to some negative aspects of gay clubbing culture, lack of inter-generational support, until recently lack of positive adult role models etc.), gay kids are more likely to drop out of high school or college than heterosexual kids of the otherwise similar social background. In a way it's like being a black ghetto kid but it cuts across the entire social spectrum and is often excerbated by negative messages from the family, the churches and the government.
Such people rarely vote. They are disfranchised, usually end up being part of some social outcast group (sex workers for example).
This is especially pronounced among non-white populations, where stigma against being gay is extremely strong. In fact it has been suggested that the higher rates of HIV among heterosexual black women is partially due do the fact that many homosexual black men actually take wives because of social ostracism, and their male-to-male sexual encounters are done in risky environments (for example without proper protection), partially due to internalised homophobia.
Quote from: Jaron on October 15, 2009, 10:34:59 PM
There is nothing admirable about this, retard. He IS obstructing somebody, the article made that clear enough. Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions about race. If it bothers you so much, don't date or marry outside your own. You can absolutely NOT prevent others from doing so based on YOUR convictions. The fact I'm even having to argue this with you guys is really disgusting.
Lettow and _____?
QuoteHowever, this certainly does not mean gays are more educated than the general populace.
In fact, I would say that considering difficulties gay kids face (social ostracism, family rejection, lack of access to religious education, tendency towards depression as a result of the above, tendency towards drugs due to some negative aspects of gay clubbing culture, lack of inter-generational support, until recently lack of positive adult role models etc.), gay kids are more likely to drop out of high school or college than heterosexual kids of the otherwise similar social background. In a way it's like being a black ghetto kid but it cuts across the entire social spectrum and is often excerbated by negative messages from the family, the churches and the government.
I dunno, I would very much tend towards the side that gays are more educated on average.
If you're different and ostrasized from your peers then you will try harder at school. There's no temptations of playing football all night and trying to get a girl. Just school and hope things are better in the future.
Also I'd guess it depends how you're defining gay. Those from less good backgrounds who are actually gay I'd say would be more likely to see it as there being something wrong with them and gay being bad and all that and so force themselves into living straight.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 09:13:52 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 08:57:04 AM
That marriage is a man and a woman is a fundamental law.
That mixing the races is bad is hidden in some retarded part of the bible if it exists (probally does...i'm sure I remember some weird quote)
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Checking up with google I can't find anything against it in the bible actually. The only bits are about Jews not marrying foreigners and that's due to religious reasons.
Though I would assume some religious nutters making that argument.
If God didn't want us to mix he wouldn't make black people's naught bits work well with white people's. :p
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 12:12:31 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 09:13:52 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 08:57:04 AM
That marriage is a man and a woman is a fundamental law.
That mixing the races is bad is hidden in some retarded part of the bible if it exists (probally does...i'm sure I remember some weird quote)
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Checking up with google I can't find anything against it in the bible actually. The only bits are about Jews not marrying foreigners and that's due to religious reasons.
Though I would assume some religious nutters making that argument.
If God didn't want us to mix he wouldn't make black people's naught bits work well with white people's. :p
Show me the part in the Bible where it says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 08:57:04 AM
That marriage is a man and a woman is a fundamental law.
That mixing the races is bad is hidden in some retarded part of the bible if it exists (probally does...i'm sure I remember some weird quote)
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
[/quote]
Checking up with google I can't find anything against it in the bible actually. The only bits are about Jews not marrying foreigners and that's due to religious reasons.
Though I would assume some religious nutters making that argument.
If God didn't want us to mix he wouldn't make black people's naught bits work well with white people's. :p
[/quote]
Sorry, it's from the trial court in
Loving v. Virginia.
http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-Bible.html)
I don't want to go to some external site. Post the fucking quote that says it. I don't want an elaborate interpretation of cryptic verses - because the same could be made to justify a ban of interracial marriage.
Show me the line in the Bible that says precisely that marriage is between a man and a woman.
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Show me the line in the Bible that says precisely that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I can't personally tell you if there is such a quote, but even if there is not, the Bible seems to strongly imply that sodomy is an abomination (re: Sodom and Gomorrah), so if you assume that sodomy = gay sex then God seems to enjoy killing sodomites. I suppose a Christian would therefore conclude people should not enter into same-sex sexual relationships (or at least male-male relationships), and by extension marriages, since one assumes most married people enjoy sexual relations with one another.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:24:34 PM
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)
I'm not overly comfortable with using Leviticus as your source, since it's superseded by the New Testament and also requires us to abandon shrimp and mixed fiber clothing. You're better checking in with Romans and Corinthians.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:24:34 PM
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)
Heh, as I've noted before, the funny part is that lesbian sex/marriage appears Biblically okay.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 12:29:18 PM
Heh, as I've noted before, the funny part is that lesbian sex/marriage appears Biblically okay.
There are some Orthodox rabbis who agree with this, actually.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Show me the line in the Bible that says precisely that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I can't personally tell you if there is such a quote, but even if there is not, the Bible seems to strongly imply that sodomy is an abomination (re: Sodom and Gomorrah), so if you assume that sodomy = gay sex then God seems to enjoy killing sodomites. I suppose a Christian would therefore conclude people should not enter into same-sex sexual relationships (or at least male-male relationships), and by extension marriages, since one assumes most married people enjoy sexual relations with one another.
Oddly, it would appear that only specifically
gay male anal sex is an "abomination". Martinus is in the clear, Bible-wise. :D
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:24:34 PM
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)
"You shall instead marry a woman and continue to lie with you male associates while pretending you're not"
A behavior one can observe to this day. In fact I had a stint with a arab once - under the watchful eyes of the picture of his bride to be.
Hmmm I wonder if arabs would be so hot in bed if they weren't so repressed sexually?
G.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Show me the line in the Bible that says precisely that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I can't personally tell you if there is such a quote, but even if there is not, the Bible seems to strongly imply that sodomy is an abomination (re: Sodom and Gomorrah), so if you assume that sodomy = gay sex then God seems to enjoy killing sodomites. I suppose a Christian would therefore conclude people should not enter into same-sex sexual relationships (or at least male-male relationships), and by extension marriages, since one assumes most married people enjoy sexual relations with one another.
Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah is about sodomites who also happen to want to rape sacred guests/angels of God, but settle for virgin girls (some sodomites they are!) (who, incidentally, then go on and get their father drunk, and have children with him).
So there could be an element there that is not simply reduced to "fucking other guys". ;)
After all, the God also seems to have a personal vendetta against Canaanites and Philistines - but noone suggests that it is against the Bible to marry a Canaanite or a Philistine (even though marrying a Philistine could be horrible if one has a taste for finer arts, I suppose).
The pronunciations against sodomy in Leviticus really talk about "lying with another man like you lie with a woman", so it could be just a condemnation of a specific type of sex, rather than any male-to-male sexual relationships. And again, the penalty for that is the same as for mixing fabrics or eating shellfish - I don't see anyone arguing that shrimp cocktails are out of question at Christian weddings, or that a bride wearing a silk-and-velvet gown should be stoned to death on the steps of the holy church.
And St. Paul had a thing mainly against effeminate men - but also against various other groups, including drunks, gamblers, and female teachers. I guess that rules out Vegas weddings, among others, too.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 12:29:18 PM
Heh, as I've noted before, the funny part is that lesbian sex/marriage appears Biblically okay.
There are some Orthodox rabbis who agree with this, actually.
I know - bless their literalist hearts. ;)
Gay female sex is the (much lesser) category of "lewd behavior" exactly *because*, until recently at least, women can't marry each other. It's in the same category as unmarried men & women having sex.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 12:31:03 PM
"You shall instead marry a woman and continue to lie with you male associates while pretending you're not"
You could also be celibate. It's a tough burden, sure, but compared to people walking around with cystic fibrosis as their burden from God it's not an insurmountable one.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
I'm not overly comfortable with using Leviticus as your source, since it's superseded by the New Testament and also requires us to abandon shrimp and mixed fiber clothing. You're better checking in with Romans and Corinthians.
OT is superseded in the sense of temple practices, removal of dietary laws, and removal of violent enforcement of religious laws; most of what's a sin in the OT is still a sin in the NT; you just get the option of praying for forgiveness instead of having big fucking rocks thrown at you.
However, in the interest of showing that homosexuality is still verbot:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." (Rom. 1:26-28)
BTW, those two passages condemn lesbianism as well. As an atheist, I think they're bullshit, but I'm just making you aware of them.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:24:34 PM
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)
Where does it say anything about marriage? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:33:43 PM
Where does it say anything about marriage? :huh:
Biblical marriage has to be consummated with sex. If you can't consummate the marriage, there is no marriage.
Back on topic, the site I linked earlier has this to say about interracial marriage-
Question: "What does the Bible say about interracial marriage?"
Answer: The Old Testament Law commanded the Israelites not to engage in interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). However, the reason for this was not primarily racial in nature. Rather, it was religious. The reason God commanded against interracial marriage was that people of other races were idolaters and worshippers of false gods. The Israelites would be led astray from God if they intermarried with idol worshippers, pagans, or heathens. A similar principle is laid out in the New Testament, but at a much different level: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). Just as the Israelites (believers in the one true God) were commanded not to marry idolaters, so Christians (believers in the one true God) are commanded not to marry unbelievers. To answer this question specifically, no, the Bible does not say that interracial marriage is wrong.
As Martin Luther King noted, a person should be judged by his or her character, not by skin color. There is no place in the life of the Christian for favoritism based on race (James 2:1-10). When selecting a mate, a Christian should always first find out if the potential spouse is born again by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:3-5). Faith in Christ, not skin color, is the biblical standard for choosing a spouse. Interracial marriage is not a matter of right or wrong, but of wisdom, discernment, and prayer.
The only reason interracial marriage should be considered carefully is the difficulties a mixed-race couple may experience because of others who have a hard time accepting them. Many interracial couples experience discrimination and ridicule, sometimes even from their own families. Some interracial couples experience difficulties when their children have skin tones of different shades from the parents and/or siblings. An interracial couple needs to take these things into consideration and be prepared for them, should they decide to marry. Again, though, the only biblical restriction placed on whom a Christian may marry is whether the other person is a member of the body of Christ.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:33:12 PM
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
BTW, those two passages condemn lesbianism as well. As an atheist, I think they're bullshit, but I'm just making you aware of them.
I am aware of them; hence I referred to Corinthians as the better source.
Though I'm more inclined to support the idea that the word homosexual doesn't make sense in the context of Paul's Letter to the Corinthians, given the city's status as a center of ritual prositution and sexual mores at the time. Not to say he'd have approved of it, but it's not quite so simple.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 12:30:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Show me the line in the Bible that says precisely that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I can't personally tell you if there is such a quote, but even if there is not, the Bible seems to strongly imply that sodomy is an abomination (re: Sodom and Gomorrah), so if you assume that sodomy = gay sex then God seems to enjoy killing sodomites. I suppose a Christian would therefore conclude people should not enter into same-sex sexual relationships (or at least male-male relationships), and by extension marriages, since one assumes most married people enjoy sexual relations with one another.
Oddly, it would appear that only specifically gay male anal sex is an "abomination". Martinus is in the clear, Bible-wise. :D
Not only that, but male-to-male foot fetish has a Biblical precedent. :P
In the catholic church, they actually go as far as to include foot kissing during the Maundy Thursday foot washing ritual.
Just saying. :goodboy:
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:31:28 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 12:24:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Show me the line in the Bible that says precisely that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I can't personally tell you if there is such a quote, but even if there is not, the Bible seems to strongly imply that sodomy is an abomination (re: Sodom and Gomorrah), so if you assume that sodomy = gay sex then God seems to enjoy killing sodomites. I suppose a Christian would therefore conclude people should not enter into same-sex sexual relationships (or at least male-male relationships), and by extension marriages, since one assumes most married people enjoy sexual relations with one another.
Actually, Sodom and Gomorrah is about sodomites who also happen to want to rape sacred guests/angels of God, but settle for virgin girls (some sodomites they are!) (who, incidentally, then go on and get their father drunk, and have children with him).
So there could be an element there that is not simply reduced to "fucking other guys". ;)
Yeah tyhe sin of Sodom was "raping strangers" - though that was really just an *example* of their overall depravity, which presumably expressed itself in lots of other ways -- the notion was that these dudes were so evil, they would even rape people accepted as guests (harming guests is the ultimate taboo in ME society, worse than almost any other crime - which is why Lot takes the to-us horrible step of offering his daughters in their place - showing what a righteous fellow he was: daughters were a particularly valuable species of property in that culture, so the message was "I'm willing to have my most valuable property damaged, rather than break the custom of hospitality").
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 12:36:39 PM
Back on topic, the site I linked earlier has this to say about interracial marriage-
I am not overly impressed with this. Of course people don't think the Bible opposes interracial marriage now. But if you go back to the 1950s and 1960s, people did believe the Bible opposed interracial marriage; a gallup poll from 1962 showed that 1/3 of southerners believed the Bible indicated God wanted the races to remain seperate, frex.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:14:34 PM
Show me the part in the Bible where it says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Quote from: 1 Corinthians 7:2
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:33:12 PM
... the men ... burned in their desire toward one another..." (Rom. 1:26-28)
*sigh* Such a burning is worth any label of depravity :wub:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 16, 2009, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:24:34 PM
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Lev 20:13)
"You shall instead marry a woman and continue to lie with you male associates while pretending you're not"
A behavior one can observe to this day. In fact I had a stint with a arab once - under the watchful eyes of the picture of his bride to be.
Hmmm I wonder if arabs would be so hot in bed if they weren't so repressed sexually?
G.
It's not just Arabs. I have had sex with married Polish men as well. Poland is funnily like a Catholic Saudi Arabia. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 12:34:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:33:43 PM
Where does it say anything about marriage? :huh:
Biblical marriage has to be consummated with sex. If you can't consummate the marriage, there is no marriage.
What if you give each others blowjobs and handjobs? Bible doesn't ban THAT. :P
Anyway, this discussion does make me amused about how quickly Baptists and Presbyterians have forgotten their own role in promoting marriage equality in America's disestablishment movement during and after the Revolution.
In fact I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed analysis saying to what degree God disapproves, of, say, frottage, dick docking or tea bagging.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:44:32 PM
In fact I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed analysis saying to what degree God disapproves, of, say, frottage, dick docking or tea bagging.
Not a fan, TBH.
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 12:45:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:44:32 PM
In fact I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed analysis saying to what degree God disapproves, of, say, frottage, dick docking or tea bagging.
Not a fan, TBH.
I haven't tried dick docking - just read about it recently (in the context of discussing STD risks) and thought it rather weird. :P
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 12:40:02 PM
I am not overly impressed with this. Of course people don't think the Bible opposes interracial marriage now. But if you go back to the 1950s and 1960s, people did believe the Bible opposed interracial marriage; a gallup poll from 1962 showed that 1/3 of southerners believed the Bible indicated God wanted the races to remain seperate, frex.
I wasn't trying to impress you. :lol:
This line in particular " Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" could easily be read from a racialist pov as a condemnation of inter-marriage. Still, that's a heck of a lot more cryptic than the assumptions on gender any time marriage was mentioned.
What is dick docking?
Wow, who'd have though the subject of this thread would turn into one about the intricacies of homosexual sex?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 12:48:29 PM
This line in particular " Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" could easily be read from a racialist pov as a condemnation of inter-marriage. Still, that's a heck of a lot more cryptic than the assumptions on gender any time marriage was mentioned.
Again, I have not combed through Biblical interpretations by southern segregationists, so I do not know where they draw their inspiration from. But I'm not going to rush to say "Ahah, they were wrong, wereas we are clearly right!" given the role of religion in Southern support for racism, from slavery to opposition to interracial marriage.
(And yes, religion also played a role in combating such feelings).
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:31:28 PM
And St. Paul had a thing mainly against effeminate men - but also against various other groups, including drunks, gamblers, and female teachers. I guess that rules out Vegas weddings, among others, too.
You know what's fun? When some religious nutter woman starts dropping bible stuff on you, start quoting St. Paul. Get's them everytime. Who is she to tell a man who he can fuck or not fuck? It says it right here in I Timothy!
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2009, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:31:28 PM
And St. Paul had a thing mainly against effeminate men - but also against various other groups, including drunks, gamblers, and female teachers. I guess that rules out Vegas weddings, among others, too.
You know what's fun? When some religious nutter woman starts dropping bible stuff on you, start quoting St. Paul. Get's them everytime. Who is she to tell a man who he can fuck or not fuck? It says it right here in I Timothy!
'Yeah I put my dick in that other mans arse but who are you to teach me that's wrong? Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!'
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:44:32 PM
In fact I would like to see a comprehensive and detailed analysis saying to what degree God disapproves, of, say, frottage, dick docking or tea bagging.
"You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye - even if it is your good eye - causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your hand - even if it is your stronger hand - causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
It sounds like God is into masochism to me.
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 12:57:13 PM
'Yeah I put my dick in that other mans arse but who are you to teach me that's wrong? Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!'
But make sure she makes the sandwich in quiet subjection.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2009, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:14:34 PM
Show me the part in the Bible where it says marriage is between a man and a woman.
Quote from: 1 Corinthians 7:2
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
Yes; the purpose here is to avoid "fornication". Isn't that an argument in favour of gay marriage? It "avoids fornication" just as much as straight marriage does. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:43:19 PM
What if you give each others blowjobs and handjobs? Bible doesn't ban THAT. :P
Onanism; why the Catholic church is anti-contraceptives. If the "seed" goes anywhere other than into a vagina, it's considered a sin.
isn't that against your constitution?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:43:19 PM
What if you give each others blowjobs and handjobs? Bible doesn't ban THAT. :P
Onanism; why the Catholic church is anti-contraceptives. If the "seed" goes anywhere other than into a vagina, it's considered a sin.
Yeah who was the guy God killed in the OT for spilling his seed on the ground?
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on October 16, 2009, 01:01:38 PM
isn't that against your constitution?
The Constitution makes no mention of our seed.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2009, 01:02:02 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
Onanism; why the Catholic church is anti-contraceptives. If the "seed" goes anywhere other than into a vagina, it's considered a sin.
Yeah who was the guy God killed in the OT for spilling his seed on the ground?
Onan. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 01:02:55 PM
Onan. :P
But maybe poor Onan just wanted to start a sperm farm. :(
Quote from: Faeelin on October 16, 2009, 12:53:06 PM
Again, I have not combed through Biblical interpretations by southern segregationists, so I do not know where they draw their inspiration from. But I'm not going to rush to say "Ahah, they were wrong, wereas we are clearly right!" given the role of religion in Southern support for racism, from slavery to opposition to interracial marriage.
(And yes, religion also played a role in combating such feelings).
Indeed. Religion tends to be rather pliable in serving the needs of society rather than the other way around.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:43:19 PM
What if you give each others blowjobs and handjobs? Bible doesn't ban THAT. :P
Onanism; why the Catholic church is anti-contraceptives. If the "seed" goes anywhere other than into a vagina, it's considered a sin.
A misunderstanding of the story of Onan. He was blasted for "spilling his seed" not because contraception is always wrong, but because he was deliberately screwing his wife (no pun intended) out of her inheritance by doing this.
Onan's wife was the widow of Onan's brother. Under Hebrew tribal law, she only gets an inheritance from the family if she has a kid - which is why they were forced by the Tribe to get married; any kids they have will be legally considered the children of his dead brother. Onan fucks her but spills the seed on the ground - so that all of the tribal wealth will go to *his* "legal" children; she will get *nothing*. God sees his mean-ness and crisps him like he deserves.
Centuries of the ignorant have interpreted this to mean "no mastrubating". Dead wrong! :lol:
Edit: the term is "levirate marriage":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 16, 2009, 01:05:18 PM
Indeed. Religion tends to be rather pliable in serving the needs of society rather than the other way around.
It does, especially considering the difficulties and (necessary) flexibility of translation from Aramaic and ancient Hebrew to English. Family history is that one of the NIV translators used to be a dinner guest of my grandparents'- family legend is that he explained one night that several of them were getting fed up and totally disenfranchised because they couldn't be sure exactly what the scripture they were translating said and had serious doubts about basic doctrines coming out of nearby Westminster Seminary.
Onan the Destroyer :o
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 01:10:13 PM
A misunderstanding of the story of Onan. He was blasted for "spilling his seed" not because contraception is always wrong, but because he was deliberately screwing his wife (no pun intended) out of her inheritance by doing this.
Onan's wife was the widow of Onan's brother. Under Hebrew tribal law, she only gets an inheritance from the family if she has a kid - which is why they were forced by the Tribe to get married; any kids they have will be legally considered the children of his dead brother. Onan fucks her but spills the seed on the ground - so that all of the tribal wealth will go to *his* "legal" children; she will get *nothing*. God sees his mean-ness and crisps him like he deserves.
Centuries of the ignorant have interpreted this to mean "no mastrubating". Dead wrong! :lol:
But what it actually does mean is much worse- no jobs of any kind, anal or condoms :(
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 01:10:13 PM
A misunderstanding of the story of Onan. He was blasted for "spilling his seed" not because contraception is always wrong, but because he was deliberately screwing his wife (no pun intended) out of her inheritance by doing this.
Onan's wife was the widow of Onan's brother. Under Hebrew tribal law, she only gets an inheritance from the family if she has a kid - which is why they were forced by the Tribe to get married; any kids they have will be legally considered the children of his dead brother. Onan fucks her but spills the seed on the ground - so that all of the tribal wealth will go to *his* "legal" children; she will get *nothing*. God sees his mean-ness and crisps him like he deserves.
Centuries of the ignorant have interpreted this to mean "no mastrubating". Dead wrong! :lol:
Willfully ignorant. One of my beefs with the church is how it cherry-picks literal interpretation versus metaphor versus parable. Anyway, according to you at least, that only takes away one of a great many lightning strikes in store for me. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 01:14:29 PM
Willfully ignorant. One of my beefs with the church is how it cherry-picks literal interpretation versus metaphor versus parable. Anyway, according to you at least, that only takes away one of a great many lightning strikes in store for me. :P
Depends. Do you have a *hott* sister-in-law without kids, married to a brother with a weak ticker? :D
Quote from: Tyr on October 16, 2009, 01:12:56 PM
But what it actually does mean is much worse- no jobs of any kind, anal or condoms :(
No, it means "when you are forced to marry your sister in law to give her an heir ... ". It doesn't have any wider application, as far as I can see, on sexual practices at all.
I think this thread has moved me closer to the "Gays are horrible people" camp. Also, anyone who says "frottage" deserves a barrage of stones.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 01:28:32 PM
I think this thread has moved me closer to the "Gays are horrible people" camp. Also, anyone who says "frottage" deserves a barrage of stones.
Now now, this isn't all about the techniques. :P
G.
I would have thought you'd appreciate the Islamic imagery. :(
The main problem with this event is that the couple needed to go to some jerkwad justice of the peace to sanction their marriage in the first place.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2009, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:31:28 PM
And St. Paul had a thing mainly against effeminate men - but also against various other groups, including drunks, gamblers, and female teachers. I guess that rules out Vegas weddings, among others, too.
You know what's fun? When some religious nutter woman starts dropping bible stuff on you, start quoting St. Paul. Get's them everytime. Who is she to tell a man who he can fuck or not fuck? It says it right here in I Timothy!
I haven't thought of that. This is like the ultimate Ann Coulter/Sarah Palin rebuke.
I'm surprised so many evangelicals wanted to vote for a woman as a Vice-President. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 01:10:13 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 12:43:19 PM
What if you give each others blowjobs and handjobs? Bible doesn't ban THAT. :P
Onanism; why the Catholic church is anti-contraceptives. If the "seed" goes anywhere other than into a vagina, it's considered a sin.
A misunderstanding of the story of Onan. He was blasted for "spilling his seed" not because contraception is always wrong, but because he was deliberately screwing his wife (no pun intended) out of her inheritance by doing this.
Onan's wife was the widow of Onan's brother. Under Hebrew tribal law, she only gets an inheritance from the family if she has a kid - which is why they were forced by the Tribe to get married; any kids they have will be legally considered the children of his dead brother. Onan fucks her but spills the seed on the ground - so that all of the tribal wealth will go to *his* "legal" children; she will get *nothing*. God sees his mean-ness and crisps him like he deserves.
Centuries of the ignorant have interpreted this to mean "no mastrubating". Dead wrong! :lol:
Edit: the term is "levirate marriage":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage
Indeed. It's the same thing as with the sodomites.
It's one thing to base your morality on an interpretation of millennia-old fairy tales of illiterate tribesmen. It's another to base your morality on a
clearly wrong interpretation of these, however. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2009, 01:28:32 PM
I think this thread has moved me closer to the "Gays are horrible people" camp. Also, anyone who says "frottage" deserves a barrage of stones.
Anus horribilis? :P
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 03:40:56 PM
Indeed. It's the same thing as with the sodomites.
It's one thing to base your morality on an interpretation of millennia-old fairy tales of illiterate tribesmen. It's another to base your morality on a clearly wrong interpretation of these, however. :P
Heh too true. :D
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 03:38:14 PM
I haven't thought of that. This is like the ultimate Ann Coulter/Sarah Palin rebuke.
I'm surprised so many evangelicals wanted to vote for a woman as a Vice-President. :P
For people who demand everybody take the bible literally they freely ignore alot. Only people they do not like have to take the Bible literally.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2009, 04:43:45 PM
For people who demand everybody take the bible literally they freely ignore alot. Only people they do not like have to take the Bible literally.
And therein lies the ultimate hypocrisy of that lot; and why their arguments have to be dismissed out of hand. Anyone using God to bolster their favored position is suspect. As if what is transcendant could be circumscribed by mundane human considerations such as what to eat, what to drink and whom to sleep with. Pffff
G.
I didn't want to start a new thread, but this seemed relevant to the discussion, from the Episocopalian Bishop of Newark:
Quotehow the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant." I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement. I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves. I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.
I will particularly ignore those members of my own Episcopal Church who seek to break away from this body to form a "new church," claiming that this new and bigoted instrument alone now represents the Anglican Communion. Such a new ecclesiastical body is designed to allow these pathetic human beings, who are so deeply locked into a world that no longer exists, to form a community in which they can continue to hate gay people, distort gay people with their hopeless rhetoric and to be part of a religious fellowship in which they can continue to feel justified in their homophobic prejudices for the rest of their tortured lives. Church unity can never be a virtue that is preserved by allowing injustice, oppression and psychological tyranny to go unchallenged.
In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.
I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude. I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population. I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable.
http://secure.agoramedia.com/spong/34674.asp
Quote from: Faeelin on October 19, 2009, 10:42:01 AM
... The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves.
...
I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population...
A bold stance for a churchman. However what he claims in the first paragraph quoted is answered in the second one. There are entire populations who haven't move on to XXIst century post-modern ethics and who still listen to that kind of rethoric.
G.
Those aren't bold words for an Episcopalian.
Dunno if it's been mentioned yet but LA's Governor and Senators are all calling for the dude to get kicked out of his office.
Quote
In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.
But the reason we no longer debate the issues of slavery, or equal rights for women, is because we have genuinely reached a consensus on those points - and that consensus only took place 100 or more years after the debate started.
Like em or not, an awful lot of people in this world, and even in his own church, have not reached a consensus. So the tone of this little diatribe comes across as a schoolyard "well I'm going to take my ball and go home", rather than something noble.
10% :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:12:03 PM
Quote
In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by "fair-minded" channels that seek to give "both sides" of this issue "equal time." I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.
But the reason we no longer debate the issues of slavery, or equal rights for women, is because we have genuinely reached a consensus on those points - and that consensus only took place 100 or more years after the debate started.
Like em or not, an awful lot of people in this world, and even in his own church, have not reached a consensus. So the tone of this little diatribe comes across as a schoolyard "well I'm going to take my ball and go home", rather than something noble.
It is certainly true that there is no consensus among the people in the world as to the status of homosexuality - but then, there isn't one on the status of women, either.
There is however a consensus among first-world types on both issues. The one on women predates the one on homosexuals, which is of very recent vintage (for example, the consensus on women predates my memory - one of the reasons I have little in common with my aunt, who belongs to the earlier generation, when that consensus was a-forming - whereas the one on homosexuals has definitely developed within my memory).
Even our Conservative gov't has essentially thrown in the towel and called it a day on gay marriage. It is true that the US is lagging on this issue, but there is I think about as much possibility of gays "losing" acceptance in the rest of the West as of removing women's rights; and the momentum is definitely moving in the direction of greater acceptance in the US.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2009, 03:40:56 PM
Indeed. It's the same thing as with the sodomites.
It's one thing to base your morality on an interpretation of millennia-old fairy tales of illiterate tribesmen. It's another to base your morality on a clearly wrong interpretation of these, however. :P
A correct literal interpretation would have problems of its own. just different sorts of problems.
Anyways it is inevitable that people will always interpret texts, or any facts about the world, in accordance with their own contemporary concerns and prejudices. That is why the Catholic Church actually had a point when it resisted the notion that individual lay persons should be interpreting Scripture outside the guidance of the Church.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 19, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Dunno if it's been mentioned yet but LA's Governor and Senators are all calling for the dude to get kicked out of his office.
Yeah I can't imagine his schtick went over well with Bobby Jindal.