Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

Those two words are cherry-picked out of context, but I suppose that won't change your opinion of him in any case.

What about Jeb: Bush

Or Jeb, Bush

My favorite, Jeb~ Bush

Our Freedoms! demand sacrifices. Bloody human sacrifices. They're a sort of amalgamation of Elder Gods, if you must know.

Only if you ignore everyone else, Mr Gilbert.

Some people just need to be hit in the head with a jug of sweet tea.

Sure. We also don't drain people's blood with leeches today, but that used to be common medical practice. Societies change. Rules change. We keep the ones that make sense for society today, and abandon those that don't. Only those who try to argue that unless one follows every rule in the Bible, one must reject everything in the bible (and of course the far less common people who actually take up that strawman) seem to think differently.

The bible also says not to commit murder. So are you arguing that since we no longer follow the rules with regard to eating shellfish, or mixing fabrics, and whatnot, that we should automatically allow murder? Um... Of course not. There's nothing wrong with picking and choosing rules to follow that make sense and ignoring those that no longer do.



No. It doesn't. In the OT, it tells Jews not to marry non-Jews. But that's not so much about race, but religion and culture. The concern being that by marrying with people of different faiths and cultures, their own would be diluted and disappear. Remember that for them, the people and the religion were one and the same. Obviously, that is not true in the NT under Christianity (since the whole point is to spread the word to non-Jews). And, just as one might predict, the same prohibition exists warning against marrying non-Christians, for more or less the same reason (this time though, less about culture and more just about religion).

Nowhere does it say to marry or not marry based on the skin tone of the other person. That would be absurd under Christianity since those who were being converted came in all colors. I'm frankly not sure where you got this idea. It simply does not exist.

Edited, Oct 6th 2015 2:46pm by gbaji

EDIT: IrGUDqwoter

Edited, Oct 6th 2015 3:47pm by stupidmonkey

Believing that being gehy is an abomination makes sense in modern society...how?So you're an anarchist now?I know. I was just curious if you went to CCD as a kid.


Edited, Oct 6th 2015 6:21pm by Bijou

It does not. Little girls owning ponies isn't an abomination either, yet, amazingly, I oppose our government spending money to provide little girls with ponies. You do understand that there's a whole range of behavior between "oppose something" and "subsidize something", right?



Ok. Not "ignoring", so much as "changing". The point being that the bible is not a set of our laws here in the US. It's a set of laws that applied to the Jewish people about 2500 years ago. And while some of those rules may make sense to continue to follow, many do not. I'm not sure why some people have such a hard time with this.




I attended Catholic school for most of my K-12 education, so that would be a yes. I can also state that at no time did that education ever include the suggestion, much less statement, that the bible tells us that it's wrong to marry outside your own race.

Of course, you're free to read what the Catholic catechism has to say about it. There's like 6 pages on Marriage alone, and no mention of race at all. Heh. I do find the first page's statement interesting though (and maybe just one more source for "marriage is about procreation"):

Tax incentives for marriage. Gbaji does not mind paying for tax incentives to create stable families that will (likely) have children.

This is generally a flawed argument because same sex couples do adopt children and thus he is also paying for a stable marriage that may also have children. The rate for opposite sex families with children is around 40% and the rate for same-sex couples with children is around 20%. Same-sex couples face more barriers to having children; most must go through a lengthy application process in order to adopt, whereas opposite sex couple can quite literally acquire children accidentally. I believe a better route to subsidizing married families is either to attach the tax incentives to having children, or alternately, decrease the barrier to entry for same-sex couples acquiring children via adoption (although there are intrinsically more liability concerns with this method). In any event, if the child-rearing rates were similar or quite close for opposite sex and same sex married couples, there would no longer be an economic argument against same sex marriage.

gbaji didn't notice the smiley-face.

Stop being such a grouch, man!

I found the recent SCOTUS ruling more interesting but you take what you can get

Sure, as long as you don't pretend that you're following certain rules because of some higher authority said you had to with some dire consequence attached. It's the height of hypocricy to say you have to follow some rules because "God said so" yet ignore other rules even though the same source said it. Just man up and own up to it. I attended Catholic school too, and I can state as absolute fact that there's more in the Bible than what is taught to kids. Kind of like how more things happened in the world than what is taught during History classes. For one, just the fact you think there's a difference between Old and New Testament is evidence enough that you need a remedial course or two. Start with Matthew.