Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Homosexual Urban Legends...the series.

Homosexual Urban Legends...the series. (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 03:04 AM
 
Calm down. The button is almost pressed for you.
Hermaphrodites? The only time I ever head that was in a Rammstein song.
Very weird though.
     
dcolton  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 03:20 AM
 
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 04:00 AM
 
Looks like a great banner for NN.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 04:03 AM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I disagree. Marriage is an old institution, which has already been defined. It is a man and woman. They can have the legal (seeing someone in hospital), but they can't have marriage. Call it whatever the hell you want, it is no marriage.
Marriage is cultural, and for the longest time, was never involved in religion. Marriage was usually to provide a blessing on the union, until it became a tool to secure and increase the number of believers in competition of other Faiths; this is especially true of Christianity.

The thing that bother me is when I hear about massive sex parties where getting AIDS is like a battle-scar and even arousing. How can anyone do that?
Are all rumours true? Is it possible that a third party overheard someone letting go its wild imagination?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 04:05 AM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Marriage is cultural, and for the longest time, was never involved in religion.

Wait, just how long ago was the belief in a God and the bond between a man and a woman first started?
Oh wait, no one knows. No one will ever know. You cannot make such statements.

No one knows when "religion" started. No one knows when the belief of the God of Abraham first came about.

So to say that marriage was around before this, is being a bit dishonest.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 04:07 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Ah, the typical "If you have morals that says having sex with a man when you are a man is wrong, or you generally just feel homosexual sex is wrong, you MUST be insecure with your sexuality!

Because as everyone knows, you MUST accept homosexual sex to be secure in your sexuality!

Lerk, you've tried to spin this silly web before. You've been made fun of plenty of times for it. You'd think you'd know better by now. [/B]
Can you spin faster? Definetily.

Lerkfish refers to the ongoing responses of dcolton being always descriptive of specific acts of sexual relations of some homosexuals. He is the one reporting them the most, and by far.

No one said anything about your hability to deal with this concept.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 04:10 AM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Can you spin faster? Definetily.

Where was the spin?

Lerkfish refers to the ongoing responses of dcolton being always descriptive of specific acts of sexual relations of some homosexuals. He is the one reporting them the most, and by far.
And I am saying his referring was silly. That dc's responses has nothing to do with his sexuality. To make such claims IS a spin.

It's a tactic of trying to shut up anyone that disagrees with Lerk. He does it a lot.

"Oh, you are so against this you MUST be conflicted"

It's said in hopes said person will quit saying or doing what he or she is doing in fear of being labeled whatever Lerk is labeling them.

It has to be the oldest troll in the book. Go look at past homosexual threads Lerk is in. He uses it EVERY time. No matter WHO it is speaking.

It's his own little self defense mechanism.

It would be like me saying to Lerk. "My you are so adamant about defending homosexuality, YOU must be homosexual! Only homosexuals would care so much!

Which would be silly also.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a gadda da vida.
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 08:04 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Wait, just how long ago was the belief in a God and the bond between a man and a woman first started?
Oh wait, no one knows. No one will ever know. You cannot make such statements.

No one knows when "religion" started. No one knows when the belief of the God of Abraham first came about.

So to say that marriage was around before this, is being a bit dishonest. [/B]
that is an absurd statement. First of all, we base our knowledge of history on what data is available, so far we know that marriage existed outside of religion, and without religion, or unions were instigated through the belief in God. So going by that, we can safely say that it was around before religion, in your sense of the term. Now, you might try to back project religion onto these ancient cultures, but you have no evidence at all, so to just fall back on to the position that it might have been, is not good enough.

You can't stick to your pont without suporting evidence, it's conjecture, whereas, others can point to facs to back up there position. that's how it works. Now, maybe one day we might find out that part of yuor story is correct, but until then, you're talking out your ar$e.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a gadda da vida.
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 08:09 AM
 
Thing is zimphire, there is evidence to support the theory of marriage as a non-religious entity, there isn't for your sance, yet.

So what is more likely? Which argument does an intellecuslly honest person go with?

Yours based on a belief, or the known facts.

you need to see the differnce, otherwise what's the point in you entering a debate if all you do is fall back on unsupported data.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a gadda da vida.
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 08:18 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:


No one knows when "religion" started. No one knows when the belief of the God of Abraham first came about.
You're dishonest enough to put forth a position that disregards facts over belief, how honest is that? Where do you inject the possibility of likelihood?

Ok, what about Abraham? Are you honest enough to research whether or not this man even existed? Where lies research and deuction if you just throw in deluded biases while disregarding the findings of othes?

In your world, it sems like there is no chance for what is most likely, in fact, I hope you're honest enough to stick by what yu said above, because, going by your logic, it is entirely possibvle that Jesus was a gay biker, that Muhammed was the real messenger of god, that there really could be a red london bus on the moon.

Or are you just saying what you said to try and give credence to your beliefs, but rejecting others, but that is dishonest too.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a gadda da vida.
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 08:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
In this "New, Modern" world, Good is bad Bad is good.

Get used to it.
Oh god, the zimphire linguistic gymnastics contest has begun.

You're unbelievable, I;'m sorry, but time after time I really do try and give you the benefit of the doubt in what you dribble here.

I've never seen such hypocrisy in someone, who will twist and turn to support your own position, and yet in doing so, you basically nullify your own beliefs.


Look kid, one day you might just post something that is actually honest and sincere, instead of your usual alterior motivated, agenda driven drivel. When you do, I might just give you a second glance.

Until then, here's a lollipop for you

     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 08:47 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Where was the spin?


And I am saying his referring was silly. That dc's responses has nothing to do with his sexuality. To make such claims IS a spin.

It's a tactic of trying to shut up anyone that disagrees with Lerk. He does it a lot.

"Oh, you are so against this you MUST be conflicted"

It's said in hopes said person will quit saying or doing what he or she is doing in fear of being labeled whatever Lerk is labeling them.

It has to be the oldest troll in the book. Go look at past homosexual threads Lerk is in. He uses it EVERY time. No matter WHO it is speaking. [/B]
No. I am not saying Lerk is right in opposing dcolton's opinion. I am saying that the fact dcolton is the only one being so descriptive about some sexual acts perfomed by some homosexuals makes it seem like an obsession rather than an opinion. Lerk did not target dcolton directly though. But I do.

That you are against gays or not, I personally do not care. But that someone brings loads of pages of hatred and calls it an opinion is misunderstanding something.

Regarding the relationship between marriage and religion, as I said, marriage is about the blessing of the union, but it became a political tool to compete with other religions. You may deny it and ignore the scientific litterature in that matter but I won't.

Of course, if you believe humanity started with Adam and Eve, that is another story, and I will not have that specific debate with you or anyone else for that matter.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 09:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We have folks that insist being gay is not a bad thing - it's pefectly natural. Then they go on to imply that it's a bad thing - an insult - when they suggest another person is a gay person in denial.

"Gays are great...hey, you rightwing idiot - you must be GAY!"

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Go back to making fun of southerners, you leftwing morons - while you lecture me about my lack of sensitivity and closed-mindedness.


There's only one prong in my theory. Liberals are hypocrites.
Who said that, because one is accused of being a gay in denial, it's an insult? It's a simple statement of fact, IMO. Nobody implied it's a bad thing. You inferred that, to suit your purposes. If he wants to be a gay in denial, I don't care. You and dcolton are both great at twisting people's words around. You're also very, very, good at not understanding what you're talking about.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:02 AM
 
Lou Sheldon, head of the TVC, is an infamous moron. He advocates quarantining people that are HIV+ in enclosed cities (read: concentration camps) and letting them rot away. He also has advocated bills that denies the right of gays to visit their ill/dying partners in the hospital. Compassionate christianity at its best!

He's a typical quote of his hysterical paranoia:
President Bill Clinton has appointed to the highest positions in his administration people who are implementing a cultural revolution in American society--a reign of social terror.

Their goal includes:
- dismantling the traditional family;
- criminalizing religious and political activity and speech against abortion
- overhauling our public schools through R-rated sex education;
- sex education as young as kindergarten;
- condoms and homosexual propaganda in public schools for young children;
- expanding the federal government into the abortion business

and many other things that are a direct affront to our notions of family and decency.'

If you take the TVC as a source for 'truth', you're well beyond help. But we already knew that, didn't we?

Time to go rape some little boys, abort some babies and convert some pre-frosh... erm, I mean, shower, eat breakfast, call my boyfriend, and go to boxing practice.

Later
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:14 AM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
So, what about two women licking each other's c*nts and engagin in fisting? Is that equally perverted as male-on-male sex? more perverted? less perverted? And why.
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes
Is your answer to just one of my three questions or is it a general
"Yes, all of the above are equally perverted" answer?

Also, why is this behavior perverted?
Is it because two women are engaging in the act? (What if a woman and a man were doing this?)
Is it because of the act itself (fisting) you find perverted? (Do you feel the vagina was intended only for penile penetration?)
Does it just kinda ick you out?

And remember, it was dcolton's comment about the disgustingness of men "licking each other's balls" that prompted me to go down this line of questioning (i.e.: trying to ascertain, on my part, if his objections to male-on-male sexual interaction had a counterpart for female-on-female sexual interaction. In other words, how doe he define appropriate sexual behavior.)
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:17 AM
 
Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

Is your answer to just one of my three questions or is it a general
"Yes, all of the above are equally perverted" answer?

Also, why is this behavior perverted?
Is it because two women are engaging in the act? (What if a woman and a man were doing this?)
Is it because of the act itself (fisting) you find perverted? (Do you feel the vagina was intended only for penile penetration?)
Does it just kinda ick you out?

And remember, it was dcolton's comment about the disgustingness of men "licking each other's balls" that prompted me to go down this line of questioning (i.e.: trying to ascertain, on my part, if his objections to male-on-male sexual interaction had a counterpart for female-on-female sexual interaction.)
No, dcolton has already admitted that he thinks lipstick lesbian interaction is hot. Double standards? No, because he's firmly convinced that all "real" lesbians are raging bulldykes.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:58 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).

This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture...
bullsh1t.

as if america is the center of the universe. homosexuality isn't considered a pathology in ANY western or modern society any more. period.

[sidenote] i just got back from the local CSD parade and it looked like everybody was having tons of fun and the atmosphere was really crazy. everybody! had a great time.
( Last edited by phoenixboy70; Aug 8, 2004 at 11:42 AM. )
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 02:37 PM
 
Originally posted by sanity assassin:
that is an absurd statement. First of all, we base our knowledge of history on what data is available,

ANd what I am saying is, we have no data to tell us how long such things have been happening. So to say it was happening BEFORE, it wrong. We DON'T KNOW.

To say it's true is being intellectually dishonest.

Unless you can show some proof that at the dawn of man, there was no concept of marriage or God.

But you can't. So making such statements is just a guess. Not a fact.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 03:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

ANd what I am saying is, we have no data to tell us how long such things have been happening. So to say it was happening BEFORE, it wrong. We DON'T KNOW.

To say it's true is being intellectually dishonest.

Unless you can show some proof that at the dawn of man, there was no concept of marriage or God.

But you can't. So making such statements is just a guess. Not a fact. [/B]
from marriage history
Different periods of time and different cultures have very different histories when it comes to women. Ancient Egypt, in theory, gave women equal rights, but it wasn't always practiced. Medieval women faced dual responsibilities to religion and marriage.

Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.

Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), few had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.

One nearly universal tradition is that of the engagement ring. This custom can be dated back to the ancient Romans. It is believed that the roundness of the ring represents eternity. Therefore, the wearing of wedding rings symbolizes a union that is to last forever. It was once thought that a vein or nerve ran directly from the "ring" finger of the left hand to the heart.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours.

The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years.

There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.

Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.

Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages.
there is this for you as well
It is very hard to be able to establish a true date on the first marriages although the Old Testament in the Bible does mention a little about marriage as it was considered a family and household affair. The oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl after first bringing him gifts to win his approval. The mother was dominated by the father and had no choice in the matter. The father would transfer the daughter to the prospective husband in public as they showed that he approved this transfer and that the groom had the father's approval. After this transfer the bridge and groom ate a meal together with the families and then the groom took the bride home. In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.
Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.
And
The institution of marriage has had a long and sordid history. Not always referred to as marriage, which is a word from the 14th century French (marier) to marry, this sacred state had slipped through history under many guises and forms.
Some more links:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm
http://www.uua.org/world/0399feat3.html
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:35 PM
 
Originally posted by KarlG:
Who said that, because one is accused of being a gay in denial, it's an insult? It's a simple statement of fact, IMO. Nobody implied it's a bad thing. You inferred that, to suit your purposes. If he wants to be a gay in denial, I don't care. You and dcolton are both great at twisting people's words around. You're also very, very, good at not understanding what you're talking about.
Am I late to the party?

KarlG,

The statement was made with the intention of being an insult. It would be the same as know that someone is diametrically opposed to pedophilia and then calling them one.

Someone made a comparison earlier between homosexuality and bar hopping. The only thing I can say to that is that I don't see people in the grade, middle or high schools trying to push bar hopping as normal or moral behavior. Thanks, but I'll be responsible for teaching my kid what's right or wrong on both of those subjects. NOT SOCIETY.

You reap what you sow.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:38 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
from marriage history

Yes that is history that WE KNOW ABOUT. That isn't counting BEFORE such things were known.

Again, we really don't know where marriage came from. We guess.

Making definite statements about it either way is dishonest.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:40 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
Someone made a comparison earlier between homosexuality and bar hopping. The only thing I can say to that is that I don't see people in the grade, middle or high schools trying to push bar hopping as normal or moral behavior. Thanks, but I'll be responsible for teaching my kid what's right or wrong on both of those subjects. NOT SOCIETY.


This is NOT a village.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:42 PM
 
It takes a village. But some people want your kids to be raised by the Village People
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes that is history that WE KNOW ABOUT. That isn't counting BEFORE such things were known.

Again, we really don't know where marriage came from. We guess.

Making definite statements about it either way is dishonest.
So are you done with yours?

The references I provided have valid data. But I am pretty sure you did not read them anyway.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:44 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
So are you done with yours?

The references I provided have valid data. But I am pretty sure you did not read them anyway.
Yes it has valid data. The reaches so far back. Tell me angaq0k, when did the first marriage take place?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes it has valid data. The reaches so far back. Tell me angaq0k, when did the first marriage take place?
That question is irrelevant if you look at the data.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:50 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
That question is irrelevant if you look at the data.
No, no it's not irrelevant. No one knows where the concept of marriage came from. NO ONE. We can however GUESS from the small bit of information we do have.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 06:56 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, no it's not irrelevant. No one knows where the concept of marriage came from. NO ONE. We can however GUESS from the small bit of information we do have.
My point was about the fact that religion came after the union of men and women.

I demonstrated a few cases. Not all of them, but because of my demonstration, I prove you wrong: you cannot generalize the participation of a deity, in real or symbolic form (religion) to all union of men and women.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:03 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
My point was about the fact that religion came after the union of men and women.

Ok, show me where the first case of man believing in God was.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:05 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Ok, show me where the first case of man believing in God was. [/B]
But there is no God!
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:

Ok, show me where the first case of man believing in God was. [/B]
No.

I won.

You lost.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:13 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
No.
I didn't think you would or could.

Unless you can tell me when such thing started, saying marriage came before it is quite silly.

You are more than willing to come back and "show me" though.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:19 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
I didn't think you would or could.

Unless you can tell me when such thing started, saying marriage came before it is quite silly.

You are more than willing to come back and "show me" though.
I did.

And I am done with you.
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:22 PM
 
Originally posted by angaq0k:
I did.

And I am done with you.
No, no you didn't. No one knows when the belief of God started. NO ONE.

We do however know when we have the earliest writings of such things. And that is just what we have found.

All in all, it's still just a guess.

One cannot make definite statements like you did and call them honest ones.

I believe marriage was part of God's original plan. Can I prove it? No. I would never say that was factual.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:32 PM
 
That is an interesting question. Even though there were human before Adam & Eve, was there ever any mention of how long ago that was supposed to be. I know t he Jewish calendar goes back exactly 5764 years, but how long ago was Eden supposed to be?
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:48 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
That is an interesting question. Even though there were human before Adam & Eve, was there ever any mention of how long ago that was supposed to be. I know t he Jewish calendar goes back exactly 5764 years, but how long ago was Eden supposed to be?
The Bible never says how long ago the Adam and Eve story was. Nor does it say anything about how long ago the earth was made. It doesn't put a time on humanity...

But that is a different discussion..
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 07:54 PM
 
Can you believe people actually argue about how many billions of years old this planet is?
4 billion! No, 8 billion! Losers
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:27 PM
 
Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
That is an interesting question. Even though there were human before Adam & Eve, was there ever any mention of how long ago that was supposed to be. I know t he Jewish calendar goes back exactly 5764 years, but how long ago was Eden supposed to be?
You believe there were people before Adam and Eve? Am I just not following you correctly?

You reap what you sow.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:37 PM
 
It seems more likely. If I remember correctly, I read that it does mention life before that. OR it could just be me.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:44 PM
 
Life, but not human life. Adam was the first human according to the Bible.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Interstellar Overdrive
Status: Offline
Aug 8, 2004, 10:47 PM
 
Yeah. I just figured that it was referring to humanity. My bad. But the Earth came a long time before Adam & Eve. Adam & Steve for the PC Bible readers. OR gay marriage supporters.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 03:31 AM
 
Yeah, it is true that the Church ceremony involved with marriage came fairly late. This reflects the fundemental Catholic attitude towards marriage. The Sacrament of Marriage is ministered by a consenting man and women. It is they who take the vows. The priest acts only as a witness and to proclaim that such vows taken were valid (not infallibly of course, just ceremonial).
In vino veritas.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 03:44 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Yeah, it is true that the Church ceremony involved with marriage came fairly late.\
The "Ceremony" may have. But the concept of a man and a woman bonding as one for their lives AKA marriage, was not. This has been a belief from the beginning.

And until someone can date the beginning of man believing in God (We can't ) there is no proof otherwise.
( Last edited by Zimphire; Aug 9, 2004 at 03:51 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 03:54 AM
 
So all we really need is God's OK on the whole gay marriage thing, then?

I'd like to think he really doesn't give a **** if the two people are happy together.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 03:59 AM
 
God made it clear how he felt about such things.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ma, germany
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 04:05 AM
 
"marriage", as we know it, is a fairly new and mostly "bourgeois" institution.

even in the middle ages it wasn't common for "the common" to get married.

the whole "romantic" ideal about "'til death do us part" came in fairly late (in addition, that meant about 15 years tops during the time it was "invented"). marriages were mostly arranged and served the purpose of forming political and societal bonds between families or countries. (it's still this way in a lot of muslim countries, or india for example)

anybody who believes that marriage has been a "human" institution since the beginning of time is either VERY VERY ignorant and uneducated, or simply playing dumb for the sake of the argument.

anyway...again: almost all psychologist (in europe and the us, latin america etc.) and institutions agree that homosexuality IN NO WAY CONSTITUTES A PATHOLOGY or a "state" of which one needs to be "cured".

btw, research and study have shown that that's how most "tribal" humans viewed people who were interested in same sex partners. as a "natural" variation, which they adopted for their purposes...

why? because gay people NORMALLY lead completely healthy and happy lifestyles, if they follow their NATURAL instincts of being with a partner of their choice!

     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 06:39 AM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
God made it clear how he felt about such things.
I admit I don't know the Bible.
Will you tell me specifically where it's covered?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 07:42 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
I admit I don't know the Bible.
Will you tell me specifically where it's covered?
LOL... this should be interesting...*grabs popcorn*
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 12:32 PM
 
Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
(it's still this way in a lot of muslim countries, or india for example)
Ooooh! Please tell me that you did not just say that. India is predominantly Hindu, Pakistan and Bangladesh, formerly parts of India, are Muslim.

BG
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Aug 9, 2004, 12:36 PM
 
Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Ooooh! Please tell me that you did not just say that. India is predominantly Hindu, Pakistan and Bangladesh, formerly parts of India, are Muslim.

BG
he wrote: "or India".

"Or" excludes the first term on the list.

Or did I read it wrong?
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2