No on Prop 8

[Joey D]

The bible defiantly mentions incest since one of Eve's sons would have to have relations with one of his sisters or Eve in order to populate the Earth...this is assuming Adam and Eve were the first two original people though.

 

[Northstar]

Huh? Don't confuse what the inattentive think the Bible says with what it actually says.

It clearly mentions other people, particularly in the Cain and Abel story.

It's one of many of the bible's contradictions. God supposedly only made Adam and Eve, they had two sons and only two sons, Cain and Abel. Now explain how we are here if there was no incest involved.

 

[FoolKiller]

The bible defiantly mentions incest since one of Eve's sons would have to have relations with one of his sisters or Eve in order to populate the Earth...this is assuming Adam and Eve were the first two original people though.

It's one of many of the bible's contradictions. God supposedly only made Adam and Eve, they had two sons and only two sons, Cain and Abel. Now explain how we are here if there was no incest involved.

I guess I have to quote it to you.

13 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the Lord said to him, "Not so [e] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, [f] east of Eden.

Clearly, there were other people and they are mentioned in the Bible, in fact there were other lands with these people. No incest required. Move along.

Also, the Bible only ever mentions Adam and Eve having three sons. Seth was the third to replace Abel.

25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."

Now, even the most literal interpretation of the Bible leaves room for no incest, and has to because no daughters are ever mentioned coming from Adam and Eve.

If you choose to take a more loose interpretation you could recognize that the Bible is following a lineage from Adam and Eve to Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus. In those days when lineage was discussed you only kept record of the males.

So, there is a possibility of daughters and incest, but you can't be literal to reach that conclusion.




But none of this is relevant, as you could have made the incest argument with other religious groups (more cult really, but it is a belief system) that have supported the notion of incest. The most recent accusations against a polygamist sect in the news comes to mind.

 

[Northstar]

Even if there were other people out there, there is no way of showing they knew about each other.

 

[Joey D]

Yes there are other people but going by what the Bible actually says God created Adam, then Eve. Two people only. They had three sons. Then what happened? Either the Bible is wrong or Adam and Eve either a.) had more kids then just three sons or b.) one of their sons mated with Eve. I'm just going by what the text says, not how anyone views it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Even if there were other people out there, there is no way of showing they knew about each other.

Except Cain mentions them finding him and killing him. And then he went to the land of Nod. He had to know or he got very lucky that he didn't die in the wilderness.

And then Cain didn't have children until after he had left. After he left he builds a city, Enoch, named after his first born, who was born during its creation. So, he built a city for three people?

Yes there are other people but going by what the Bible actually says God created Adam, then Eve. Two people only. They had three sons. Then what happened? Either the Bible is wrong or Adam and Eve either a.) had more kids then just three sons or b.) one of their sons mated with Eve. I'm just going by what the text says, not how anyone views it.

The Bible only mentions two people. That doesn't mean they are the only people. The Bible does mention other people in another land.

You are also talking about how people view it, the majority view. However that majority view very often ignores the fact that it does mention other people in another land. It just isn't touched on by the creation story. The creation story discusses creating the universe, but then focuses on just Eden when God creates Adam. The focus does not take on a larger scope again until they are forced to leave Eden. Yet, it does mention that God was not always in Eden, specifically when they ate from the tree. God obviously had something more important to do than stand watch over Adam and Eve. It doesn't mention what God was doing during that time, so by your interpretation it would seem God was just non-existent during that time.

Just because something isn't mentioned in the story does not mean it did not happen. If I tell you I went 40 miles to work this morning, but don't mention driving, does it mean that I didn't drive?

And if we are just going by what the text says, it does not mention or hint at incest just as it does not mention other people being created, or even (GASP!) evolving. Yet, it does hint at other people. If we want to go by just what the Bible says then the likelihood of other people having come into existence at some point is more likely than the idea of humanity being the result of incest simply because other people are at least hinted at.



I find it extremely weird that I have had this debate with both Christians and Atheists. I am a rare breed.

 

[Joey D]

Except Adam and Eve were supposedly the first two people on the planet, Adam was apparently made 120 hours after God thought about playing a bit with organic Legos. If we are to believe God created man and women in his image, and Adam and Eve were the first two people on the planet, somewhere along the way incest had to have happened whether it be with the mother or a sister in order to populate the planet.

I'll admit I haven't looked at a Bible outside browsing one at a hotel in a very long time. But from what I can remember it never talks about God creating other lands. As far as I know giants walked the earth before hand or something...or maybe that's Beowulf I'm mixing it up with.

I of course believe all of this is myth though. But it is a rather strange set of things. Speaking of the Bible though where does it say homosexuality is a sin? Is it in the same chapter, book, verse, whatever that it says eating shellfish is a sin?

 

[Tornado]

organic Legos.

 

[FoolKiller]

Except Adam and Eve were supposedly the first two people on the planet, Adam was apparently made 120 hours after God thought about playing a bit with organic Legos.

Pardon me while I quote some more.

I will even use both accounts from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

I am looking for the name Adam....

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Odd, still don't see it.

Wait, here it is:

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found.

Crazy thing, adam is Hebrew for man. That [g] in there is a reference on BibleGateway.com, where I am copying and pasting from, that says:

Genesis 2:20 Or the man

If we are to believe God created man and women in his image, and Adam and Eve were the first two people on the planet, somewhere along the way incest had to have happened whether it be with the mother or a sister in order to populate the planet.

By that rationale we can follow the lineage laid out in the Bible and you will find that they do not venture into Europe, yet the Roman Empire plays a HUGE role in the New Testament.

I'll admit I haven't looked at a Bible outside browsing one at a hotel in a very long time. But from what I can remember it never talks about God creating other lands.

No, but it does talk about the land of Nod, which had to come from somewhere. I think that you are forgetting that Eden was a garden in the east, not all of Earth.

As far as I know giants walked the earth before hand or something...

You REALLY haven't read a Bible in a long time.
Behemoths are mentioned in Job 40: 15-24, which were created along with man. But outside of the Creation Museum and their group it is regularly believed to be referring to some form of large mammal, such as an elephant. Die hard creationists say it describes a dinosaur.

Then Ezekiel mentions the Assyrian, which stood taller than the trees of Eden. Commonly considered to possibly be a giraffe or other tall mammal that went extinct, because it mentions its death, to point out to the Pharaoh that even the mightiest things on Earth die.

Again, die hard creationists think it refers to a dinosaur.

I of course believe all of this is myth though. But it is a rather strange set of things.

Aren't you wanting to be an anthropologist? It seems to me that anthropology, while easily lending itself to atheism, would want to at least fully understand these myths as entire civilizations were built around them. Just as understanding the myths told in cave drawings will help you understand a long dead civilization, understanding the myths told in a book, and the differences from one denomination to another, would help you to understand the actions of people today.

Speaking of the Bible though where does it say homosexuality is a sin? Is it in the same chapter, book, verse, whatever that it says eating shellfish is a sin?

Leviticus 18 covers it.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Some versions say abomination instead of detestable. Leviticus 18 also forbids any form of incest as being dishonorable, and goes in to having sex during a period, and even bestiality.

Then again in Leviticus 20

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20 also covers incest and goes into eating clean and unclean animals.

Most of the laws in Leviticus were about honor and cleanliness. An unclean person had to be removed from society to prevent disease.

It is also mentioned in later books of the New Testament by apostles attempting to spread the word to other cities.

 

[Moglet]

So....let me get this straight....California has invented a time machine and travelled back to Victorian England?

Next you'll be telling me they're putting forward a proposition to stone all black people to death.

 

[Solid Fro]

Nice. Way to go, Captain America.

Whooo! It's all I ever wanted to be.

 

[Duke]

Whooo! It's all I ever wanted to be.

Well, I had figured I didn't need to add the [sarcasm] tags, but apparently I was wrong. Way to completely avoid the real meat of my post, too.

[sarcasm] Two big thumbs up for you! 👍 👍 [/sarcasm]

Maybe that's a little clearer.

 

[Max Powers]

Give him about a month, and he'll respond by taking three more words of your post out of context, and barely responding.

 

[Solid Fro]

No, I rather do something useful like going outside, look at the sky. Drink with friends, maybe even getting laid. Play basketball at the park even! It's a mute point, proposition 8 passed. Maybe gay marriage will be a common thing not only in California, but the US. But, it won't be through Liberal bigotry blackmailing the gay community.

[/done]

 

[Bram Turismo]

I'm not a Christian and I do see it that way. I believe just by rewriting the state constitution to include same-sex infringes on religious beliefs.

Wait, what?

You're not a Christian, but yet you use the same reason most Christians use to explain why it is a sin, and thus why gay-marriage should be banned?

I'm having a little bit of a feeling you're having a hatred against gay people, using someone else's reason to defend your view...

Just give me one reason, loose from everything religious, why gay people should not recieve the same right to be married with each other. Obviously, since you're not a Christian, you should be able to give me a decent, rational reason, that has not got anything to do with religion, to explain me why they shouldn't.

Since you're not a Christian, why don't you give gay people to right to love, care, and adopt? What does not give them the right to take care of a child? What does not give them the right to give children a chance for a happy life? Now don't give me that sentence where you say "Their parents are gay, and thus they can't live happily because they will be mobbed for the biggest part of their lives". Gay people are more accepted now than they have ever been. If you'd mention that your parents are gay, I can't even imagine people making a joke out of you.

Also, defending your view by saying that it infringes on religious beliefs has not got anything to do with you. What you're actually saying now is; "I'm not a Christian, I don't believe God is almighty, but just this once, I'm standing back them." In a way, you're defending a camp of which you are not a member...

 

[Sniffs]

the American attitude towards a thing like this can be summed up in 5 words "My Way, or the Highway". please keep this in mind for the general public type population, here, who are set in their ways for the MOST part...emphasis on MOST.

I'm starting to think that the general US population that bothers to vote is the very conservitave half that's stuck in the 19th century

 

[Bram Turismo]

the American attitude towards a thing like this can be summed up in 5 words "My Way, or the Highway".

True.

People who are gainst gay marriage are people full of egoism. They only think about themselves when banning gay marriage from a state. Take this as an example:

What if a child in a poor country has parents that are hoping for a pair that will adopt their child in hope for their child to have the better life it deserves? Do realize that by banning gay marriage, your taking this chance away from both the parents, and the pair.

This is what irritates me most with people against gay marriage. The only think about their own principles, and not about the happiness of others.

 

[Swift]

I just don't see why we have to redifine what marriage is. I see no reason why a gay couple can't have the same privaledges as a married couple. There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't. But at the stame time, why to we have to have a fundaemental redfinition of what marriage is?

 

[Zrow]

the American attitude towards a thing like this can be summed up in 5 words "My Way, or the Highway". please keep this in mind for the general public type population, here, who are set in their ways for the MOST part...emphasis on MOST.

NOT the "American" attitude. There is no uniform American attitude.

I'm starting to think that the general US population that bothers to vote is the very conservitave half that's stuck in the 19th century

Right, which is why we just elected a black President.

 

[Duke]

It's a mute point, proposition 8 passed. Maybe gay marriage will be a common thing not only in California, but the US. But, it won't be through Liberal bigotry blackmailing the gay community.

[/done]

First off, it's a MOOT point, not a MUTE point.

Second off, [/done] is right. I shouldn't have even bothered to pay attention to a single word you've written. I won't make that mistake again.

@ Swift: we need to redefine "marriage" because the current definition is wrong. We need to either delete the current definition entirely (fine with me) or we need to correct it so that a portion of the populace does not have their rights infringed by that definition.

We used to define some people as slaves and not citizens. We used to define women as not eligible to vote. Both those definitions were wrong and we corrected them. This is just the next step in the process of correction.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I just don't see why we have to redifine what marriage is. I see no reason why a gay couple can't have the same privaledges as a married couple. There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't. But at the stame time, why to we have to have a fundaemental redfinition of what marriage is?

100% agreed on both points there Swift.

Not giving gay people the same privileges would be the same as discrimination. Now as long as I can remember, Jesus said to love one another like he loved us:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

I'm not a Christian, but I'm only quoting this to show the Christians that I'm confused that gay people are written off as sinders... Not allowing gay marriage is also something against democracy, I thought it was all about Democracy these days?

I also agree with Swift that the fundamental definition of marriage has gone lost, and is no longer needed these days. Sure, Christians see upon it as the ultimate bonding ritual to bind man and women together. But for people who aren't Christians, marriage these days seems for them to only be about the expensive ring, the beautiful dress, and the party...

 

[Swift]

100% agreed on both points there Swift.

Not giving gay people the same privileges would be the same as discrimination. Now as long as I can remember, Jesus said to love one another like he loved us:



I'm not a Christian, but I'm only quoting this to show the Christians that I'm confused that gay people are written off as sinders... Not allowing gay marriage is also something against democracy, I thought it was all about Democracy these days?

I also agree with Swift that the fundamental definition of marriage has gone lost, and is no longer needed these days. Sure, Christians see upon it as the ultimate bonding ritual to bind man and women together. But for people who aren't Christians, marriage these days seems for them to only be about the expensive ring, the beautiful dress, and the party...

Ok, I think you slightly misunderstood me. Probably due to my typos.

But I do believe that marriage is a fundamental part of our society and that definition should not be changed. Do gay couples deserve privileges? Absolutely. Do we need to change what marriage is to give them said privileges? Absolutely not.


Also, democracy has been in place on it. It was up for a vote. What is more democratic then that? Not like in Mass where the courts just forced it on the people.

 

[Swift]

Right, which is why we just elected a black President.

Zing! 👍

@ Swift: we need to redefine "marriage" because the current definition is wrong. We need to either delete the current definition entirely (fine with me) or we need to correct it so that a portion of the populace does not have their rights infringed by that definition.

We used to define some people as slaves and not citizens. We used to define women as not eligible to vote. Both those definitions were wrong and we corrected them. This is just the next step in the process of correction.

I would rather the government dissolve marriage privileges then to make it the same as a gay couple.

But to compare it to slaves and women's suffurage isn't the same in my opinoin. Simply because those things are proven to be not a "choice". Wheter homosexuality is a choice or not is still very much debated.

Also, I don't think married people should have advantages over single people. As far as taxes, insurance, visiting, power of attorney, etc. These privileges should be availible to all citizens though a civil contract. It's stupid that if two brothers live together, one can't put the other on his medical insurance without radically high premiums. But if it was his wife then the premiums are much lower. That's just plain stupid. This is what I mean when I say the privileges need to be extended to all.

 

[Zrow]

But I do believe that marriage is a fundamental part of our society and that definition should not be changed. Do gay couples deserve privileges? Absolutely. Do we need to change what marriage is to give them said privileges? Absolutely not.

It's changing the legal definition of marriage we advocate, not what it means to you personally. And in that respect, yes, we do need to change what marriage is, so they have the same legal right that everyone else has. Christianity simply cannot hold a monopoly on the meaning of a legal concept like marriage.

Also, democracy has been in place on it. It was up for a vote. What is more democratic then that? Not like in Mass where the courts just forced it on the people.

This is straight from Danoff's sig:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). - Ayn Rand

 

[Swift]

It's changing the legal definition of marriage we advocate, not what it means to you personally. And in that respect, yes, we do need to change what marriage is, so they have the same legal right that everyone else has. Christianity simply cannot hold a monopoly on the meaning of a legal concept like marriage.

It's not just christianity. But simply society. I'm just trying to understand why we have to literaly redifine marriage. When Blacks were "allowed" to marry whites, it didn't change the fundamental definition. When women were allowed to vote, it didn't change what a vote was. Changing the definition of marriage to two people instead of a man and a woman changes what marriage is completely.

This is straight from Danoff's sig:

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). - Ayn Rand

Excellent quote. But I still don't look at marriage as a right. Well, I guess the ability to be united is a "right" I guess. But all the legal junk that comes with it is pure privilege.

But what are the gay people fighting for? I know they can get all the same privileges with a civil union, except maybe tax breaks. So, the federal governemnt needs to change that. Why is there a need to redifine what marriage is?

 

[Bram Turismo]

Ok, I think you slightly misunderstood me. Probably due to my typos.

But I do believe that marriage is a fundamental part of our society and that definition should not be changed. Do gay couples deserve privileges? Absolutely. Do we need to change what marriage is to give them said privileges? Absolutely not.


Also, democracy has been in place on it. It was up for a vote. What is more democratic then that? Not like in Mass where the courts just forced it on the people.

Sorry that I've misunderstood you.

Neither I believe that we should change anything about marriage. After all, it seems that marriage has lost alot of what it used to be. Marriage doesn't seem to be as popular as earlier, and more and more are in a divorce.

However, I do believe there is a slight twist of taste in the democracy you speak that was involved in the voting. Sure, giving everyone the right to vote is democratic, but is it democratic to hold a vote that takes away rights and privileges from others? I for one look upon marriage as a right. Personally I am of opinion that a majority does not have the right to decide the privileges or rights of a smaller group where the majority is not affected by the decision to that minority.

 

[Duke]

But what are the gay people fighting for?

Lets turn that around, though I hate to answer a question with a question:

What are YOU fighting against? The answer to that question is exactly what gay people are fighting for.

 

[Joey D]

But what are the gay people fighting for? I know they can get all the same privileges with a civil union, except maybe tax breaks. So, the federal governemnt needs to change that. Why is there a need to redifine what marriage is?

Equality.

Why should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a women? Why can't it just say two people? Is it religious? Churches aren't going to be forces to perform the ceramony, but anyone can marry someone. I even have the certificate for the Universal Life Church stating I can marry people.

 

[Sage]

“Traditionally”, western marriages were designed as arranged business agreements.

 

[Omnis]

Lets turn that around, though I hate to answer a question with a question:

What are YOU fighting against? The answer to that question is exactly what gay people are fighting for.

I, for one, am against the state granting marriage. The idea that the state can perform a marriage is absurd. But then you have to ask why marriage is even important besides it being a religious ceremony, handled by a house of whatever religion. Why are gays (or anyone) not content with being boyfriend and boyfriend (or a civil union), unless they want to get married for some religious (or similar) reason. But that would leave me to ask why they seek to invoke or involve the state in the first place? It would seem that the absence of the state in this matter would quell the conflict entirely, so that any problems can be dealt with by the entity performing the marriage. (the catholic church, a gay church, the jedi temple, etc.)