Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
To all the blacks who voted Yes on Prop 8 because of their Christian faith: You do realise what the bible has to say about slavery, right? : politics
Sorry, another post about Prop 8, but this one has really stuck in my craw.
How can someone use their faith to deny people equality, ESPECIALLY when THE SAME faith was used to deny their antecedents their rights?!
I thought the point of Christianity was to be Christ-like, judge not lest ye be judged, do unto others etc.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Don't you know? Black Jesus got his and told everyone else to fuck off and die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts Belie the Scapegoating of Black People for Proposition 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of who pushed Prop 8 over the edge, be it blacks, latinos or whites, some black people voted against prop 8 and did so because of their faith.
I don't care if it was a handful or a hundred thousand, we know they exist because some of them have happily explained their decision to the media.
They are a group whose history was built on the idea that they were subhuman and could be owned as property to work, like oxen and that the faith of their owners was used to justify it.
That alone should have given them pause before using their faith to strip others of their rights.
Sure other groups voted because of their faith but they don't have the deeply personal history of being subjugated because of another's faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a Scots-Irish-American, I'm pretty sure my people were subjugated and enslaved at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
FEEL BAD FOR POSSIBLY HAVING ANCESTORS OR DISTANT RELATIONS THAT MAY HAVE OR MAY HAVE NOT OWNED SLAVES, BUT PROBABLY NOT!
YOU PROFITTED OFF OF THEIR MISERY AND YOU SHALL FOREVER BE SUBJUGATED TO ANTI-WHITE SENTIMENTS DISGUISED AS BATTLING RACISM!
Yes, black slavery sucked but it wasn't because they were African.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have an interesting writing style.
Did you just fire out the first couple of sentences and realize your capslock was on, or did you start out with knowledge aforethought?
Froth on, little wing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW! I'm really proud of how much your communication skills have improved.
Why did you leave us?
Come home soon...
Sincerely,
http://www.digg.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And so my faith in humanity declines to a new low.
The very fact that neither of you (and several others assumedly) can't recognize blatant satire is depressing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an Irish-American, I enjoy your point of view and heartily agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice breakdown of the numbers there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, they don't. Most Christians don't have a clue what their magical story book has in it.
They just regurgitate what their pastors and the like tell them to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to break it to you, but the black population is no more at fault for this than any other ethnic group.
I'm far too lazy to dig it up right now, but there was an excellent post breaking down the figures and numbers, frankly, the black population hardly even registered in terms of overall 'yes' votes in comparison to Latinos, Asians, and Whites.
(and yes, I do happen to be white, and I did vote NO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the Asians, Latinos, Whites and every other ethnic group who voted for Prop 8?
Biblical slavery is not race based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asians and Whites didn't vote in favor of prop 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43% of Asians voted in favor of prop 8 and nearl 50% of whites voted in favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is it that white folks outnumber blacks for more than a five to one ratio but they are not held accountable?
Accountability is something only blacks are held to?
Whites didn't vote for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reddit is racist.
They want a scapegoat.
Its a ridiculous argument from the onset.
Blacks in California are pretty much limited to a portion of the LA area.
The rest of the population is mostly Asian, Hispanic, and White.
Hispanics alone outnumber blacks in CA, let alone Whites.
So it is just a way to try to link their "struggle" to the black struggle, and it such a weak comparison.
Blacks have fought tooth and nail over centuries for equal rights.
We have been murdered, brutalized, oppressed, en masse.
I'm deeply insulted by the comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read somewhere they said that Blacks made up 6.2% of the population of California.
6.2% and you blame the African Americans?
That's just an astounding argument.
You don't make up enough of the population to change the policies on racial profiling and other race relations but it's your fault the prop went through.
Morons!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't doubt some people here live up to your beliefs.
that said, the polls say something >50% of black men voted yes on 8 (not that big or noticeable), and that 70% of black women voted yes on 8.
That is in fact the largest 'yes' demographic;
Followed by those who go to church weekly, those over 60, and those who have a less than highschool education.
(though not in that order)
Soo...
While some of the response is likely racially motivated, it's not a ridiculous argument.
They were the most dedicated voting block as best as I can tell.
Well, black women anyways.
Can somebody explain that to me?
Whats with the divide anyways?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage doesn't really matter here...
At long as more than one black person voted based on Biblical teachings, the post still holds valid.
It's not assigning blame..
Just asking WTF.
(Answer: selective reading of the Bible allowing you to use your own personal judgement as a filter on what the divine book means)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Er let me clarify.
Why the hell is the percentage of black women who hate gay people so much higher than the percentage of black men who hate gay people?
I can understand a whole lot of ways in which a man might be intimidated, uncomfortable with or otherwise afraid of gay men.
But women? What the heck?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, diverging into a different topic then.
This was under "Reddit is racist", so I was reading in those terms.
But women?
What the heck?
Traditionally the less power you have, the more faith you have I think [no cite: I'm just going from what I remember in an old sociology class]...
It's a survival mechanism.
Black women are about as low on the totem pole as you can get, so it makes sense they would be the most "faithful" as a group.
If the gay thing is proscribed by your religion, then one measure of your faith would be how much you support that position.
Black women are more "faithful" would then predict black women voting yes on 8 in higher numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That... is rather cruel.
Sorta racist too, or at least could be interpreted as such unless you can dig up some decent, respectable statistics to support the black women = helpless correlation.
Not meaning to be snarky, really asking for the stats cause, mean as it is, I could believe it.
Just need more than anecdotal evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That... is rather cruel
So?
Life is cruel
Sorta racist too,
sigh
The benefits of society (to be clear, I live in the USA, so I'm referring specifically to society in the USA in general) are still affected by race whether individual actors themselves consciously practice racism or not [ie, just because I don't personally practice racism doesn't mean other people aren't affected by pre-existing racism].
In that sense, society is racist.
I'm a bit upset that I feel the need to disclaim that sentence (and others) as heavily as I did, and still feel the need to disclaim more.
I'm done with disclaimers from here on...
Either give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not being racist and try to understand the arguments, or just assume I'm racist and ignore it all.
or at least could be interpreted as such unless you can dig up some decent, respectable statistics
As I mentioned, I ran across it in college.
My Google-fu is weak right now, and I don't want to spend too much effort trying to locate "decent, respectable statistics" since I don't know what you will consider decent or respectable.
I don't know you personally, but Reddit discussions too easily turn into nitpick fests about the most irrelevent details because someone decides they have to prove someone wrong or prove how clever they are and I don't want to waste that kind of time.
black women = helpless
I hope that's just a shorthand description...
I wasn't trying to imply black women are actually helpless, but when you look at general empowerment, societal benefit, etc they are at more of a disadvantage than the other three groups implied.
(white men and women, and black men)
So, I'm not saying black women aren't helpless, I'm saying black women are at a social disadvantage compared to white men and women, and black men.
(In general) That hardly seems so be a controversial position to hold.
I know we all want to live in a world where gender and race don't matter, but even having elected Obama, race is still an issue in the USA.
-
I remember the description of the explanation though.
In general, which group has a better social position in this society: white people or black people?
I think it's safe to say the answer is "white".
(How many black presidents have we had?
Why do we still arguably need affirmative action?
How about service jobs?)
As Chris Rock put it, "None of you white guys would switch places with me, and I'm rich" [especially when you go back a decade or two to allow for experience of older people]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American
Nevertheless, due in part to the legacy of slavery, racism and discrimination, African Americans as a group remain at a pronounced economic, educational and social disadvantage in many areas relative to European Americans
-
Now, in general, which group has a better social position: men or women?
I think it's safe to say the answer is "women".
(How many women presidents have we had?
When someone knocks race out of the equation, what is the next group used to support affirmative action?
While the gap has closed somewhat, there is still a wage gap [whether you can personally explain it away doesn't matter for this argument...
There is a gap, and people interpret it as being sexist regardless.], why are women over-represented in cleaning positions?)
-
Just putting the two together, you can't say anything comparatively about black-men vs white-women;
But it's a pretty simple jump to get to white men (who are better off in both categories) are in better positions socially than black women (who are worse off in both categories).
Taking personal income as a proxy for social position, and referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex (which isn't perfect, but it's something) the charts match the trend.
(Yeah, it's Wikipedia, but the data is sourced from the US Census Bureau.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't complaining by the way, or even trying to critique you.
You're right, life is cruel, but when you make inflammatory statements like that it's a good idea to offer as hard a proof as you can, otherwise you just rile people up.
and I agree.
It is a reasonable conclusion, just still needs to be a reasoned one.
The chart does wonderfully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So it is just a way to try to link their "struggle" to the black struggle, and it such a weak comparison.
Blacks have fought tooth and nail over centuries for equal rights."
Which makes it hypocritical how some turn around and vote to oppress others.
Isn't that the point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is that hypocritical to vote according to your conscience?
Most Blacks believe in scripture that speaks against homosexuality.
Wouldn't it be hypocritical to vote against one's conscience?
Oppression? Doesn't California recognize civil unions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bible often contradicts itself, people choose to tkae what they want from it and ignore the rest.
Really it doesn't matter where their beliefs come from.
The simple fact is, a group that, as you said, has fought for centuries for equality, has now turned around and voted to take rights way from another group is by definition hypocritical.
Apparently all men are not created equal, hah.
And the civil unions aspect sounds something like separate but equal, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bible does not contradict itself.
People often say that when they don't examin the context of the apparent contradiction.
There is no parallel.
How can you take away rights that were never granted.
Separate but equal applied to interracial schooling.
They schools were proven to be separate and very unequal, how does that apply to this situation when in civil unions they have the same rights as a married couple.
Its just not called marriage.
Its just not the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh previously gay people could and did get married...
Now they cannot. Sounds like something was taken away to me.
Civil unions do NOT grant same rights as married couples...
Think one of the big things is all federal marriage rights and benefits aren't applied.
Analogy works just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How are they being held to different standards in this post?
(yeah, others go overboard in actually assigning blame, but this post did not.)
It's about the reversal of fortunes...
That there were at least 3 black people who votes yet on Prop 8.
Odds are it was for religious reasons.
Odds are it was supported by the Bible.
Why single out Blacks there rather than Irish, Japanese, etc?
Because "the black community" (or whatever Jesse Jackson wants us to call them) bring up slavery all the time as the prime reason for the problems they have today.
The irony is that these specific voters seem to be voting based on something that was used to enslave them.
If the Torah was used to justify enslavement of Jews AND was used to justify discrimination against gays, I'd expect the same sort of post to be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm confused. The folks in the past distorted the teachings of the bible to defend slavery.
The people this week used the actual scripture to base their idiology.
I'm not finding irony here.
The bible is pretty ambiguous regarding slavery (aside from the people of Israel), yet not so ambiguous regarding homosexuality.
It's pretty fucking specific.
It begins with being fruitful and multiplying in Genisis (which is sorta difficult for a same sex couples).
We derive the word sodomy from the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22 lays it out, spells it out, and defines the Bible's position on same sex couples.
If you are a devout follower of the Bilble, your choices are none.
The teachings of your faith compel you vote against a bill advocating homosexuality.
Now that that has been said, I am in no way in favor of the bill.
As an atheist raised by a staunchly religious family I understand the viewpoint of these people.
They are blind and filled with heavy emotion.
You can reason with them not.
These same people (Christian fundies) will stand and protest gay marriage and cheat on their wives with their neighbors wife.
Thus sending them to the same place that the people they just spent hours protesting against are supposedly going.
Rediculous.
The main point I'm making here is your are mixing apple and oranges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not mixing apples and oranges, but you're right there are different levels of interpretation involved.
The bible is pretty ambiguous regarding slavery
It does mention rules of how to keep slaves and what to do with them...
It's not a hard thing to distort into the Bible when it says it in black and white.
The only reason its not more clear in general is that we've "interpreted" that out socially so the morality of slavery isn't being passed down.
(another example of society reading the Bible through its own lens)
Most of it is old testament, but there are bits in the new as well.
(Though with the reliance on the 10 commandments, mis-interpretation of Onanism, etc they're still choosing to use the old testament as moral authority)
yet not so ambiguous regarding homosexuality
That depends on how you take it.
My roommate studied the Bible and its history in the Vatican with the Catholic Church.
As he describes the old testament to me, the real intent wasn't that homosexuality was bad, but that the specific acts of male homosexuality for money in conjunction with rites of Ba'al worship were the real target.
(same reason for the "thou shalt not boil a goat in its mother's milk" thing) God was really big on separating his people from the others.
This was before Christians came along and decided they needed to co-opt popular parts of other religions to grow and survive.
(I guess God got laid and relaxed a bit after that)
Jesus really doesn't talk about Homosexuality in the new testament...
It's folks around him that do, and they don't say it around him as I recall.
And Jesus does the whole "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek", "try to convert once and if they don't, leave", "judge not", "render under Caeser", etc...
So even if you take the prohibition of homosexuality as directly professed by the Bible, there are many other parts that are commonly used for other things that should excuse homosexuality as well.
I'm not finding irony here
I wasn't really trying to press the irony thing either...
The poster I was responding was implying racism as the cause of some sort of accountability being mentioned here, and I was just trying to show it wasn't the case.
In a very light sense, it's ironic: using the same book to oppress others that oppressed you.
In a more practical sense it's really not ironic because the Bible they're acting on now isn't the same one folks acted on before.
(maybe same words, but different social lens)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The teachings of your faith compel you vote against a bill advocating homosexuality.
Absolutely false.
Matthew 7:1-2:
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Using the government to punish people or treat them differently for their perceived sins is contrary to the Bible's teachings.
Too many Christians know too little about the Bible.
In this case, I think they know, but they've found some way rationalize what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You coulda went Matthew 7:12 or Matthew 12:48,49 as well.
1 Corinthians 6:9-20, explain that.
Pretty specific. Gay = not in "God's" plan.
So in their logic, they are actually trying to help homosexuals.
Yeah, I know.
You are actually correct.
The Bible is specific about judgment of others.
Not supposed to happen.
But what you are ignoring is it is also specific about homosexuality.
The Bible is so wrought with contradictions and imposibilities and incorrectness that it should be laughed off the book shelves and it is why I don't believe it.
Leviticus 11:19 claims that the bat is an unclean bird.
Seriously! A bat.
SIGN ME UP!
With that in mind, there are people who passionately believe in it.
And they vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, give it up already.
What are you, a parrot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in hawthorne ca, huge population of minorities and for 6 days I watched hispanic, black and asian people wave "Honk to vote yes on prop 8" signs.
Nothing like watching the "oppressed" oppress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So tell me, when were gay people brought over from their original country to be forced into servitude to frightful masters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So tell me, how many asians, hispanics and blacks do you know who were brought over here from their original country to be forced into servitude to frightful masters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how you go from what I said: when were gay people brought over from their original country, to your how many do you know.
I know they (Asian, Latino and Blacks) were from history.
Would you like to show me from history where the same can be said for gays.
I'm gay and I have never read this.
I know oppression is a bad thing regardless, but to try an even begin to equate gays being oppressed to blacks or any other racial minority is more than a bit reaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason gays were never used for slave labor is because when they were prosecuted, they were flat out killed.
That said, you're right.
Being killed is not the same as being a slave.
I wasn't trying to equate the two, beyond the fact both are unacceptable, unfair and generally uncool.
My point is that your point is as relevant to the argument at hand as the crazy little roman city-state way back when that had an all-gay 'special forces' sort of brigade that was their biggest and baddest warriors.
Both are ancient history.
My local head of IT is chinese.
My coworker is korean, another japanese.
My boss is of latino descent, and many previous coworkers have been too.
Same goes for blacks.
A black guy is president now.
Does this mean there's no prejudice left in the country?
Hell no, but there's not any goddamn slavery either and nobody within our lifetimes has been dragged here against there will to be slaves by any legal organization.
Maybe you're referring to the korean human trafficking gangs, but seeing as how those critters are, most likely, not voting or citizens, I doubt it.
In summary, no, slavery and subjugation are not the same as forced shock-therapy and murder, though neither are pleasant, but since both are things of the past that neither my nor your generation have had to deal with, how the hell does it matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because maybe for some the past is very hard to get over, especially in light of how blacks and others are still treated, based on skin color.
I can get over someone calling me a fag, but someone decides to get racial with me, that cuts a bit deeper.
I may not have been enslaved, but when those slavery terms are used it still makes me angry, it still cuts as deep as a taskmaster's whip.
That's about as good as an answer, as I can give you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can get over someone calling you a fag?
How about when it's several someones and they are calling you a fag while beating the holy shit out of you.
Simply because you are a "fag".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We each as individuals, deal with circumstances differently.
To be honest, the fists would hurt me more than the word.
You can dislike my answer, but it's my answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah... except no black person alive under the age of 100 knows what a taskmaster's whip feels like.
Nice try though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but it doesn't mean it stings any less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Yes it does.
Whipping has as much to do with you as being crucified has to do with christians.
None of them have been crucified against their will for a long damn time, but they're still whining about it thousands of years later.
Granted, this is a bit more fresh, but you still have never been whipped in your life.
And you never will.
But here's a quick hint, a protip from me to you:
It hurts a lot more than a comment on an internet message board, you goddamn sissy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you for real?
Hundreds of years of slavery and apartheid for blacks and you think gays somehow went through a similar struggle.
Oh yeah I forgot.
In every American city gays are corralled in poor dangerous neighborhoods like minorities are.
They also are sent to grossly inferior schools.
You think you have you suffer because civil unions aren't called marriages.
Imagine this...all gays were rounded up and dumped into shanty towns with little educational and economic opportunity.
Welcome to being black.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you for real?
By your logic, because the black people weren't killed in the holocaust with the gays, they don't deserve equality?
Here's an idea, they're different groups of people who have different histories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, oppression is oppression and if you're arguing gay oppression doesn't matter because "you" were oppressed in a different (and you seem to think worse) way that's crazy.
This "my problems are the only problems that matter" attitude is why no progress gets made.
If you could get people together for decency, the minorities combined are a majority.
But you don't see that.
Divided, we are conquered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody is rounding up black people now.
I could go on, but the point would be lost on you.
The hilarity and irony of the whole situation is something you're beautifully demonstrating for us right now.
Through willful ignorance of the other side of the story, you're either unaware or unwilling to consider just how very much gays and blacks have in common history-wise.
If the story was reversed, you'd be bitching about the shock-therapy and the lobotomies and the various other things history has seen done to fags while being blithely unaware of slavery.
Go read a book, then get over yourself.
Maybe the reason minorities are fucked with everywhere is because of this, because most of them are too fucking stupid to know an ally when they're staring one in th face and would rather jump at the chance to be the one in charge than work to change the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't waste your breath.
They have an agenda to impose, and they need our struggle to legitimize their "struggle."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're a racist little word deleted aren't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but you clearly are.
Since when has a choice in sexual orientation been a race.
You seem a little confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Mormon church still does the shock therapy thing to this very day.
In the Middle East they still put gays to death to this very day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hate to correct you, but the mormon church does a whole lot worse than shock therapy.
google the WWASP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I spent the past 8 years trying to change minds, with little success.
Most people hold their knowledge as a system of beliefs instead of a malleable collection of information.
It is like arguing with my socks....only my socks have better comprehension skills.
You cannot change beliefs.
Now I just berate them so that they go climb back under whatever rock they came from, so I can go back to enjoying LOL cats instead of shooting down all the goose stepping right wingers that have been showing up more often on reddit with their bullshit..
I meant to comment on the other guy not you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's alright. But be nice to him!
:)
and you can't change beliefs with logic, or arguments or words alone.
Not beliefs held by the weak willed and the unthinking.
You need comic books, like the bible, full of pretty pictures and bubble text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It won't help. My best friend was one of these people.
He was a church going/ leave it to beaver type family.
I had to twist his arm to get him to try new shit, he always had fun doing these things.
After 14 years of friendship I moved away.
He stopped talking to me (cause now I'm a heathen) and went back to his old ways.
14 years! Nothing you tell these people once in 5 minutes is going to change them.
It is more constructive to reduce them to what they were.
Weak minded idiots in a building worshipping a book and giving their money to con artists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gays were executed....your right, they got off lite.
But whites were taken from costal town of europe, england, and ireland and sold in places like tripoli in africa.
You know the cliche setting where the guys are chained to the oars of a boat out at sea....where do you think that came from?
EVERYBODY has shit on EVERYBODY when you look at the past.
What needs to be concentrated on is making sure it doesn't happen in the now.
FYI hispaics (some most came on thier own or were already here), blacks and orientals (same as with hispanics) were sold into slavery by hispanics, blacks, and asians.
This is aside from the fact that when slavery was legal only 1% of the population had any (the wealthy) but every white person gets the blame.
The problem in this country isn't black, white, brown, etc.
It is rich poor. The reason the racial dividie is encourage is because if we stopped and looked at how broke we are the rich would be in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't say I disagree.
I'm hoping the bailout helps to foster that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whites, latinos, rednecks and NIMBYs (not in my back yard) should all be held responsible yes, after all they are the majority who voted for Prop 8.
I'm not asking why did blacks pass Prop 8, but why did some people whose ancestors were oppressed and brutalised use the same justification to remove the rights of others as their ancestors oppressors?
The Bible is pretty clear on slavery and somewhat ambiguous on homosexuality (don't talk to me about Leviticus unless you never mix cotton with polyester), yet some blacks decided to use the bible to justify voting yes.
A lot of other segments of society used the Bible as justification, but in most of those cases they don't have the deeply personal history of passages from that book being used to oppress and subjugate them.
It really doesn't matter how many of them actually voted yes, we know some did, and it is from them I'd love an explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do they owe you an explanation?
They can vote any which way they damn well please.
And if Obama's presidency, given the enormous crises it has to solve, ends in debacle will we all be owed an explanation by the reddit community why they were in the tank for him?
Give your head a shake.
People have a vote for a reason.
They don't owe you an explanation for their choices.
If you don't like the result, organize and campaign harder next time.
But don't belabor people their right to their franchise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are not your scapegoat.
You can't link your struggle to ours.
Its not the same.
You can't piggyback what we have accomplished.
The headline in this post doesn't even follow logic.
Homosexual marriage has nothing to do with slavery.
In addition, rules regarding slavery in the Bible, and what went on in this country are two different things.
Biblical slavery in the Bible was clearly defined, and not at all abusive and dehumanizing.
So why don't you do a little thinking before jumping on the self-righteous bandwagon.
And BTW, why do you use the Bible to substantiate your argument, but then turn around and talk about how useless it is?
How ridiculous do you sound?
You don't know the Bible.
If you did, you would know that it speaks against homosexuality in Romans chapter 1, 1 Corinthians chap.
6, 1 Timothy chap.
1. There are other places in Matthew, John, Jude, Dueteronomy, Judges, and Kings to name a few.
We will deal with our own problems.
You need to worry about your country and your blossoming police state yes?
The Bible is not a joke.
Christianity is not a joke.
For the Christians who know the Bible, it is a very good book on which you can base your life with very good results.
It leads to a very real and loving God who wants to restore a loving relationship between Himself and between mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa nelly...
Playing devil's advocate doesn't make you a traitor to your own argument;
Nor does it invalidate your stance.
When employed in this way, it demonstrates that whether the viewer is of your mind or the mind of your adversary, the logical conclusion is the same.
You see, people who live by reason can consider mutually exclusive arguments rationally, one at a time if needed.
After they evaluate one, they remember the result and move on to the other one;
That's how they do it you see, by being able to Leave their opinions long enough to emulate their counterparts in a debate/argument/whatever.
Coincidentally, not being able to do this is usually a pretty good indicator that the individual in question doesn't work so well with logic.
Probably more the faith-based sort.
That said, if you'd leave the bit off at the end about a 'loving god', you'd have sounded pretty level-headed, if not eloquent, by not betraying your extremely personal stake in the argument.
You see, people take personal stakes into account when evaluating Your arguments because most people realize throughout life that emotional involvement has a tendency to color opinions.
Which is, I reckon, why you can't understand why somebody is upset or disappointed by blatantly hypocritical behavior.
Unless of course you, and all other religiously motivated no-on-8 voters, wouldn't object to being a slave by biblical standards.
I bet you would, but on the offhand chance you wouldn't;
I have an opening for 'personal attendant' and 'house keeper'.
Don't worry.
My temple doesn't keep prostitutes, in my house people who do not observe the sabbath are stoned to death, inter-racial marriage is considered, like beastiality, an abomination, if you should see another male naked and drunk we will make sure you feel properly ashamed and if black mold should be found in your house we will burn it down and say the appropriate prayers.
So I figure you'll feel right at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its funny how you can't help but reveal a personal stake in your argument.
Can't seem to leave that part out, huh?
Am I to believe you don't have a personal stake in your argument?
I think you have have also betrayed yourself.
Yes, my statement was eloquent.
Except that one part about God being loving.
After all, to justify your anti-christianity you have to assume God is hateful to you.
Have you considered that your emotional involvment has colored your opinions without understanding where I am coming from?
Again, your abstract logic doesn't hold up.
You have not established any parallels to slavery, yet you use this argument because it strikes an emotional chord with most readers.
The two don't compare.
Are homosexuals denied the most basic human rights like safety, food/water, rest?
Is the servitude agreed upon or forced?
BTW, thanks for the offer to work for you, but I don't think you can afford me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I have a personal motivation in replying to you, and I'm not worried about hiding it because it's not the sort of fever-pitched desperation inspired motivation that you find in the faithful when they defend their faith from a perceived attack.
You ever watch a movie or sitcom where the main character could easily avoid a huge mess just by coming clean with the others involved, but they don't and invariably create large, and hopefully hilarious, drama?
Wanna just jump on in and tell him, 'hey man, your friends are reasonable!
Just level with them, it'll be okay, I promise!'?
That's my motivation.
And I'm afraid you misunderstand me, I don't hate christianity, and I don't think god is hateful to me.
As a matter of fact, I appeal to satire in an attempt to please him.
God separated man from animal in only one meaningful way I've ever really noticed, and that's laughter.
Nothing else laughs on earth, not even other sentient creatures, so if god made us, I figure he must either have a good belly-laugh himself every so often, or appreciate humor in his creation.
Why else would the bible itself, and every other religious document ever made, become funnier and funnier with time, no matter how many languages and translations you run it through?
I apologize if i hurt your feelings or made you feel belittled, the appeal to ludicrousness was chosen and worded with the intent to amuse and to, through amusement, display how funny the bible really is.
As for my 'abstract' logic, I wasn't trying to win an argument, or even really take a side even if I made my own opinion apparent.
I just wanted to help you learn how to be more suave in swaying people who don't think like you do to your way of thinking.
If I was to state an argument however, as it seems you're requesting me to do for some reason, I'd state this:
Slavery is a form or persecution.
So is denying homosexuals the right to visit their dying lovers in the hospital, get health-care or bank accounts or loans or adopt children like any other married couple.
More to the point, seeing as how nobody in our lifespans in america has been a slave with any legal backing, when homosexuals were actively persecuted against instead of this passive legislation sorta thing we have going now, they were denied the most basic human rights.
They were rounded up, tortured and killed alongside many other minorities down the ages.
In fact, the pink triangle some of them chose to represent themselves came from the pink triangles the nazis would pin on them to mark them as no-good sodomizing faggots.
Personally, I think the person who's argument I inherited was pretty poorly thought out.
I'd have, myself, pointed out that the bible passage forbidding gay sex is on the same page as the one that forbids inter-racial marriage and that if you go back in our country to when gays were still being committed and given shock-treatments and lobotomies against their will, blacks still couldn't marry whites.
Somehow, that seems...
Pertinent.
As for me being able to afford you, by biblical standards I can keep as many slaves as I can feed and care for, and i don't care how much you eat, believe me I can cover it.
That said, the joke aside (sadly, as it appears to not even have made you smile or grin), I'd never allow it.
Funny bible or serious bible, slavery is an abomination to Me.
Edit: I missed something!
Asking about whether the slavery was consensual or not.
Lets go with the biblical times for the sake of argument.
That'd be non-consensual.
Course, in reality, consensual or not, I wouldn't allow it as noted above;
Merely wanted to point out that the bible has no problem with slaves, black or otherwise, so long as you take care of them.
But find somebody else to be your sugardaddy.
Slaves give me the willies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wowsers, good internetting TwarkMain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughter is far from unique in Humans.
Http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0331_050331_animallaughter.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rats chirping? An autonomous nervous response does not a sense of humor make.
I can make a horse whicker and neigh by creeping up on it from the side and gently poking it's flank, but I can't take it to a chris rock comedy show.
Show me another beast on this planet that laughs at irony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm, good points.
I concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the interest of being pedantic, rats (and hyenas?) laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As noted to another;
No they do not. Not like humans do.
Hyenas bray, but there's no humor in it.
Rats giggle when you tickle them, and even though the report that other critter linked didn't mention them, there are a LOT of other mammals you can get the tickle response for.
In dogs, it's mixed in with mating instincts too.
In chinchillas, it tickles.
In possums... it doesn't seem to do a damn thing, so I don't know why i mention them.
However none of these animals have an appreciation for irony.
Nor a sense of humor.
They have a physiological response, but no personal one beyond pre-wired neurological conditioning of the entity doing the button-pushing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course you have a personal motivation.
So do I. Remember how eloquent I was up until I mentioned that God is a loving God?
That was the part where I made it very clear where I was coming from.
I didn't want any misunderstanding there.
You see, I am not ashamed of being in the fellowship of the Almighty God.
He is all-powerful, yet with His power He is very long-suffering and follows His own laws.
Any attempts to mischaracterize and slander who He is will be undone with time.
Even you will one day see Him for who He is.
So no, this was not a cloak and dagger revelation.
I want to be very clear where I am coming from.
That being said, your whole sitcom analogy doesn't stand.
You seem to have a habit of trying to make preconcieved notions fit where they just don't.
Do you see a pattern yet?
God does have a sense of humor of course, but He he takes His Word very seriously.
And God did create animals with an ability to laugh.
I also noticed that you didn't credit Aristotle with your 'observation' about the differences between humans and animals.
You made it out like you thought of that in order to make yourself appear more intellectual.
I wonder if you got over yourself for a moment what other things you may discover?
You say you don't hate christianity?
That's only because your feelings are not fully developed.
With your line of thinking, just give it time.
You'll get there.
As for the Bible becoming funnier with time, maybe your sense of humor is becoming more warped with time?
If you knew the Bible you would at the very least realize that it is intriguing, but you would definitely realize it was not a joke.
It is actually very practical.
As for the nazis, did you know that they practiced homosexualality.
The persecution of homosexuals during that period was also likely political rather than genuine.
Edit: More evidence of homosexuality in modern nazism.
So thank you for efforts to teach me 'how to be more suave in swaying people,' but I am not trying to convince anyone.
I am especially not interested in trying to convince people without them knowing where I'm coming from.
I'll leave the deceptive tactics to you.
My aim is to inform you, and what you do beyond that is between you and God.
You offered me the position of being a slave for you and I politely declined on the basis of your inability to afford me.
I never requested you to be a sugerdaddy, that's just sickening to even think about.
You could have come up with something better than that, right?
Since biblical slavery was not based on race, maybe you'd want to consider working for me.
Maybe not, I'd just end up forgiving your debt and setting you free anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to re-read my comment.
I said 'if not eloquent', as to infer that you were Not eloquent, and still would not be.
The difference is between coming off as a man who's education was cut short or who has a minor lingual disability and coming off as a man who has an unhealthy addiction to god.
Nobody accused you of cloak-and-dagger deceptions, I merely advised you to try it next time, because if you would just have omitted that one tiny phrase, your credibility amongst unbiased viewers would've shot up considerably.
I still would've known you for what you are, a zealot with faith on his skin and doubt and fear in his heart, because those who have true faith in their god do not suffer the sick scent of desperation that drips off your words, growing ever more grandiose as you feel more and more threatened to hide the shriveled sad reasonless child who fears losing his tribal identity behind them.
The sitcom analogy is quite apt.
You could be so so much more than who you are, but you hobble yourself.
I'm not even talking about your faith, just your basic inability to understand how you look to other people.
Your allergy to logic is also problematic in day-to-day life i'd imagine, in ways you probably aren't even aware of, but really, in life how competent you are isn't as important as how good you look;
If comfort and societal success are your only goals, and you're Really good at faking it so I bet the only thing that could really dramatically improve your life and your arguing skills right now is learning how to tone it down a little.
How to throw a little guile and forethought into your words.
Maybe even your life, so you don't keep making a total ass of yourself on the internet;
Or at least so you can start doing it in a fashion a couple more people out there take seriously.
As others have pointed out below me, there are other animals who have the ability to 'laugh', persay, but there aren't any that appreciate humor.
I don't know who the first person to realize this was, and if I had to guess I'd say it predates Aristotle.
Humankind has been around a very long time, and we've been jokers the whole way.
A lot of things are historically mis-credited, and I don't really trouble myself over 'ownership' of an idea, truth be told I doubt I've ever had a truly original um, what did you call it?
'discovery'? I don't think anybody i've ever met has either, nor do I really trouble myself with ownership or take any sort of undue pride in my ability to discern the reality I live in.
You misunderstand me when I say the bible gets funnier with time.
I don't mean within my lifespan.
Within my lifespan, the bible's humor has been relatively constant;
With tiny spikes when people have tried to use it politically.
I mean since it's inception.
As technology advances, as housing materials, medical techniques, astronomy and physics explain more and more and alter our daily life more and more from it's original audience, it's instructions become less and less applicable and more and more absurd.
it's always been hilarious in my view.
In an archaeological context;
The humor drops and reveals an ancient method of spreading information to keep people out of trouble and push a political agenda at once, but it doesn't have much bearing in a world like this.
In a world where people like you have to put up with jokers like me voicing their opinions between every serious, grim and humorless 'hallelujah' and 'amen'.
I don't bear a hatred for any religion or cult, a couple pyramid schemes out there piss me off like mormonism and scientology, and have since my childhood, but relgions themselves I've no problem with.
You can find a Way in the bible, or in the vedic scriptures, the quran or the oral traditions from any culture around the world.
All of it is self-contradictory, all of it is too much to hold in your head at once, so people pick and chose from it what suits them.
None of them preclude true spirituality, none of them prevent enlightenment, none of them stop you from being a good person...
Responsibility for those sins lies squarely on the shoulders of those who are more interested in controlling the lives of others than improving their own selves.
People who'd rather tell other people who they can and cannot marry than work on their own personal relationship with god.
Homosexuality was not institutionalized in the Nazi regime, it was what you might call 'in the closet'.
And yes little billy, I knew that too.
If you want a more current and better documented example of this phenomena at work, I suggest you look at any of the many recent leaders of family values thinking who got caught in gay scandals.
Or Roy Cohn.
And if you look to the spanish inquisition, you can see good christians persecuting good christians.
This doesn't really have any bearing on the argument at hand though;
The gays still suffered either way.
It does, however, back my assertion that god has a sense of humor.
Especially all those good christian leaders who keep turning out gay...
I think if you listen closely, you can hear god whispering in those happenings.
You don't need to deceive people really, just express yourself differently.
Don't sound like a holy roller, sound like a professor.
Approach life with some stature, with some pinache, with some flare and with some grace.
Don't degrade yourself and your god by sounding like a kid on a playground playing 'my dad is a great and mighty dad!
Mightier than your dad, and all false dads who cometh before him!'.
My point is that you won't succeed in informing anybody;
If anything you'll alienate potential new followers by coming off as a self-righteous prick.
I don't think you're really paying attention here.
I offered that position in jest.
In good humor and spirits.
The biblical slave-master is sort of a sugardaddy.
He takes care of his slaves, and doesn't own more than he can afford.
Seeing as how I'm not one to whip others, I imagine I'd make quite the lenient master;
And as I pointed out, I can easily afford to feed and cloth another human being, so I could easily afford, by biblical standards, to keep a slave.
And since I don't believe in following the bible to the letter, what it says about slavery doesn't really have any bearing on what I ought to or ought not to consider.
That's pretty much all you've mentioned responded to, but between you and I, I'm concerned for you and your distance from your god.
You haven't said even one funny thing yet...
A person without humor is a person who's very far away from god.
Maybe I've failed you in not being funny enough, but I think the failure may not be mine alone.
How much time have you spent thinking about how other people should live?
About how other people do things, and about what other people believe?
I think if you were truly interested in nurturing a relationship with your god and with jesus christ, you'd loosen up a little and start worrying about your own sins instead of pridefully and hurtfully lashing out at every sin you perceive those around you of committing.
Take a time out man, before you reply again.
Go read a webcomic that cracks you up, or listen to your favorite stand-up comic awhile.
Watch your fellow man caper and cavort as surely as you do to make them laugh and bask in the upside of life, in the light that is the laughter your lord has granted you.
Maybe then you'll realize the utter absurdity of thinking he needs or cares about your fumbling attempts to champion his cause, and stop worrying so much about what everybody else is doing and find some happiness and mirth in your own life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's interesting how I thought I was having a sense of humor, but you didn't take it that way.
You thought you were having a sense of humor and I didn't take it that way.
I thought your sarcasm was the opposite of humorous.
It didn't come off well at all.
That's why I find it so interesting that you are giving me advice as to how to present myself.
Maybe you should rethink your approach because you are falling way short of the advice you have given.
I find it interesting how confident you are in your poetic psychological breakdown of who I am, considering how far off the mark you are.
You said I don't have faith in my God because of the 'sick scent of desperation that drips off your words.' Who are you trying to impress?
You don't intimidate me.
Why do you think I'm afraid of you?
My beleifs don't hinge on the sway of your words.
My faith is grounded in God's Word, and my practical experience with Him.
I'm not the ignorant emotional Christian you are used to bullying around.
Neither am I interested in bullying you.
I just want to set the record straight in a place where I often see the Bible misQuote: d, and God misrepresented through oversimplified perceptions that don't hold up to who He really is.
Although you would love to sidestep the reality of God, that is the one reality you will not be able to sweep under the rug.
You will realize this in time.
So don't be mistaken.
I don't want to get involved in your life to the extent that I control your choices, but when your choices affect me, then I will speak up.
Gay marriage does affect the broader society.
Society has spoken, so respect their voice.
You are bisexual, and the country affords you the opportunity to live your life the way you choose.
You are not interested in marriage, so what are you so upset about?
Civil unions provide the same rights and benefits as marriage.
A lot of what you said is a waste of time to respond to, but I want to get back to the point of the conversation and away from an ad hominem argument.
Gay marrige has nothing to do with the struggle that blacks have endured unless you are talking about brutality and discrimination in this country.
I don't consider the denial of same-sex marriage discrimination.
Its not defined as such under the constitution.
The majority of people don't consider it discrimination, and most states do have a provision for civil unions so people can have the freedom to do what they want.
Slavery has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
It is just a ploy to strike a chord with an emotionally sensitive area in most Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you're afraid of me.
I don't think you're necessarily afraid of any real, single person.
I think you must be afraid though, at heart, that you're wrong.
If you weren't, I don't think you'd put so much effort into defending your belief and your god.
And make no mistake, that's what you're doing, defending your religion even though you don't have to.
In my practical experience, people who do that don't really believe in an all-powerful god above man.
They believe, at heart, in a god created by men.
One that needs to be polished, shined lest it fall into disrepair.
The faithful i've met and respected have never defended their beliefs.
They know they don't have to, and you can't get a defensive reaction out of them.
They're above that.
They're also above enforcing their faith upon others.
Your own jokes aside, and back to the original issue, you're correct in the assertion that gay marriage is, in part, a societal entity.
You're incorrect in how it affects you.
It only affects you because, as noted above, other peoples' beliefs are a threat to your own if they run counter to it anywhere they can be seen by you.
You don't think of it this way, but in truth you won't settle for anything less than the appearance of what you consider a christian society.
Your next door neighbors turning gay, getting married and adopting will not change anything meaningful outside of potentially having to explain to your own kids why some people have two dads.
It wouldn't turn your kid gay, it wouldn't turn you gay.
The sun would still set and rise, and you'd get a great opportunity to tell lots of fag jokes.
I care about it because I get bothered when anybody tells anybody else how to live.
And giving one group of believers carte blanche on what is holy and what isn't in a legal sense is discrimination to all other groups of believers.
It's putting forth a state-sanctioned way to live, and that is not right.
And finally, as noted above, the only thing slavery and gay marriage have in common is that they are both discrimination.
I'd argue that inter-racial marriage is a better analogue;
Which is probably why you've chosen to ignore it in this rebuttal.
'most states'.
How many states will not allow a black man to marry a white woman?
How many fifty years ago?
Have you ever heard the word 'stonewall' before?
Gays have their own history of brutality and abuse here, and the only reason it's not as widespread and systemic as the treatment of blacks is because they're born with the option of hiding what they are.
And as for my own failure to live up to my own advice, I promise you that somebody out there is getting a laugh out of this.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. I am not afraid of you.
Not in any sense.
You seem to be afraid of the fact that I am confident in my faith.
That is where you spend the most time arguing.
That is not up for discussion.
I have experienced too much of God's intervention in my life to flinch from your attacks.
God has shaped my ideas on this subject.
If it wasn't for Him, I would just agree with you.
Thanks to Him I know better.
Though not politically correct to say, God defines homosexuality as a sin.
One that he particularly hates.
You are not your sin.
Everytime you engage in homosexual acts you make a choice to commit sin.
It is your choice.
We will all be held accountable for our choices.
We have all sinned, but God has provided a way out.
He sacrificed His Son to fulfill the requirements of punishment for sin.
You have the promise of salvation if you accept Christ's sacrifice and leave your sins behind.
He will help you accomplish that if you are willing.
The choice is yours.
God can change you.
He has worked changes in my life and other's lives that have blown my mind.
I have even seen people who left a life of homosexuality behind them.
As I said, I am not trying to convince, but to inform.
I just hope you will think about this.
It is between you and God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biblical slavery in the Bible was clearly defined, and not at all abusive and dehumanizing.
It is by its nature abusive and dehumanizing (which is why it is considered immoral today), and I am sure it actually was, too:
Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished;
For the slave is his money."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, it was that way sometimes.
The point I was trying to make is that that in the Bible rules were set up to bring some structure as to how the debtor was to be treated.
Ideally servants were treated similarly to family.
It was so in Abraham's entourage.
That servitude was not dehumanizing.
It was more like a job with lots of security.
That was obviously not always the case.
In other cases slavery was dehumanizing.
Though at its best it was not dehumanizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'd find those conditions insufferable.
Go read about how slaves were treated in those times, what little we know.
They had devices especially for slaves you know.
Like anti-bite collars for dogs.
Branding and tattooing too.
Physical alterations.
I believe the bible explicitly calls for the piercing of an ear with a device that left a very specific sort of piercing;
Willingly or not.
none-the-less, it was cushy in some respects, sorta...
Like having a sugardaddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Biblical times, there were white slaves.
In fact, in Persian pale white slaves cost more money and were prized for their rarity.
The "only blacks can be slaves" aspect doesn't feed into the faith at all till Christians in American looked for an excuse to continue keeping slaves in the face of the growing abolitionist movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should blame old people, not black people.
I'm confident we'll fix the constitution after more old people die off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what happens when you become an older person?
Will a new generation be waiting for you to die off so that "right" opinions might prevail?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty much how it goes, isn't it?
It's not so much about the "right" opinion as it is the new opinion.
If people younger than ourselves, say, aren't waiting for us to die off so that they might see their own opinions "prevail," then I'd say the youngsters are fucking up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said! Time's a train and each new station offers a chance for new staff and passengers to board.
At some point the turnover will be complete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is what the constitution is for, first thing the new people who get on should read and follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see why you can't adapt as you grow old.
No rule says you must become a judgemental shitbag as you prune up and lose your teeth...
I'd rather strive to be one of the minority of old folks who have a damn clue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. We all become judgmental shitbags.
Each and every last one of us.
Always. Forever. Every time.
Seriously. No exceptions.
I certainly look forward to it.
Can't wait, sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You speak truth. From where I stand, new music is just plain awful, children are stupid, and we are all doomed.
The difference is, this time I'm right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a noticeable and alarming downward trend in intelligence during the last century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Flynn Effect disagrees with that assertion.
Over the next hundred years however, you might be right, as there are initial indications that the Flynn Effect is reversing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"[...] however Arthur Jensen warns that extrapolating beyond the data leads to results such as an IQ of -1000 for Aristotle (even assuming he would have scored 200 in his day)"
IQ-of-Negative-1000 Aristotle‽
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Kids these days have no ambition other than to hang out and 'chill' with their homies.
Would someone shoot me now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure feels like that.
Now get off my lawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think the bible says you should compensate your slave, which is kind of like modern capitalism..
I work for someone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite frankly, yes.
And, as the general trend of World History shows, they will most likely be more liberal than us, etc.
Sadly, I do think there will be a point where I am wrong, and the people more liberal than me are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about go back to following it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End the federal reserve...
A non federal private company that has no accountability and no audit.
but no we need to continue this lie and see where it takes us, no use admitting the real problem.
the people (rich) are voting themselves money out of the public treasury, fascism is on the way.
They new it in advance so they set up the federal reserve so when that day did come to America (the bailout) the public treasury money could go to the wealthy and not us, (the public)
On larry king live tonight, WILL.I.AM "its gonna take all of us to get together and work to get this country out of this hole we are in"
..code for, poor people get to work so i (rich) don't have to.
Change is code for, no more rebellion against rich corruption in america.
Slaves get to work!
No need to fix governement, the people need to fix (or get fixed) by us the wealthy corrupt who have voted ourselves 700 billion dollars of public money.
Its a new day in America, just not a better one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll admit that I haven't read the entire constitution (our state has one of the longest), but I doubt that it gives California any sort of dominion over the Federal Reserve System.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as that is concerned, separation of church and state was violated here, get prop 8, piss on it and burn it, keep the church where it is (in church) forever.
They don't belong anywhere near or donating to government.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is shortsighted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats funny thats what the neo-cons keep saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix the constitution
Hahahah.
You people stand behind this thing like it could stop bullets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It protects us from our government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You got it backwards.
You're supposed to protect it from the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way i see it, the greatest threat to the constitution is ignorance and / or fear in the constituency not the politicians / "government".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the ignorance displayed by the downvotes is the reason our Constitution is allowed to be shredded.
Too many people think it defines what the people can do, so when the government punches right through it there's not as big a fuss as there should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the thing is, it's the past.
Sure, it's supposed to protect us from the government, but when it comes right down to it, it's as good of armor as the paper it's written on.
You had rights before the Constitution, and if you care about them, you should defend them beyond it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is basically what the constitution says.
It's also why they put in the second amendment.
The Constitution outlines the powers of the government, not the rights of the people.
When people forget that and become ignorant to it's true function, it no longer guides us as to how to protect ourselves.
When that happens the people allow the government to steamroll our rights in the name of security, or whatever faux topic of the day they can come up with.
It's very sad that even here on reddit many people don't understand this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do people only think slaves can be black?
Slavery has been in use since man could get someone to do their own work for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same reason only jews died in the holocaust.
it's their 'thing', a piece of their culture whether they want it or not.
Most of them aren't even remotely responsible for it, anymore than most modern day jews are responsible for the fact that most people think only they were killed in the holocaust.
Gays, Gypsies and so on get left out.
A more interesting question is why, to those who are concerned with the whole slave-thing, is why they keep rambling on about how horrible slavery here WAS instead of how horrible slavery IS for those still in it around the world.
How many jews who play the victim have you met in your life that were concerned with genocides actually going on?
Don't blame the races or the religions.
Blame the culture, and blame the whiny little bastards who won't let it die and can't approach it with a little bit of historical dignity instead of as a combination of self-righteousness and pity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only Jews died in the Holocaust.
Gays were in those internment camps too.
Didn't you ever wonder where the Gay Rights Movement got the pink triangle from?
It was the symbol the Nazis made us wear.
Just like the Jews had to wear a Star of David.
And it was all gays, not just the Jewish ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only Jews died in the Holocaust.
That was his point.
He used a thing called irony .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you look at my other comments throughout the night, you'll see i've brought that up to several rather religious and rather ignorant people.
I'm bisexual, but despise marriage in every state-sanctioned form even if I do vote and push for equality in marriage, I was raised in a 1/4 jewish, 1/4 black, 1/4 born-again christian family, even though I am and never have considered myself to be jewish, christian or black.
Yes, that means I'm white, not that i'm one of those freaky in-denial black people like michael jackson.
I've had useless tidbits of history of all of those shoved down my throat, the black pieces by self-righteous angry black people who suffered none of what they described, the jewish pieces by self-pitying and self-righteous jewish people who suffered none of what they described, and the christian pieces by christians who not only suffered none of what they described, but more often than not got their history fucked up too.
I learned about the history of gay prosecution independently, as nobody I met until much later in life cared enough about them to teach it.
However, I didn't have to spend long in the GLBT community before somebody from there angrily shoved down my throat more gay history.
The only differences worth mentioning is that, on rare, though not as rare as I'd like, occasions, one of my black friends has told me about clearcut cases of being fucked with because of the color of their skin...
and sometimes, far less rarely, the angry lesbian/gay/whatever ridiculously precise word they identified themselves as in my face wasn't talking about history.
They were talking about last week.
And I've never once heard a jewish kid or black kid tell me that they were sent away to a mind-paving camp by their parents to make them not-jewish or not-black anymore.
I don't bother trying to make this point to angry black people, because I know they won't listen.
When you feel persecuted against, it makes you kind of irrational;
And who can blame anybody for that?
But the truth of the matter is that gays are, pound for pound, fucked with a lot more and a lot more defenseless than black people are.
Why?
Two simple, easily provable, undeniable reasons.
If you're black, you have protection under the law.
If you're gay, you have less.
If you're black, odds are you are born into a family of black people, or white people who won't hold it against you that you're black.
If you're gay, you're born into a family of straight people.
You have no assured posse.
You have no assured family backing, and there's real good odds that if you make it clear what you are, you will be rejected and hated and alone.
but hey, if reason ever resolved any arguments between crazed angry monkeys, we wouldn't still be wasting our time on problems with obvious fucking solutions hundreds of years after any sane society would've already implemented them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, I did not know that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...that COMPLETELY blew my mind.
Thank you. @.@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try right there, i don't buy it though
the way to defend this argument is that blaming blacks for passing this is like blaming blacks for electing barack obama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check the polls.
There's evidence for this.
Tell you what though, here's the bit i don't get...
slightly over 51% of black males voted 'yes'.
70% of black females voted 'yes'.
Apparently there's still a smidgeon of PC going on around here because we haven't seen a single 'wtf is wrong with black women?' thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where in that article does it say what percentage of blacks voted for it, i couldn't find it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't. google for the exit poll results.
or, if you really truly insist, i'll dig it back up and post a link.
I believe it was off the sos.ca.gov website somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course they don't.
Nobody reads the bible they just do what the preacher tells them to.
That is how religion works.
It's not about study or thought.
It is the denial of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is a DUMB-ASS statement.
NEWSFLASH: Blacks weren't the only slaves throughout history dipshit!
Remember that whole Jews in slavery thing?
Picking out certain passages to fit your argument makes you no better than Faux News!
And since you brought up the slavery point, you've proved a lot of peoples points, GAYS HAVE NEVER BEEN ENSLAVED, so DON'T SAY THAT YOUR STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY IS EVEN CLOSE TO THE SAME!!!
The bible says that you are not allowed to "lay with another man" either.
Your nearsightedness only leads to your blindness!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They worked in nazi labor camps with pink triangles pinned to them.
Does that count as slavery?
Or does the torture/murder at the end put it in another category?
Don't get me wrong, I think what happened that far back doesn't have much bearing on current events.
Apparently most black voters don't either, unless they weren't in school the day we learned that fifty or so years back they weren't allowed to marry whoever they wanted to either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jews in the bible when they were enslaved in Egypt in the bible was what I was talking about.
We were talking about the bible.
Not the holocaust!
Blacks marring whites is based on skin color, not sex.
Any white person who tans till tell you that just because my skin is darker, does not make me less of a human being because I spent more time in the sun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... What the hell does that have to do with gays and blacks?
Edit: while we're at it, how the hell does that make gays in nazi labor camps anything other than slaves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read the basis for this post.
Go ahead, I'll wait You brought up the Nazi thing.
Nobody else. So go have that arguement in the corner by yourself!
You seem to bring up the Nazi thing a lot in a lot of other posts.
What a one track mind you have.
Jews in Nazi camps were POWs that were forced into forced labor.
They were not captured to be resold or make the Reich rich.
They were captured to be killed!
(The money they did get from the Jews was cash and jewelry stolen from them.) Do you consider being forced to working for the government trying to kill your own people, digging your own graves, burring your own people, and building your own gas chambers to kill your family as slavery?
You're a perverted fuck!
THAT'S CALLED HOMICIDE AND GENOCIDE.
I'm sure the Jewish population appreciates you equating gay civil rights with the Holocaust.
Stay Classy!
What does this have to do with gays and blacks...
I don't know. Ask the person who started this thread!
Read my first post.
That was my point.
You perverted it and took it off in a diffetent direction totally.
You had your point all ready to go with the "pink triangle" thing, and that had nothing to do with the Bible or Christian faith.
Read the topic title again, then call me in the morning!
PS Oh yeah, I forgot.
The Nazi's captured the Jews to make them their slaves.
I get it. Whew. Thanks for pointing that out.
Here I read all of these history books, and they say they were rounded up to be killed.
When all of the Jews were taken to concentration camps, I'm sure their main concern was their civil rights and now their impending death.
Thanks for clearing that up for us!</sarcasm!>
ACTUAL FACT: Adolph Hitler was gay!
Do some research and chew on that.
He was a Jew too.
Hitler was self hating homosexual Jew, and wanted to exterminate everything he hated because he was one.
What triggered ti...
The fact that the Jews in Germany at the time were EXTREMELY anti-gay.
Adolph was raised in an orphanage.
Gay affluent men would frequent these places to pick up boys, wine them, and dine them and take them for a night out on the town, then to pay the men back, they had sex with them.
Adolph learned to love this lifestyle, and one man in particular.
A very powerful political figure.
When Adolph's lover was outed by the Jews for being gay, the Jews made his life a living hell.
That was the moment that sparked the seed for the self hating homosexual Jew.
Funny how he thought a perfect world would be of people with blond hair, and blue eyes, and Hitler had neither.
Hmmm.... Ya think he preferred blond hair blue eyed men..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster misses more obvious analogy of interracial marriage.
B.
Anti-Miscegenation Ideology
Monogenism and Christian Fundamentalism Much of the substance and rhetoric of anti-miscegenation law reflected a theory of race rooted in Christian fundamentalism.
Substantively, the language of the statutes themselves manifested the deeply held religious conviction that racial commingling was sinful, “to the dishonor of God and shame of Christians”.
The political debate surrounding the issue of segregation of the races in general was suffused with the rhetoric of religion.
Keeping races separate was thought to be “following the order of Divine Providence” and the white man’s “desire to preserve in its purity the race to which [he] belongs” was “not prejudice, but .
. . the implantation of the Divine Author of our being .
. . .”. To resist anti-miscegenation law was to “defy the Almighty and any people who shall do so may certainly expect His curse.”.
As authority for these convictions, anti-miscegenation proponents cited the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, employing a literal interpretation of its text.
The theory of monogenism—origin from a single source—held that all humans descended from a single pair of ancestors, Adam and Eve, and were therefore of the same species.
Despite this initial unity, according to the monogenists, the races had degenerated in various degrees from their original state of perfection—whites had degenerated the least and were thought to be closer to the original divine plan.
The monogenist argument relied heavily on Biblical genealogy, particularly that of Noah and his three sons—Ham, Shem, and Japheth.
Adhering to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Biblical story of the great flood destroying all of humanity save Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives, the monogenists reasoned that all modern humans are descended from these three sons.
Asians and Africans were classified as Hamitic, Arabs and Jews as Shemitic, and Caucasians as Japhethitic.
These racial classifications, grounded as they were in the Bible, were thought to reflect God’s divine order and any mixing of the races, consequently, was a violation of divine law.
This religious conviction was stridently asserted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Ex Parte Plessy(a case that would be affirmed by the U.S.
Supreme Court in one of its most infamous opinions, Plessy v.
Ferguson: “[F]ollowing the order of Divine Providence, human authority ought not to compel [] widely-separated races to intermix.”.
The fundamentalist Christian argument for keeping races from intermingling has proven to be one of the most durable: Present-day defenders of schoolimposed bans on interracial dating and marrying, for example, continue to base their arguments on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.
from http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2300&context=expresso
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
A much better argument.
The one I believe Samuel L.
Jackson chose when he asked people to vote 'no on 8'.
Civil rights motherfucker, do you speak it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, just to play devil's advocate for a second, painting in generalizations, the type of black christian voter coming out to vote against gay marriage because of their faith is probably part of a traditional black church and I'd be willing to bet not so keen on their kids going off and marrying a white person either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A good point.
I propose we set aside two states nobody likes.
Say, utah and florida.
We take all the black males of this kind and white females of this kind and put them all in utah.
We take the remaining black females and white males and put them in florida.
We'll just deport all existing utahians and floridians to someplace much nicer beforehand, give them the residences of those aforementioned citizens, and then prevent anybody from leaving new utah or new florida.
Some might decry the federal expense of such an operation.
I propose we pay for it by turning new utah and new florida into brand new reality television shows for the masses;
As I imagine life in there will very quickly resemble the random bullshit you see whenever you turn on UPN or MTV anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya basically the same thing it does about homosexuality :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's called cognitive dissonance and it is an affliction religion causes far too often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, geeze "the blacks" way to go.
(sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll bite. What's it say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You realize that the slavery in the Bible was drastically different from the slavery of Africans/African Americans, right?
Just to clarify, slavery in the Bible was not very different from being a low-class job with a fixed employer (excluding the period where the Jews were enslaved by Egypt.) Biblical slavery was similar to enlisting in the military in the sense that slaves could not simply quit whenever they felt like it, but masters still paid their slaves and only had a fixed contract time that the slaves were required to obey.
After this time the slaves could leave, but in some cases they chose to remain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What revisionist bullshit.
It doesn't matter what a contemporary, hairsplitting social analysis of biblical slavery says.
What matters is what christians and their leaders say the bible says at the time when they are using it to rationalize and support their oppressive social policies not later after those repressive social policies have fallen out of favor.
Are you trying to argue that what you put forward was the common interpretation of "what the bible says" at the time of the civil war and the 50 - 100 years prior to that?
The reality is exactly the opposite, rather than finding vast differences between enslaving Africans and biblical slavery, they found that enslaving Africans was the proper condition for their race and it was carrying out god's will.
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/his29_racism.html
Of course, even if it were the same back then you have argued effectively for gay marriage - "You realize that marriage contracts, conventions and purposes in the Bible are drastically different from those of today."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not arguing that at all.
I'm saying that the way the Bible was interpreted to allow slavery in the U.S.
Was perverted to allow a much more brutal form of slavery than the Biblical kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A low class job, where your manager were allowed to take you away from your family, rape you and/or beat you to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop with the race baiting it's sickening.
Many different groups voted for and against prop 8.
For someone who is for prop 8 you sound like a bigot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it was a racial issue.
A slim majority of Whites voted NO on prop 8 but a vast majority, two thirds, of Blacks voted YES.
And it isn't just blacks.
All racial minorities in California including Asians and Latinos voted a majority YES.
Only Whites voted a majority NO.
If that isn't racial then I don't know what is.
On the flip side, in Arkansas every racial group voted a majority YES.
In fact, Whites voted yes a little more than Blacks did.
What does this mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. Is there a detailed breakdown of the numbers somewhere?
I'd like to have a look at this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is, it was linked to in the comments of another article.
I'll see if I can dig it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breakdown of Vote on 8 (based on exit polling, so take with a grain of salt):
Whites: 49% Yes / 51% No Blacks: 70% Yes / 30% No Latinos: 53% Yes / 47% No Asians: 49% Yes / 51% No A detailed analysis of black people's voting influence in California is here :
Non-Black Votes in Favor of Proposition 8:
White Men: 51% of 31% of 10,325,615 votes: 1,632,480 Yes White Women: 47% of 32% of 10,325,615 votes: 1,552,972 Yes Latino Men: 54% of 8% of 10,325,615 votes: 446,067 Yes Latino Women: 52% of 11% of 10,325,615 votes: 592,170 Yes Asian/Native: 51% of 9% of 10,325,615 votes: 473,946 Yes *edit to fix lists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While black people alone obviously can't be held solely responsible for the passage of proposition 8, I must admit that's quite the proportional skew.
Edit: Why the hell are they lumping Native Americans together with Asians?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost half of the white people voted yes.
How is this a racial thing?
Perhaps those exit polls are correct and black people were more likely to vote yes.
Treating a single black person differently just because you believe they are more likely to have voted for Proposition 8 is what we call prejudice, and it's frowned upon here in America.
Stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You appear to be putting words into my mouth.
I never said that we should treat anyone any differently because of how they voted.
I simply pointed out that the YES vote was pretty much along racial lines according to the exit polling.
Also, note how I pointed out the differences in the Arkansas election from the California election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry about that.
It's just frustrating to hear people talk about how the blacks are so homophobic, because the next step is for people to say, "Hey look!
A black person. He must be homophobic."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, my gay friends who are black are very disappointed in California, not surprised, but disappointed.
We've been discussing it endlessly, including the apparent divisiveness in our (gay) community along racial lines.
It's weird, we're all gay and that brings us together with a shared culture but we also bring our ethnic/racial culture along with us.
It makes the gay community a very odd beast and leads to infighting at times.
Maybe some day it won't matter how much melanin our skin makes or who we like to fuck.
Some day...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) Biblical slavery is primarily indentured servants or prisoners of war.
b) The Bible does not expressly condone slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It used to, you remember back when it was used to beat people over the heads about why slavery was ok?
And if you don't remember that, you might remember 50 years ago or less when southern (and other) christian preachers [were] explaining why separation of the races was supported by the bible?
Don't worry in 20 or 30 or 40 years when christians catch up with the rest of us, some smug bible supporter will explain that the bible doesn't "expressly forbid gay marriage".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can read what the Bible says.
Some things people skew to fulfill their expectations, some things the Bible says explicitly.
The Bible says nothing about condoning slavery or segregation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you know that is not true.
It did explicitly say that when the christians wanted it to.
Preachers and common people could Quote: lots of verses that "proved" slavery and segregation was god's will and laid out in the bible.
What the bible says changes according to the whims of what christians want it to say at the time.
Today people are very certain about the bible saying gay stuff is wrong, as certain as christian were 50-60 years ago that it said segregation was what god intended.
Christians are a hypocritical joke, denying that the bible is used as weapon for social control - the Earth is the center of the universe, slavery, segregation, women's rights, prohibition, gay marriage, etc, etc.
Every generation tries to explain away the evil and backward social policies that were viciously promoted by previous generations of christians.
All those white families, in all the civil rights pictures screaming and spitting on the black kids trying to walk to school?
Christians - but oh, now it is different, the object of our hate is really, really is the bible.
No credibility if viewed in terms of the historical pattern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original African slaves they brought back to America were probably prisoners of war - defeated peoples, therefore inferior, used as trading materials by the natives.
The message just didn't translate very well when they got here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same as the afgans in gitmo - traded for cash rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) Oh, so slavery is OK in those circumstances?
Because between the collapsing economy and two wars, we should have plenty of slaves ready to work.
I'm glad we have the Bible to clear up any moral ambiguities in these situations.
b) The Bible does not expressly prohibit slavery.
And it certainly does not condemn it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you targeting blacks?
There are plenty of people to "reason" with concerning this issue.
You think "oh we were so noble to vote a half-black man President, now I can say all kinds of shit!
I can shame the black man and blame him for white shit!" Fuck you, bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to admit that Barack Obama is much cooler than Proposition 8.
Just compare the names:
Barack Obama Proposition 8 I'm a Texan, so my opinion on either didn't count for shit on November 4, but if the US had no blacks, then BET would go out of business.
True fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposition 8
Preparation H
Separated at birth??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People who try to rationalize the Bible's support for slavery will have a hard time explaining why it commands that you mark a slave by driving a trowel through his ear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read that as a towel.
That would have been weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meet prop 8, the most controversial prop ever passed at the most akward time, the blackification rennaisance of 2008
may he who is without sin, cast the first black dildo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I'm not just blaming blacks.
I'm ready to blame all heavily religious demographics.
Hispanics, Yokels, Palin fans, I'm looking in your direction too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform Judiasm embraces civil and religious marriage for same-sex couples.
In 1997, the Union for Reform Judiasm adopted a resolution stating that.
This was a step farther then it's 1995 resolution stating that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was inconsistent with the religion's principles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that most of "the blacks who voted Yes on Prop 8 because of their Christian faith" aren't on reddit.
In any case, we'll get this one fixed next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else find it odd that this thread is apparently about biblical exegesis and no one has cited any actual scripture?
So, I'll bite: what exactly does the bible 'say' about slavery?
To set some simple ground-rules, I would propose this: if you Quote: something, Quote: at least the entire chapter--and not a laser-edited verse or part of a verse--so that we have proper context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is a tricky one to find offhand.
I know what it says about it, just don't recall where.
It says slavery is right-o okay hunky dory fine.
The Lord and Jesus are both down with slaves.
Only rule is you can't have more than you can take care of and you can't neglect them.
The wording is remniscent of a PETA-inspired pet humanitarian law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not the poster of this article, so I don't feel the need to respond directly to what you asked for.
Instead I want to make two points:
1) No where does the bible forbid slavery.
If the greatest source of moral authority is truly behind the bible, why does it miss such a fundamental principal?
2) There are several passages that condones slavery, and rules for how the practice of slavery should be conducted.
It's true that it never says "you should have slaves." But it's also true that there are many passages in the bible that layout the rules of slavery.
It's message, if you're going to have slaves, here are the rules you need to follow.
Both of these points make a clear case for biblical depravity.
Can these two facts be twisted in some way?
Of course. You (or someone else) can go to amazing lengths to justify these facts.
But it doesn't change them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay. You know what the fucking problem is here?!
Well there's two actually.
First of all, the semantics.
Marriage is a word with religious connotations, so there needs to be an official legal term that applies to both straight and gay couples, and marriage the religious ceremony can overlap that.
Second, gay marriage is usually opposed by pre-organized and financed religious organizations.
Gay marriage is supported by a largely unorganized mass of individuals.
The only way you're gonna beat these fuckers is if everyone who supports gay marriage gets organized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As John Stewart said:
"Free at last, free at last - hey, wait a minute where do you two think you are going?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're all slaves motherfuckers!
Let's all get along and topple the world bankers so we all can haev a good life with hard work paying off.
Unite to end the opporessors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This headline is...
Not PC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omg we need a homosexual sub-reddit now for all these prop8 stories!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Talking facts to any religion-addled moron is pointless.
Don't waste you breath or your energy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They may be a minority, but there are those who are religious, who would be more than happy to let the lgbt community be married.
So don't paint such a broad brush of hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kmh01: So you're going to jump on the bandwagon of blaming black people in California for this - just because you read some vote figures online?
I wonder who hoped someone would take it and run still based on so little?
So, now that there is a black man bound for the White House, they need to be reminded of slavery in order to change their minds or "wake them up" via reddit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|