Freedom Rant

[Temjin-On]

America, I love my country but Im starting to hate it. We claim to be the land of the free, but there is one group that is not free, Homosexuals. I live in Ohio and I used to like that fact, but with the recent passing of a ban on gay marraige, I have learned to hate not only my state but my country. I belive that when our counstitution says "Liberty and justice for all", I take it to mean that means gay people have equal rights. Wrong, dead wrong. I can understand why straight america doesnt understand gay people and such, but we are treating them like shit! They love like the rest of us do, only they love others of the same gender, and because for some reason nobody who makes laws can stand this, we have to opress them. I think its time we woke up and made gay marraige legal, stop treating them like lower forms of life, Equal rights for all! Cause remember kids, when you treat someone with disrespect cause of race/sexual orientaion/ect...ect you take a piss on the laws that your country was founded on.

Now Im personally not gay, but I throw my support behind them becuase when anyone is treated un equally it makes me sick!

[Ness]

Amen!

Also I find it ironic that most Christians hate homosexuals the way they do, but in the Bible it says to "love thy neighbor."

Another interesting double stanard I've found is that most Christians claim that legalizing gay marriages is "forcing the beliefs of others on them" (but it isn't) yet they are the ones who want everyone to be Chrsitan liek they are and try to make laws that force people to abide by Christian values.

[Dangerous55]

That makes you hate your country and state? Hate is a strong word and you shouldnt use it here.

Did the Tuskegee Airmen hate their country when they had it alot worse then gays? Or the Irish in the Civil War?

[Temjin-On]

Thats true, I dont hate my country and that is a word that gets thrown around alot, im just saying that shit like that pisses me off to no ends.

[Dangerous55]

Yeah, makes me mad too. But you have to realize that sooner or later all the gay-banning stuff will be done away with.

[Solstis]

*Wonders what demographic is left*

Um... people from... well, what country hasn't been persecuted yet?

[Sord]

On 2004-02-07 17:26, Ness wrote:
"love thy neighbor."

um, even though I'm completely for gays, that verse is most likely screwed up from translating. See, there is only one English word for love, and that's love. However, in other languages, including Hebrew (i think 19), there are several names for the word "love," but each are to a diffrent degree. Like loving your dog, son, and wife. They are all diffrent types. Most likely in the original hebrew writings, it wasn't a husband/wife kind of love. Just thought I would mention that.

Anyways, like I said, I'm all for gays. In fact, it would actually improve our economy. It did in the sixties and seventies when several came out of the "closets".

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-07 18:12, Solstis wrote:
*Wonders what demographic is left*

Um... people from... well, what country hasn't been persecuted yet?



The people who fit in the majority don't get persecuted. Even if at times it mean they should.

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-07 18:25, anwserman wrote:


On 2004-02-07 18:12, Solstis wrote:
*Wonders what demographic is left*

Um... people from... well, what country hasn't been persecuted yet?



The people who fit in the majority don't get persecuted. Even if at times it mean they should.



Since most of us happen to be human, there shouldn't be anyone out of the majority. But people don't care about that until they find themselves separated from the rest.

Well, majorities eventually change, and I think that's what is getting some mega-conservatives upset, and all persecute-y.

[KodiaX987]

Let's put it this way: USA is probably one of the most accepting place ever.

Think of ancient Greece. We praise them for starting democracy. But here's some nuances:

-Only men could assist to the assembly, vote and pass decisions.
-Those men had to be Citizens, which means: born in the city-state and their parents had to be Citizens too. Foreigners had no business at the assembly.
-They had slaves.

In all, Citizens only make up 10% of the population. Oops!



Think about it.

[LollipopLolita]

but that was ancient. and they also had the cult of Dionysos and celebrations!

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-02-07 18:58, LollipopLolita wrote:
but that was ancient. and they also had the cult of Dionysos and celebrations!



Yeah well I am sure we have more then enough of those celebrations.


Greece may not have been the "best" democracy but it was alot better then what the world had at that time.

[undevil]

What you must realize is that gay marriage will be legalized soon enough. We live in a society now where race, sex, religion, belief, ect, is supposed to and expected to be tolerated by all people. As a matter of fact, racist people are hated on more than the races or groups that racist hate on. Back in the 1950's, white civil rights people probably thought the same thing that you did about the racism against blacks that existed heavily in the south, and a little bit in the north. These kinds of things change.

I used to be against gay marriage. Then a couple of nights ago I was writing a piece for my english class about racism, and I realized that I was thinking wrong. If two humans love eachother, they should have the right to marry eachother, no matter if they are the same sex or not. Just because it underminds the whole idea of marriage in the Christian point of view doesn't mean that it underminds marriage to all points of view. This is another reason why I do not believe in any religions. But I am tolerant of all religions.

[flash_fire]

Nothing wrong with Homosexual marriages. I just don't agree with homosexual adoption. Homosexuals are not supposed to be able to have children, thats why men were created with a penis and women with a vagina, for creation, now two penises or two vaginas will not work when trying to create a child, so why should they be able to have a child anyway. It's a simple fact, nature did not intend homosexual behavior to result in a child.

[Dangerous55]

On 2004-02-07 23:03, flash_fire wrote:
Nothing wrong with Homosexual marriages. I just don't agree with homosexual adoption. Homosexuals are not supposed to be able to have children, thats why men were created with a penis and women with a vagina, for creation, now two penises or two vaginas will not work when trying to create a child, so why should they be able to have a child anyway. It's a simple fact, nature did not intend homosexual behavior to result in a child.



Never thought of it that way, but its true.

[Sord]

Maybe based on religion, but based on evolution, it's just the way it happened. What you people think is nature is a very long series of coincidenses that happened by pure chance, and you ignorant fools don't seem to relize it. I'm frankly tired of this shit. If it was what you consider "nature's way" then we would never think about girls with girls and guys with guys. The very fact that someone can believe that a homosexual can have a kid is a part of nature! And if your really want to get into things, we are all trained. It is utterly impossible for anyone to be themselves. The only reason I believe homosexuals can have kids and you don't is because we were raised in such a way that it effected our thought process. Thus, altering who we are. So how the fuck do you know if being a homosexual is right or wrong?! Even i don't know if it's right, but i support it, and there is nothing on this Earth that can prove it, but there is also nothing on this earth that means it's wrong. SO WHY DON'T YOU GOD DAMN HYPOCRITES JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

[Dangerous55]

A penis and a penis cannot make a child.

That is a fact. Even if it is a just a "string of coincidences", still can't happen.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-07 23:15, Sord wrote:
Maybe based on religion, but based on evolution, it's just the way it happened. What you people think is nature is a very long series of coincidenses that happened by pure chance, and you ignorant fools don't seem to relize it. I'm frankly tired of this shit. If it was what you consider "nature's way" then we would never think about girls with girls and guys with guys. The very fact that someone can believe that a homosexual can have a kid is a part of nature! And if your really want to get into things, we are all trained. It is utterly impossible for anyone to be themselves. The only reason I believe homosexuals can have kids and you don't is because we were raised in such a way that it effected our thought process. Thus, altering who we are. So how the fuck do you know if being a homosexual is right or wrong?! Even i don't know if it's right, but i support it, and there is nothing on this Earth that can prove it, but there is also nothing on this earth that means it's wrong. SO WHY DON'T YOU GOD DAMN HYPOCRITES JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!



The guy has a point.

Everything we learn in life was taught by somebody who holds biases and beliefs. If you were five, and somebody said this is how things are done... them dammit that was how the world worked. Regardless if that thing was righteous or not.

If anything that can happen in nature, without man's intervention of religion and machinery, then it exists in nature essentially. That is my belief.




On 2004-02-07 23:21, Dangerous55 wrote:
A penis and a penis cannot make a child.

That is a fact. Even if it is a just a "string of coincidences", still can't happen.



A male and a female may never be able to make a child, and that happens naturally all the time. So what, the couple that cannot naturally have a child - due to infertility issues - should not be able to have a child, because nature intended it to be that way? My opinion: Pure bullshit. If a couple that is infertile can adopt a baby, so should gay couples since they're essentially in the same boat.

Also, I'd rather see a baby be raised by a happy gay (male or female) couple then raised by a teenager who almost put the child into a dumpster.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anwserman on 2004-02-07 23:28 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

Also, being homosexual and unable to reproduce does not make one unable or unfit to raise a child, which is the basis of the arguement anyway.

Trust me, I've seen quite afew idiots walking around in the world, and they still have kids. I'm talking about people who are outright abusive and damn ignorant to their kids, and by far the WORST rolemodels, just because they have their own issues to deal with and should'nt have had kids and the responsibility to begin with.

And yeah, along with the whole infertile couple getting adoptions as well.

I say hey, if someone is responsible enough and can take care of a child, and raise them to be a good person with a good head on their shoulders, I don't care who or what they are, because they've done a great thing for someone and thats all that matters in the end.

[derBauer]

Sorry, but marriage is for a man and a woman.

[-Luke-]

If you are going to say something like that, at least have a reason.

On topic, I have no objections to gay marriages. Remember what marriage is supposed to be? The holy union of two people who love each other. It shouldn't matter whether its Steve and Tina or Steve and Pete. Apologies for if I inadvertantly used someones name, I selected random names. If they love each other, and want to share their lives together, let them. If they want to share the upbringing of a child, let them.

[opaopajr]

freakin yawn, penis and penis can't make a child nonsense. guess what a lesbian and a gay man can make a child and then get "married just for kicks" and share the kid in a flat with their real lovers to screw around with your world. organs are just that organs. nothing magical about them.

tons of gay men married and fostered children, are you gonna take away their children because "they couldn't have possibly made that child - he's gay." yeah, i'd like to see you try that physically. he may be gay, but he's also a father, and a man, who's apt to rip your head off if you dare try to harm or separate him from his child. same thing applies to lesbians.

once they have children they become something called parents and they are gonna fight tooth and nail to keep their kids - as any loving parent would. just because they don't fit the perfect 1950s nuclear home doesn't mean jack. families have always been messy interrelated things anyways, but as long as there's real love and stability it'd be beyond cruel to destroy that.

so get your heads out of the anatomy book and remember sex just means sex. not relationship, not orientation, not household roles, nothing. it just means plastering your pleasure organ all up in someone else's space. sometimes it makes a baby if you put it in a particular combination, most of the time it just makes someone feel good. get over it.

[flash_fire]

I never said anything was wrong with homosexuality, I simply said It is not possible to have a child that way. And your analogy with the straight couple not being able to have a child due to infertility, that is a totally different situation and cannot be applied, as a homosexual couple cannot have children, but it is not due to infertility, it is due to incompatibility of their genitals. And before you go off and mention anything about homosexuality in nature, try and remember its not homosexuality, its Bisexuality in Nature, where the homosexual acts are usually for dominance purposes, but over all the animal still uses the oposite sex to reproduce. Yes Gays can be good parents, I never said they wouldn't be, and I won't say they aren't because there are always exceptions for people who really would try hard to raise the child to be a productive member of society.
Perhaps we need more homosexuals, the world does have an overpopulation problem...... PROBLEM SOLVED!*starts advocacy groups for homosexuals*
Seriously though, I really dont see why its illegal for gay marriages, You know thats going to go to the supreme court and get struck down anyway, its just a matter of time before you see two men or two women walking down the isle.

[derBauer]

On 2004-02-08 03:30, -Luke- wrote:
If you are going to say something like that, at least have a reason.



I looked it up in the dictionary.

I don't mind civil unions or whatever they call the thing where a man and a man are together forever legally, but marriage is something only a man and a woman can do.

Don't start thinking that because some of the most liberal states in the country (Vermont and Massachusetts) courts approve gay marriage, that the US Supreme Court did. If you were smart you would have been wishing they had not approved, because now it will go to the US Supreme Court and in a 5-4 vote it is going to be decided that marriage is only for a man and a woman.
---------
And lets not forget it was Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and now that Bush is on office, expect something more powerful than that. The people of this country overwhelmingly feel the way I do which is great because this boards beliefs seem to be way out of the mainstream.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: derBauer on 2004-02-08 07:40 ]</font>

[flash_fire]

You are right on that, The Mainstream public is against Homosexual marriage, so it is quite possible the Supreme court will strike it down. I don't understand dividing people into a minority just because of sexual orientation, in my opinion, sexual orientation has nothing to do with what "group" one belongs to.

[Sord]

The very fact is, if more people supported homosexual marriages, then the courts would have to say yes to the marriages because the people want it. Most people who actually spend time thinking about it, trying to put all influence aside, come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with gay.

Most people who don't support it are caught up in a circle of peer presure, where they think if they support gays, they are going to be shuned by their friends and peers, when the peers are thinking the exact thing. In other words, people just keep following the god damn crowd and say they don't support gays because of peer pressure.

Then you have the stupid Christians and other religious people, who probably have never read their religious book, or if they have, are warping it, and never look at the possibility it could be wrong. I mean, who really says there is a god. People, that's it, just people. More than likely, Jesus was a Jew and a wise mediceman, or the Bible is simply a book based on some true stories, most fiction though, that people added onto over time, and some people were stupid enough to believe it.

For Example: There is no law in there that says homosexuals are wrong. I've read the bible several times, and I do Bible studies. There is a law about adultery (cheating on your wife/husband), rape, and orgies (a big party where everyone is having sex with everyone else)

[Temjin-On]

It may be a term in the dictionary, but definitions have been re-writen in the past, same as the constitution. America would be the biggest hypocrit if we ban gay marraige, we would not be the land of the free, we would be an oppressive piece of shit nation. Simpley put, we need legal gay marraige, and all this bullshit against it needs to die, because the homosexual population wont take it, we do that, strikes and other back lashes will insue.

[undevil]

Gay marriage will be allowed soon. The same thing will happen that happened with the black and white civil rights leaders. They will protest, and soon everyone will realize that gay marriage should be allowed. Same scenario, and the same results will apply. They always have. To think that this is voidable is just ignorant.

[Dangerous55]

I really don't feel strongly either way, maybe marriage should just be done away with. It's all about money anyway.

[Aunt_Betty]

On 2004-02-08 09:48, Dangerous55 wrote:
I really don't feel strongly either way, maybe marriage should just be done away with. It's all about money anyway.

Of cource!It's really just future taxes.

[starhealer]

On 2004-02-08 08:57, Sord wrote:
The very fact is, if more people supported homosexual marriages, then the courts would have to say yes to the marriages because the people want it. Most people who actually spend time thinking about it, trying to put all influence aside, come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with gay.



The thing is, court decisions shouldn't be based on what the population feels is right, as that changes all the time. It should be based on the arguments each side brings in and the logical conclusion to those arguments.

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-08 11:45, starhealer wrote:


On 2004-02-08 08:57, Sord wrote:
The very fact is, if more people supported homosexual marriages, then the courts would have to say yes to the marriages because the people want it. Most people who actually spend time thinking about it, trying to put all influence aside, come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with gay.



The thing is, court decisions shouldn't be based on what the population feels is right, as that changes all the time. It should be based on the arguments each side brings in and the logical conclusion to those arguments.



That would require logic. Few things have ever been done based on logic, and few things ever will be. We just have to ride the popular opinion wave and see where we end up next.

[flash_fire]

On an interveiw with a Gay Rights leader on the Radio, the Gay Leader was asked their goals with marriage. He responded by saying that they wanted to eliminate marriage all together. Whats the difference between marriage and civil union? Nothing as far as taxes are concerned.

[undevil]

Yeah, the popular opinion IS what matters on this planet.

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-08 12:08, flash_fire wrote:
On an interveiw with a Gay Rights leader on the Radio, the Gay Leader was asked their goals with marriage. He responded by saying that they wanted to eliminate marriage all together. Whats the difference between marriage and civil union? Nothing as far as taxes are concerned.



It's not nice to eliminate marriage altogether. Both sides have idiots, and there's one. Marriage is... a concept that is regarded higher than civil unions.

[Inu_Ranma]

Hm...this is a touchy and interesting topic.

The first thing that I'll say is that Dictionaries are not always right. If you want other examples, look up the definition for 'Buddhism' in the Webster's Dictionary. It's a definition that was processed in about 1820 and has not been updated. It calls it a religion, which it is not, by definitionn of religion, and spouts some other BS about it as well.


Now. You also need to not use the Bible in your argument, people who are arguing against Gay Marraige. It is irrelevant, as the US is a nation which supports freedom from religion of any sort, and that means Christianity too.

My simple idea (which I actually stated on the Radio, KGO, two nights ago, W00t) is this compromise: Strip marraige of its legal title and call it civil union (a term which was previously dictated by the states). At that point, anybody who joins another soul in union is participating in a civil union. Black, White, Asian, Chicano, Male, Female. All can unify with any other unfettered. At that point, you simply allow whatever establishment is performing the unofficial ceremony to call it whatever the hell they want to call it. It's that simple. The Church has its so-called sanctity, provided a church doesn't decide to perform a 'marraige' itself, at which point the Church asking for the preservation of said sanctity is moot, and ALL citizens of the US are given equal protections and rights under the law in this case.

That's just my two cents and idea. It would be simpler and less expensive, of course, to just let homosexual marraiges happen.

[flash_fire]

Yes, I agree Marriage has higher value than civil union, just was offering a tidbit of information, there are people against gay marriage who would say get rid of marriage all together as well, but I couldn't think of any examples.

Oh and about the religious thing, the Bible does mention the spilling of the mans seed for reasons other than procreation as a sin... so if you go by this, homosexualism in Females is ok since they can't spill a mans seed :|. Of course that also means Masturbation is a sin...Just before you say that the Bible has nothing, be absolutely sure you are correct, even though this is a minor and stupid detail. Of Course I don't get my decisions from the Bible, because the Bible was written by man and man is fundamentally flawed. Just thought I'd offer more information.

[Solstis]

My simple idea (which I actually stated on the Radio, KGO, two nights ago, W00t) is this compromise: Strip marraige of its legal title and call it civil union (a term which was previously dictated by the states). At that point, anybody who joins another soul in union is participating in a civil union. Black, White, Asian, Chicano, Male, Female. All can unify with any other unfettered. At that point, you simply allow whatever establishment is performing the unofficial ceremony to call it whatever the hell they want to call it. It's that simple. The Church has its so-called sanctity, provided a church doesn't decide to perform a 'marraige' itself, at which point the Church asking for the preservation of said sanctity is moot, and ALL citizens of the US are given equal protections and rights under the law in this case.


So... in your world, when people walk little flowers pop out of the ground, and there is no need for government/taxes.
"Yes! By taking marriage away, everyone will definitely be happy." is basically the jist of that paragraph.
*Cough*

[Inu_Ranma]

Actually...I didn't say that. I said it would provide equality. People aren't happy being equal. People are happy when they feel that they are better off than other people. I'm not worried about what is happiness-inducing. I'm worried about what's fair.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Inu_Ranma on 2004-02-08 12:24 ]</font>

[undevil]

You can't take away marriage. That is one of the worst ideas probably ever thought up by anyone.

[Inu_Ranma]

I didn't say anything about taking away marraige! Read my statement closely before you respond to it! Yeesh. I said change the legal title! I also said allow in the legality of it for the 'church' to call it whatever the hell they want. That means that the rights, etc. remain the same. At least read my post and understand what it means before arguing with one of its main points.

[undevil]

I wasn't arguing with your post. Just about the guy on the radio saying marriage should be abolished.

I think it should still be called marriage though. I could care less about tax money.

[Inu_Ranma]

If you mean the guy that Solstis quoted, and then completely mis-summarized, then that's me. Again, I said at the END of said paragraph that it would be simpler and more effective just to allow homosexuals the right to marry. What I offered was simply a solution which is fair.

[Jack]

On 2004-02-08 12:20, flash_fire wrote:
Oh and about the religious thing, the Bible does mention the spilling of the mans seed for reasons other than procreation as a sin... so if you go by this, homosexualism in Females is ok since they can't spill a mans seed :|. Of course that also means Masturbation is a sin...Just before you say that the Bible has nothing, be absolutely sure you are correct, even though this is a minor and stupid detail. Of Course I don't get my decisions from the Bible, because the Bible was written by man and man is fundamentally flawed. Just thought I'd offer more information.



It also means anyone who's ever had a wet dream is eternally hellbound.

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-08 12:36, Inu_Ranma wrote:
If you mean the guy that Solstis quoted, and then completely mis-summarized, then that's me. Again, I said at the END of said paragraph that it would be simpler and more effective just to allow homosexuals the right to marry. What I offered was simply a solution which is fair.



*re-reads his post* Bah! I guess I could have been a wee bit too critical/jumping-to-conclusions-ey.

[Kupi]

On 2004-02-08 12:20, flash_fire wrote:
Oh and about the religious thing, the Bible does mention the spilling of the mans seed for reasons other than procreation as a sin... so if you go by this, homosexualism in Females is ok since they can't spill a mans seed :|. Of course that also means Masturbation is a sin...Just before you say that the Bible has nothing, be absolutely sure you are correct, even though this is a minor and stupid detail. Of Course I don't get my decisions from the Bible, because the Bible was written by man and man is fundamentally flawed. Just thought I'd offer more information.


Sorry if this is off-topic, but if I'm not mistaken, you're citing the passage about Onan, correct? If so, you're taking it out of context. Onan was supposed to impregnate his dead brother's wife so that brother could have descendants. God had ordered that Onan do it, and Onan refused (spilled his seed on the ground). That's why Onan was struck down, not for the seed spilling itself.

[undevil]

On 2004-02-08 14:05, Kupi wrote:


Sorry if this is off-topic, but if I'm not mistaken, you're citing the passage about Onan, correct? If so, you're taking it out of context. Onan was supposed to impregnate his dead brother's wife so that brother could have descendants. God had ordered that Onan do it, and Onan refused (spilled his seed on the ground). That's why Onan was struck down, not for the seed spilling itself.



Another reason why I think god is bullshit. I doupt god told some Onan guy to fuck his brothers sister.

Just think about it for a second and you might realize how silly that sounds.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-08 14:11, undevil wrote:


On 2004-02-08 14:05, Kupi wrote:


Sorry if this is off-topic, but if I'm not mistaken, you're citing the passage about Onan, correct? If so, you're taking it out of context. Onan was supposed to impregnate his dead brother's wife so that brother could have descendants. God had ordered that Onan do it, and Onan refused (spilled his seed on the ground). That's why Onan was struck down, not for the seed spilling itself.



Another reason why I think god is bullshit. I doupt god told some Onan guy to fuck his brothers sister dead wife.

Just think about it for a second and you might realize how silly that sounds.



Corrected what you wrote. And isn't that being a necrophiliac then? I don't know about this whole subject anymore, I just want the arguing to end. But when somebody states that "marriage is sacred" and that it must be preserved, then they probably haven't looked to see how fucked up the institution is already is (50% divorce rate?) and that expanding it to more people wouldn't hurt it a bit.

[undevil]

Yeah that came out wrong. I ment to say I doupt god told some guy named Onan to fuck his dead brothers wife.

[Uncle_bob]

Haven't we had enough of these kind of rants posted? Stop bitching, it's been legalized in some states and will be nation-wide eventually. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_nono.gif

[flash_fire]

On 2004-02-08 14:05, Kupi wrote:

Sorry if this is off-topic, but if I'm not mistaken, you're citing the passage about Onan, correct? If so, you're taking it out of context. Onan was supposed to impregnate his dead brother's wife so that brother could have descendants. God had ordered that Onan do it, and Onan refused (spilled his seed on the ground). That's why Onan was struck down, not for the seed spilling itself.



You are absolutely right, but what I was saying was someone else's interpretation of that situation. Sure they twisted it to mean what they wanted, but in the end isn't that what we all do? And who has the right to say why god had stricken him down, there are different versions of the Bible that can lead you to believe it was because of the spilling of the seed, It is all relative. And to Jack,


Jack wrote:
It also means anyone who's ever had a wet dream is eternally hellbound.


Unless they confess their sins and say 20 hail Marys if they are Catholic, or Ask to be forgiven if they are protestent.... lol. Anyway, I know and thats why I said it was a stupid and trivial point.

[Daikarin]

It also means anyone who's ever had a wet dream is eternally hellbound.



The only way that guy's gonna get eternally hellbound is if he can't do his own laundry.

All that "sin" talk is very relative.




Another reason why I think god is bullshit. I doupt god told some Onan guy to fuck his brothers sister.

Just think about it for a second and you might realize how silly that sounds.



Yep, silly. But most of those stories are legends, not well interpretated. So of course it didn't happen like

God: Fuck your sister-in-law.
Onan: No.
God: BEGONE YOU EVIL [insert latin swearing word #1, #2, #3, ... #n+1 here] !!!!!!11111eleveneleven

There must have been some more plot behind that, some more acceptable reasons. And don't forget it's some kind of legend, so parts of it or even itself may not be like that.

I mean, I also believe it silly that God, the Ying of all Yings, the meaning of good itself, would shoot down a thunder on somebody who didn't commit sexual act and spilled the sperm on the floor instead, but heck, I'm not gonna judge a religion because a story is poorly told.

Like someone said, the Bible was written by a guy. And that Joe ain't perfect like none of us is right now.

P.S.: Sorry if I offended any catholics with my fiction, wasn't meant to. I just wanted to illustrate that it couldn't have possibly happened that way.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: New Ultimate on 2004-02-08 17:07 ]</font>

[Kupi]

As I recall, God had promised the guy a strong lineage, and since he died without producing any children and under Jewish law a brother's children born by the same wife counted as the original man's children, telling Onan to go have a child with his brother's wife would fulfil that promise. It wasn't some random act; it was God living up to his word. Similarly, Onan's problem wasn't the masturbation, it was the disobedience to God's command. Aigh, how much that happens...

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-08 18:18, Kupi wrote:
As I recall, God had promised the guy a strong lineage, and since he died without producing any children and under Jewish law a brother's children born by the same wife counted as the original man's children, telling Onan to go have a child with his brother's wife would fulfil that promise. It wasn't some random act; it was God living up to his word. Similarly, Onan's problem wasn't the masturbation, it was the disobedience to God's command. Aigh, how much that happens...


So, Onan gets screwed over because God promised something and didn't fufill his promise... oh geez. Here comes the flooding of the earth now.

[Sord]

On 2004-02-08 18:25, anwserman wrote:
So, Onan gets screwed over because God promised something and didn't fufill his promise... oh geez. Here comes the flooding of the earth now.

Indeed! http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif *Puts a thermonuclear device in both poles and melts the ice, causing the world to be flooded* Ha! Take that go- *gets hit by a bolt of lightning*

[kitomaka_ck]

love is love, thats all there is to it. the government is a hipocrite

[undevil]

I also doubt that god had a tantrum and decided to flood the planet, killing off every being exept for some lucky dude who had to collect two of every species of animal on the planet. I don't think he took into account all the bugs, and differant plant species when he was told this.

[LollipopLolita]

get on topic, and i mean it. or i'm gonna get lock happy.

edit:
okay, there were two off topic posts that are considered nothing else but pure spam after i posted this post. so i deleted it. keep doing things like that and the mod team will be forced to delete things. come on you guys, it's not that hard to keep a convo going.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-08 19:49 ]</font>

[Bradicus]

I love it when Christians (or any other religion) talk about Zeus being created because people couldn't comprehend lightning... think on it...

methinks the edge cuts both ways, yes?