Gay Marriage or Plural Marriage Which do you Support???

[TooGood]

I'm with the plural, if two men can hug and kiss and shit, why cant i have 2 women and we one big joint unit?

What is fair and what isnt will be debated til the end of time. Like it or not gays will be gettin married all over the US soon, thats just the way it is here. Morals and religion have taken a backseat to freedoms and rights. The first 10 amendments are discussed more than the 10 commandments. Times a changin

 

[janklow]

How would Plural Marriage cost you more money then Gay marriage? Why should either cost you anything?

polygamists are far more likely to be cheating social services

White Peoples do KKK/Aryan rallys and marches constantly the Million man marches are the few and inbetween things that happen and get the publicity. So a better argument would most likely be Hetero/Straight Pride March would be more similar in controversy and frequency to a Black Pride or Million man style march. While a Gay Pride parade/March happens quite frequently and gets little press like the White/Aryan/KKK parade marches...

no, you're missing my point and trying to force a comparison that you find more flattering. the difference is that you have plenty of not-THAT-racist guys who love to start complaining in the face of BET or anything "black pride" related because they can't have THEIR white pride whatever without people calling them racists, and this is what's going on here: plenty of straight guys who are complaining that "if we started to have a straight pride they will talk it's a parade about hating gays or some shit," for example (and yes, calling it "all type of vile filth type of shit" does kind of sound like hating gays).

and really, white guys are CONSTANTLY having KKK rallies and marches? CONSTANTLY? come on, now.

Morals and religion have taken a backseat to freedoms and rights. The first 10 amendments are discussed more than the 10 commandments.

nothing about this sounds incorrect at all. people's rights should NOT be subject to someone else's specific religious beliefs; the Bill of Rights should absolutely carry more weight than the Ten Commandments.

 

[wmj710]

its whatever i don't really care, but lol at two people of the same sex getting married, it just sounds silly to me.

 

[Plutarch]

I'm with the plural, if two men can hug and kiss and shit, why cant i have 2 women and we one big joint unit?

What is fair and what isnt will be debated til the end of time. Like it or not gays will be gettin married all over the US soon, thats just the way it is here. Morals and religion have taken a backseat to freedoms and rights. The first 10 amendments are discussed more than the 10 commandments. Times a changin

But it's always been this way (or at least should've), especially on paper, right? The primacy of freedoms and rights aren't new. They predated the birth of this nation. Separation of church and state anyone right?

 

[Olorun22]

I just want to add that just because polygamy existed in the Old Testament doesnt mean that it was accepted and/or supported. Polygamy was a cultural and political thing, not a Christian thing. In fact, the Bible condemns it in both the Old Testament and the New.

What you mean accepted? Hebrew are the ones who wrote it and the have many wives. Your just going on what you want to believe instead what it actually is

 

[kingblaze84]

Both. Who cares who anyone marries and how many of them they marry?

I agree, I voted for gay marriage but that was by mistake. I meant to vote both. I'm not crazy about the gay lifestyle and frankly it disgusts me at times but after the various 3somes I've had with women in my lifetime, I realize I'd be a hypocrite to be against gay marriage. I say who cares, let people marry who the fuck they want.

 

[kingblaze84]

The break down of the family unit will be completed when sodomite marriage is the law of the land. Society will finally be at it's breaking point when this is consummated. The very first words that God spoke to mankind, (Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth) will be utterly voided and violated when sodomite marriage becomes legalized in all 50 states. This will usher in the complete break down of society and usher in Gods judgment upon Babylon the Great.

The legalization of sodomite marriage in ALL 50 states will be 1 of the final 2 nails in Babylons coffin. I would just advise anybody who is reading this and who is still alive when that day comes, to do these 5 things:

1) Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior

2) Repent of your sins and cry out for mercy

3) Read Genesis 18-19

4) Study Jeremiah 50-51, Revelation 17-18, Isaiah 13-14 and 47

5) Flee out of Babylon if you live in her.

I can only give directions, now it's up to you to follow them. The day that America is totally destroyed will be like any other day. It will be a day just like today. People will be going to work, people will be going to school, people will be building, people will be planting, people will be shopping, people will be playing, but suddenly destruction will come from the north and anybody who is still living within Babylons borders will be totally annihilated by the nuclear firestorm that will be unleashed upon the whole land. The destruction will be swift (1 hour), complete, and catastrophic. May you be wise in discerning the times in which we now live. Amen.

We're still waiting for your evil slavery supporting Biblical demon I mean god to make these things come true. You worship a demon, but continue your preaching. Religion gets little respect these days, and thank God for that.

 

[zombie]

Gay marriage is only a sign of the decaying western society we live in, much like atheism it will only help destroy america.

The bible never expressly forbids plural marriage but it would create more problems in this society than it's worth, if i have to choose between gay marriage and plural marriage, plural wins by a long shot. Since we now clearly live in a corrupted world maybe the the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all and let private individuals draft up their own marriage contracts. That way everyone is happy.

 

[Plutarch]

What you mean accepted? Hebrew are the ones who wrote it and the have many wives.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I meant that polygamy wasn't accepted (and/or supported) by God. Of course, men are going to accept and support it. It gives them more women to have sex with. And like I said, it also had a political and cultural purpose. But it had and still has no religious/Christian value.

And just because someone wrote part of the Bible doesn't mean that they're above sin. There are countless examples that suggest this.

Your just going on what you want to believe instead what it actually is

Trust me, I rarely, if ever, do that. I actually can't stand when people do that. Only truth and logic matter to me, even though religion and faith can complicate things.

We're still waiting for your evil slavery supporting Biblical demon I mean god to make these things come true. You worship a demon, but continue your preaching. Religion gets little respect these days, and thank God for that.

Not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a religious debate, but I just wanted to say that the Bible does not support slavery! I noticed that you seem to make this point everytime Christianity gets brought up.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a religious debate, but I just wanted to say that the Bible does not support slavery! I noticed that you seem to make this point everytime Christianity gets brought up.

Some try to claim that it is only the old testament that mentions or support slavery, but Christians still read from and look to many stories in the old testament from Genesis, and Moses to the story of the Ark. Still, the new testament doesn't dismiss the slave codes of the old testament.

Be aware that to be a servant was slavery in one of it's many forms.

Exodus 20:10: but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or the resident foreigner who is in your gates.

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Leviticus 22:1:but if a priest buys a person with his own money, that person may eat the holy offerings, and those born in the priest’s own house may eat his food.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Now on to my opinion. Who the fuck cares what one does in their own privacy of their own relationships. Honestly, i don't care for marriage in general. Being tied to one or many people legally sounds like it would be awful. With the evidence of so many marriages in divorce, murder, or submission and loss of identity; i don't see why we're trying to preserve the sanctity that isn't there. Even still, a common law marriage is legal if you are with a female for a certain amount of years. I think the thought of marriage and the economic assault on your pockets that comes with it is as fraudulent as debeers artificial diamond prices. Most people get married in America for economic business reasons these days do to slanted laws that encourages such measures, so, i guess that works for them. Marriage is yet another holdover from tribal times when families intermarried for political, social and economic gain. This is why love doesn't enter the equation in pre arranged marriages which still exist in many backwards tribal societies.

 

[kingblaze84]

What you mean accepted? Hebrew are the ones who wrote it and the have many wives.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. I meant that polygamy wasn't accepted (and/or supported) by God. Of course, men are going to accept and support it. It gives them more women to have sex with. And like I said, it also had a political and cultural purpose. But it had and still has no religious/Christian value.

And just because someone wrote part of the Bible doesn't mean that they're above sin. There are countless examples that suggest this.

Your just going on what you want to believe instead what it actually is

Trust me, I rarely, if ever, do that. I actually can't stand when people do that. Only truth and logic matter to me, even though religion and faith can complicate things.

We're still waiting for your evil slavery supporting Biblical demon I mean god to make these things come true. You worship a demon, but continue your preaching. Religion gets little respect these days, and thank God for that.

Not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a religious debate, but I just wanted to say that the Bible does not support slavery! I noticed that you seem to make this point everytime Christianity gets brought up.

The Bible gives very clear, explicit support for slavery. It states in several verses that slaves can be kept for life but Jewish slaves should be freed after 7 years. It even states that slaves should ALWAYS obey their masters, and even more disgusting, it states the explicit support of beating slaves. I make no apologies for my lack of respect for Christianity or any religion that supports slavery.

 

[Plutarch]

Okay this is not a thread hijack. Just a branching out.

Some try to claim that it is only the old testament that mentions or support slavery, but Christians still read from and look to many stories in the old testament from Genesis, and Moses to the story of the Ark.

1. I still disagree that any part of the Bible supports slavery, so I disagree with your statement that the Old Testament supports slavery.

2. For the record, I don’t disregard the Old Testament, and I don’t think that Christians should; however, I do believe that the New Testament generally “amended” the Old Testament, which makes sense because it’s the belief in the New Testament and Jesus Christ that truly makes a Christian a Christian imo.

Still, the new testament doesn't dismiss the slave codes of the old testament.

I hope that you’re not implying that the New Testament supports slavery just because it doesn’t condemn slavery. Because if you are, that’s obviously fallacious.

Although it is true that the New Testament did not directly condemn slavery, it clearly condemned it indirectly in several ways, and one of these ways is actually in one of the verses which you have quoted, but you seemed to have ignored that part for some reason. But I’ll point it out.

Be aware that to be a servant was slavery in one of it's many forms.

I’m not exactly sure why you’ve brought this sometimes-true fact to my attention and whether or not it’s relevant, but it makes me wonder if being a maid or butler is slavery. Or being an employee that works for pennies. Or being a prostitute. Or being a sweatshop worker. My vague point is that the Bible can’t and shouldn’t deal with these specific forms of slavery. In a rather more efficient and fundamental way, the Bible deals with the evils that lie at the core of these forms of slavery such as violence, hatred, abuse, etc. So the Bible may not deal with servitude (which is not exactly a bad thing in itself), but it certainly deals with the evils of servitude all the same.

 

[Plutarch]

Exodus 20:10: but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or the resident foreigner who is in your gates.

I’m sorry, but you’ll have to point out the relevance of this verse for me because nothing really jumps out. If your point is that the Bible mentions servants, then all I can ask is: Why is that important? And how does that translate into the Bible supporting slavery?

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Yeah, this is probably the most controversial verses about slavery and the Bible. But it’s not so controversial when you understand the verses.

1. If you read the verses carefully, you can clearly see that the Bible emphasizes being a servant to God (not to man). This is so very clearly written that I’m going to avoid playing the condescending captain obvious here and pass on pointing out the many references that show this particular emphasis. But I will say this: the verse also clearly speaks out against masters abusing their servants.

I also want to make this important point: “Slavery” in the Old Testament times was VERY different from the slavery that we know about in the United States. I really wish that more people would stop treating the slavery that African-Americans experienced in the United States as if that was the only slavery that existed ever. Slavery existed everywhere with everyone (even blacks had whites slaves) and in every kind of form that you can think of. The particular kinds of slavery that existed during the Biblical times was a mix of everything. Some slaves were prisoners of war. Some slaves were teachers and doctors. Some slaves were actually better off than freed people. Of course, I’m not saying that being a slave was cool. All I’m saying is that slavery in those times was not always about race or oppression. Slavery, like today, is just a fact of life. The Bible knew this, acknowledged it (as opposed to supported it), and attacked its core while not attacking the institution itself.

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

As with the first verse, you’re going to have to help me out on this one as well. If you’re arguing that the Bible supports slavery, then wouldn’t this contradict your argument in a way? Yes, the Bible acknowledges (as opposed to supports) “slavery”, but here it’s telling Masters to treat servants with equality. You can see how that this doesn’t really support your argument, right?

Leviticus 22:1:but if a priest buys a person with his own money, that person may eat the holy offerings, and those born in the priest’s own house may eat his food.

I’m not sure if you just copied and pasted or made a typo, but I don’t think that this verse comes from Leviticus 22:1. Or maybe you’re using a different version?

Anyways, once again, here is the Bible telling people to treat their slaves kindly. Oh the humanity!

 

[Plutarch]

The Bible gives very clear, explicit support for slavery. It states in several verses that slaves can be kept for life but Jewish slaves should be freed after 7 years. It even states that slaves should ALWAYS obey their masters, and even more disgusting, it states the explicit support of beating slaves.

I think that part of my response to FuriousOne addresses part of your arguments. But I’m curious about these explicit verses that you mentioned. Some of them are news to me, and some honestly don’t seem real. Could you drop a few of them?

I make no apologies for my lack of respect for Christianity or any religion that supports slavery.

I certainly don’t want you to apologize for anything. Hope you didn’t think that that was my intention.

Anyways, I think that all or most major religions deserve respect because all of them hold a lot of truth. But that’s just how I see it, so meh.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

@Plutarch If you didn't mean to hijack the thread, then you wouldn't hijack the thread. But you did.

A servant in those days did not have the right to quit and find different employment like a butler. The point is, servants were slaves but they weren't working in the field. They were owned. It was emphasized to treat your servants in a certain way in order to appease yet another master which is god. But it doesn't dismiss certain abuses that you can commit against said servant. Hence house niggers. If you had conviction, you would ask for slavery to be abolished entirely or give them actual pay and the right to quite rather then to ask people to treat slaves kindly. Ownership of man is the issue at hand no matter the treatment. How does War justify a lifetime of imprisonment without pay? It damn sure doesn't help in calming tensions with your enemy. But then, the bible also doesn't concern itself with committing a 'Just War' on other people do to their practices.

Corinthians 10:3-5: For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I'm sure you will twist this to say it's a defense of Christianity, but many Christians used this for pretext for the crusades and other conquering battles as they were fighting in gods name.

Also, how can you justify one being forced to use his skills under duress with no compensation? Everything dealing with slavery doesn't have to be as extreme as chattel slavery which crackers also used the bible to support. This is why we fight till this day for fair employment rights because certain degrees of employment is as bad as slavery like what goes down in China. Slavery then was in many respects vicious because an owner was allowed to beat his slaves. Why would it support protecting runaways if there wasn't an issue?

Deuteronomy 23:15-25: Don't return a runaway slave to his master; he's come to you for refuge.

Exodus 21: 20: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21: Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Btw, the typo is Leviticus 22:11 which i indeed copy and pasted, But, I'm sure you knew that since you are versed in the bible. I don't give a damn how you should treat your slaves. You shouldn't have slaves in the first place. Also, the new testament is a continuation of the old testament, not a fix. Jesus came to fulfill the law of Moses

Mathew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

If anything, this illuminates that using a book that intended to justify events that were normal back then doesn't apply now just like the book itself.

 

[kingblaze84]

Thanks for saving me the time Furious lol

 

[Plutarch]

@Plutarch If you didn't mean to hijack the thread, then you wouldn't hijack the thread. But you did.

Uh? Like I said, I didn’t intend to hijack this thread and still don’t. And like I said, I didn’t hijack this thread. I posted one sentence to kingblaze, and then you came out of nowhere, inserted yourself into the issue, and blew it up with a seven paragraph detailed response to my brief post. I would personally say that YOU are the one that hijacked this thread. But I also don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s still indirectly on topic and we’ve been the only ones posting for about 4 days now, so meh. I don’t think that anyone minds.

A servant in those days did not have the right to quit and find different employment like a butler.

True, but I was referring to the TREATMENT of butlers and employees, especially when said employees need the job. Someone who needs a job might not quit that job even if they can, simply because they need the job.

The point is, servants were slaves but they weren't working in the field. They were owned.

You and I know that you don’t have to work in the field to be a slave. Again, I want to say that we shouldn’t narrow ourselves to aspects of African-American chattel slavery. There are many other kinds of slavery. Also we mustn’t forget that voluntary slavery also existed.

It was emphasized to treat your servants in a certain way in order to appease yet another master which is god.

I would disagree. I think that you’re either misconstruing or oversimplifying the core message, and for this reason, I think that you’re missing the mark.

But it doesn't dismiss certain abuses that you can commit against said servant.

What? Did you even read my previous posts?

Hence house niggers.

Hm, another reference to African-American slavery…

 

[Plutarch]

If you had conviction, you would ask for slavery to be abolished entirely or give them actual pay and the right to quite rather then to ask people to treat slaves kindly. Ownership of man is the issue at hand no matter the treatment.

Please tell me that you read my earlier posts heh. I still don’t think that you understand where I’m coming from.

How does War justify a lifetime of imprisonment without pay? It damn sure doesn't help in calming tensions with your enemy.

I never made that claim if you’re implying that I did. Again, you’re missing my point. I’d also like to add that saying that slavery was a lifetime thing is a bit of an exaggeration (I think that the Hebrew law stated six years). But once again, slavery in those times was not like African-American chattel slavery. I think that context is very important here.

But then, the bible also doesn't concern itself with committing a 'Just War' on other people do to their practices.

Yes...? Sorry, but not seeing the relevance here?

Corinthians 10:3-5: For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I'm sure you will twist this to say it's a defense of Christianity, but many Christians used this for pretext for the crusades and other conquering battles as they were fighting in gods name.[/quote]

I sure don’t have to do as much twisting as you’ve been doing. If we must debate about the interpretation of these verses (even though I’m not exactly sure how we got here from debating about slavery), then let’s have at it.

I don’t think that I fully understand your point here if you made any, but I’m going to assume that you’re arguing that these verses are about justifying killing people for God. If so, then I disagree. The verses clearly (or imo clearly) refer to waging war NOT in terms of the world (i.e., killing non-Christians). It refers to waging spiritual warfare. This can be prayer and/or submission to God. Right?

Also, how can you justify one being forced to use his skills under duress with no compensation?

You still do not understand my point. I have neither said nor implied this justification. And I don’t agree or support that justification either.

 

[Plutarch]

Everything dealing with slavery doesn't have to be as extreme as chattel slavery which crackers also used the bible to support. This is why we fight till this day for fair employment rights because certain degrees of employment is as bad as slavery like what goes down in China.

I know. I’ve been telling you this. I’m starting to think that you didn’t even read my previous posts. That’s not very nice. Or conducive to this “two-way” argument.

Slavery then was in many respects vicious because an owner was allowed to beat his slaves.

Yes…this is obvious, though all forms of slavery involved beatings, so I don’t get the relevance of this statement.

Why would it support protecting runaways if there wasn't an issue?

Deuteronomy 23:15-25: Don't return a runaway slave to his master; he's come to you for refuge.

I’m sorry man. You lost me. Could you please remind me again whether you are arguing that the Bible DOES supports slavery or are arguing that the Bible DOES NOT support slavery?

Because if you were arguing that the Bible DOES support slavery, then wouldn’t the Bible tell you to return the slave to his master? But it doesn’t here, right? I’m sorry, but I’m just not seeing your point here.

Exodus 21: 20: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21: Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

These are very interesting verses here indeed (I think that this might be one of the verses kingblaze mentioned, so thank you for dropping them for me), so please permit me to number my thoughts once again:

1. Please, let’s NOT ignore the fact that the verse says to PUNISH masters for killing their servants. This would contradict any claim or similar claim that says that the Bible supports the evils of slavery, no?

2. Once again, I would like to stress the importance of context here. Let us remember that this was the Old Testament, that this was the Israelites (who were recently FREED FROM SLAVERY BY GOD), and that, most importantly, this was the culture of the Israelites. With that being said, I believe that this “servitude” that is mentioned in these verses is voluntary. If you want to call this servitude slavery instead, then this slavery was voluntary slavery. Now why would someone volunteer to be a slave? For several reasons including but not limited to paying off debts and/or serving a prison sentence for the victim of the crime. Also, according to the culture of the Israelites, wives could have said to have been “slaves” as well. So, I hope that you can further see my point of view when I say that slavery during those times was culturally and fundamentally different from the African-American slavery that we like to think of when the word slavery is thrown around.