Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

It's difficult to imagine that passage being taken more out of context. The whole point of that passage is that the husband doesn't know that the wife is not a virgin -- that is, she has lied to him. Under the legal system of the day, she was committing the most serious sort of fraud, since she was bringing to the marriage the possibility that she was carrying another man's child, which meant that the whole of her husband's property would be inherited by someone else's offspring. It's not like the Bible was unique in this regard. Death was the standard penalty for this kind of fraud in all the Mesopotamian legal systems of the time. (Interestingly, I took a class on this once: many of the oft-derided biblical laws are found almost word-for-word in the Code of Hammurabi and other similar codexes.)

Those signs ignore the verses of the Bible which rule that if a man and woman get caught having premarital sex, the "penalty" is that they must marry and cannot thereafter divorce. Again, this is not some moral proscription. It is designed to ensure that the child is taken care of and property inheritance is ensured. If the girl got pregnant from the fling, there weren't many institutions in place for protecting the child if the man moved on.

I put the word "penalty" in quotes because in Mesopotamian culture of the time, the average age of marriage for women was 14 and the average age of marriage for men was 17. In an era of poor sanitation, no contraception, and no prospects (besides prostitution) for single mothers, if a couple of teenagers were taking the risk of having sex, they were probably planning to marry anyway. The law simply formalized the arrangement.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

Sigh. Some days I identify with my fundie-conservative friends more than others.

Even though I disagree with my religious conservative friends on their willingness to quote the Old Testament when they get all moralistic, as in, I imagine, whatever this placard-carrier was responding to, I also want to say something to said placard carrier.

Namely that he's completely missing the real point. Which isn't that homosexuality is against the Law of the Old Testament at all. Which isn't even an Old Testament point.

The real point is that if you're spending your time whining about your rights to put your dangly bit in particular places with particular people, you're ignoring the Great Commandment.

That said fundie conservatives might be mistaking the demands of the Great Commission doesn't change that kind of self-idolatry and self-absorption. At least they are striving to put God at the center of their lives and get others to do the same.

The real point is that the fundie's quotation of the Bible is different in kind from the placard-carrier's quotation. The real point is that the consequences are different if the placard carrier is wrong than if the fundie is wrong. If the fundie is wrong, as I think he is, my gut tells me that God'll be okay with it -- since the fundie is acting from a stance of faith and trust and love for his Lord. But if the placard carrier is wrong, as I think he is, he's also failed in failing to put God first. And the consequences of that, in my opinion, are catastrophic.

The real point is not being able to quote Bible verse for one's position. It's about what you're quoting the Bible for. If you're quoting the Bible because you're trying to follow God's will, you're using it correctly. If you're quoting the Bible to affirm the importance of your choices and your rights, you're not.

Because that's not what its for.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I still don't understand.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

The gay guys should definitely get full marriage rights, imo. After all, at least one of them is allowing some other dude to stick his dick square up his ass. Hell, they ought to give the poor fucker a medal for that, lol

Originally Posted by: dfosterf 

To me.. the concept of not allowing them to join in the legal definition of marriage is absurd.

The church and afterlife can have there say independently from the legalities of this country..

The hypocrisy of any government that will label "Under God" from the pledge of Allegiance as nothing more than "ceremonial and patriotic nature", cannot justifiably cite any religious connotations to gay marriage. You can't have it both ways.

We have wasted probably billions of dollars in this country on this topic, that has really no reason to be an issue for the government to rule upon.

It is not our fight as a union to decide.. two adults should be able to form a marriage freely if both consent.. regardless of sex, race or religion.

But pressure from religious voters sways the self serving politician in seeking re-election.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z