Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
#26 Old 1st May 2013 at 7:26 PM
Guys, I don't think Cpt.Karnas is serious. If you read Cpt.Karnas closely, I think he's really trying to mock the anti-gay advocates by making well-known anti-gay slogans. The quote "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a very well-known anti-gay slogan. It even has a Wikipedia article on it that talks about the intention and explanation of this slogan, which is supposed to summarize the traditional Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Of course, it goes back to how literally you interpret Genesis. How a person interprets Genesis is very important. Genesis is a traditional narrative, something passed on from generation to generation. It is said to be used as liturgical poetry. Now, if the first chapter of Genesis is supposed to be taken as poetry because it is poetry, then it is advisable that the reader would take the entire narrative as a poem for creation in the biblical cosmology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gay_slogan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Steve
Advertisement
Top Secret Researcher
#27 Old 1st May 2013 at 7:47 PM
Quote: Originally posted by CrèmedelaCrème
Guys, I don't think Cpt.Karnas is serious.
Poe's Law is applicable in this case: there is actually no way to know either way, from the post itself.
Forum Resident
#28 Old 1st May 2013 at 7:50 PM
Oh so i guess now your going to ask: "Should heteros be called people"?
#29 Old 1st May 2013 at 8:04 PM
Quote: Originally posted by r_deNoube
Poe's Law is applicable in this case: there is actually no way to know either way, from the post itself.


Yes, we have no way to know from the post itself. However, we can assume. Some people above had to make an assumption before they reacted to that other member's post. I am going to assume the other way: that the member is just making satire.
Alchemist
#30 Old 1st May 2013 at 8:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Karnas
Marriage should always be for one man and one woman that is how it should be.


I totally agree, marriage should be for man and woman, 2 men, or 2 woman. That's how it should be.

If you remember me, I'm awesome!
__________
Need help building? We'll help.
Top Secret Researcher
#31 Old 1st May 2013 at 8:41 PM
I doubt it's satire. If he wanted to satirize their views, he would have bundled the posts. For that matter, blandly stating the opinion isn't satire. Satire is taking an opinion or a position and framing it in a way so as to make it look ridiculous. For instance:

"As Joe sat in a cafe after church, he reflected upon that day's teachings. The preacher had spoken passionately about Jesus's love for all mankind. Joe wondered if he could be the kind of person who would give his life to help others and spread God's love. However, his thoughts were interrupted by a pair of Hispanics talking among themselves in Spanish a couple tables over. 'HEY! $$^%!$%! You're in America, learn to speak English!" he shouted at them. He returned to his coffee. Yes, he thought, I should spread God's love to all people. Maybe I'll become a missionary."

See also: Jonathon Swift, Animal Farm, the Discworld series, The Colbert Report, and so on.

Granted, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" needs nothing else to make it sound ridiculous, but he's providing none of the other elements of satire.
Undead Molten Llama
#32 Old 1st May 2013 at 9:19 PM
Quote: Originally posted by CrèmedelaCrème
Yes, we have no way to know from the post itself. However, we can assume. Some people above had to make an assumption before they reacted to that other member's post. I am going to assume the other way: that the member is just making satire.


Not getting a satire vibe, either. Either the poster in question is being serious or he/she is being a troll trying to get folks riled up. Perhaps he/she will clarify so that responses can follow accordingly.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
#33 Old 1st May 2013 at 9:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Johnny_Bravo
I totally agree, marriage should be for man and woman, 2 men, or 2 woman. That's how it should be.


I agree, but I just want to add:
  • unless the couple's relationship is consanguineous (I'm talking about sibling-sibling marriages and incest)
  • unless one partner is already married
  • unless one partner is legally underage
  • unless one partner is abducted
  • unless one partner is forced into marriage
  • unless one partner cannot give consent in any way (i.e. your dog)

I have to admit that I have made up this list, while being inspired by this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...mental_Marriage
Theorist
#34 Old 1st May 2013 at 9:51 PM
I can see how it would be easy to assume that wasn't satire. At least in my neck of the woods, anti-gay bigots don't typically take the time to put any actual thought into their opinions. Instead, they mindlessly regurgitate well-known anti-gay slogans. I frequently wonder if people like that are capable of any kind of actual, independent thought.

Resident wet blanket.
Instructor
#35 Old 2nd May 2013 at 12:07 AM
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#36 Old 2nd May 2013 at 12:30 AM
Are those chocolate covered raisins? Damnation can wait, GIMME.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
#37 Old 2nd May 2013 at 12:34 AM
I think the picture displays chocolate-covered raisins, (nasty) figs, and angry-looking (but very cute, in my opinion) marshmallow bunnies or cookie bunnies.
Top Secret Researcher
#38 Old 2nd May 2013 at 12:42 AM
Thank you, Cremedelacreme, for providing a service to the blind. All they have to do is read your post to know what's in the picture.

That picture always cracks me up.
Site Helper
#39 Old 2nd May 2013 at 1:44 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Karnas
God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
In other words, you don't have a reason, since (if there is a God), s/he definitely created all of the gay people in the world.
*shrugs*
retired moderator
#40 Old 2nd May 2013 at 2:01 AM
Parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and some parts are to be taken figuratively.

As a Christian, I honestly don't care if God made the universe in seven days or billions of years via evolution. I prefer to take the story of Adam and Eve figuratively rather than literally because the alternative involves considering Cain and Abel may have had to have sex with their own mother, Eve. Yuck..... >_<

I don't mind if you call me "MSD" or something for short.
Tumblr
Perhaps someday I'll have leisure time back...
#41 Old 2nd May 2013 at 2:23 AM
@maybesomethingdunno: I second that. That is what modern biblical scholarship is for!
Undead Molten Llama
#42 Old 2nd May 2013 at 2:39 AM
I've written reams about the Bible in The Debate Room; don't feel a need to do so here. I'll just say that a literal interpretation of the Bible turns God -- otherwise characterized as an all-knowing, all-seeing being -- into a being who needs to send lackeys into Sodom to find out if there are any good people there. Seriously, does that sound all-knowing, all-seeing to you? The Bible is a work of man, written by people between 3,500 and about 1,950 years ago. Beyond gleaning spiritual meaning from it, it only makes sense in its details when viewed from the perspective of such a person. For such a person, a local catastrophic river flood would indeed seem to cover "the whole world." God, on the other hand, would know that there was a whole lot of world of which said person could not even conceive. But also for such a person, they could imagine that there could exist a mountain sufficiently high to be able to see the whole world if one stood on its summit, as Jesus was said to do during the temptation. Obviously, on a roughly spherical planet, you could have an infinitely high mountain and STILL not be able to see the other side of the world from the top of it. And again, God would know that, especially if He created the world to begin with. But the human writer at the time obviously did not know that. (Although there were other cultures, some of them older, that were quite aware that the world was round...Which makes those cultures smarter than God, if you take the Bible literally.)

So, the Bible works and makes sense in its details ONLY if you view it through the eyes of an ancient person, including all of the Ancient Near Eastern cultural norms in place at the time that the documents that became the Bible were written, including practicing polygamy and incest. But if you try to put the words of ancient and ignorant people into God's mouth, it just doesn't work. It doesn't make sense, and it turns God into an idiot, basically. Which is why I, as a Christian, reject the notion of the Bible as the "Word of God," which in turn is partly why I'm a heretic.

All that said...Well, God's not an idiot. He'd know that he'd need a guy and gal or else his new playthings wouldn't get very far as a species. So we need straight folks, sure. But that has no bearing on love, attraction, or granting the same basic rights and privileges to all human beings who have reached the age of consent, whether or not you believe that God created human beings and, really, whether or not you're a Christian.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Instructor
#43 Old 2nd May 2013 at 2:54 AM
Frankly, I don't even see how the Bible is at all relevant to this question. It would only be relevant if all people were Christian. And they are not. So bringing up one particular religion and/or its holy text automatically makes it a moot point when you're talking about how marriage is defined under civil law. If churches, or mosques, or temples, or that trailer under the bridge where Scientologists go to meet don't want to allow LGBT people in, then that's their prerogative. It's just like the Boy Scouts. They don't want gay kids in there. It's shitty, yeah, but hey, they can do that if they want. What they CAN'T do is say something like "No gays in this national park's campground!" As a society, we should all be treated equally under the law. That includes free and equal access to everything in the public sphere (such as marriage licenses), and it also means that private groups (like religions or youth organizations) can exclude whatever people they wish to. We're not a theocracy, so religion shouldn't ever be in the conversation when it comes to deciding civil law, at least when that civil law has absolutely nothing to do with religion, which is exactly the case with marriage equality.
Top Secret Researcher
#44 Old 2nd May 2013 at 3:21 AM Last edited by hugbug993 : 2nd May 2013 at 3:31 AM.
For that matter, an all-knowing god would know that putting his word down in a book is a bad idea. I haven't even been published and people are already trying to rewrite my books. Not to mention things like the Wicked Bible, with a typo in the seventh commandment (which left out the "not" in "thou shalt not commit adultery").

And people can read whatever they want into what's in the text.

1 Samuel 18:1-4
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt.



1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

1 Samuel 20:41
And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

"Exceeded", huh?

2 Samuel 1:25-26, David speaking:
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother[-in-law] Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”



And, of course, Ruth and Naomi. Some of their dialogue is used in weddings. There's also the world's first Pokemon battle, if you're inclined to read it that way.
Theorist
#45 Old 2nd May 2013 at 3:21 AM
Quote:
God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Were you there?
Scholar
#46 Old 2nd May 2013 at 3:26 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Karnas
God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
So who was it that created Steve?
Did Buddah pull him from his sleeve?
Perhaps Someone saw fit to believe,
That two men together won't bereave,
The world of all its common grace
Because two men would dare embrace.

Because it's people that dare to hate,
Who stop the world from being great,
Who stop the rest from moving on,
Who forget Mark 12:31,

So please, don't think the gift of rhyme,
Excuses hate inside a line,
The world's moved on, and so should you,
All love is equal, no matter who.


*flourish*
*shrugs*
retired moderator
#47 Old 2nd May 2013 at 3:42 AM
You're right, GabyBee. But for some people, the Bible (or other religious literature) is what presents what constitutes as a/the definition of marriage. Thus, making it relevant in that sense. If someone can't separate the religious aspect from a topic, you may have to address the religious aspect to be on the same page with them. Whatever I would try to explain to someone, whether it's math or the housing laws on the moon, I would try to speak in terms they can understand and on a level they can understand. "5 - X = 3" may become a word problem involving "Little Susan" eating apples.

I will neither confirm nor deny an intentional feeding a (potential) troll, but I am curious what someone like Cpt.Karnas would respond with to the "Abel and Eve" notion though....


In response to your picture, Fig Newtons have really flip-flopped on their stance over the years. First they advertised "They're not a cookie; they're fruit and cake" and now they advertising them as "Cookies."

Clearly, we shouldn't be asking "what is marriage?" We should be asking "what is a Fig Newton?"

I don't mind if you call me "MSD" or something for short.
Tumblr
Perhaps someday I'll have leisure time back...
Undead Molten Llama
#48 Old 2nd May 2013 at 1:45 PM
Quote: Originally posted by GabyBee
Frankly, I don't even see how the Bible is at all relevant to this question. It would only be relevant if all people were Christian. And they are not. So bringing up one particular religion and/or its holy text automatically makes it a moot point when you're talking about how marriage is defined under civil law...


Exactly. What you're saying is what the separation of church and state is all about. The trouble is that most Americans don't know what that really means. They think it means that you can't have a Christmas tree or a sculpture that includes the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse or that religion can't be taught in public schools...but it really doesn't mean that at all.

So there, the problem is lack of proper civics education. The other problem is that people seem to think that the law should be based on "morality." And for many people, their morality is tied up in their religious belief, whatever such belief structure the person has. Doesn't help that religion IS basically a way to control/regulate how people behave, so the tie-up is understandable. So, marriage equality for gay people always butts up against the morality/religious issue because most if not all of the world's major religions (NOT just "standard" Judeo-Christianity) condemn homosexual sex as sinful and/or immoral and/or not-advisable and/or impure. Sure, some sects of each of the major religions have different and more liberal views on the subject, but as a whole, it is still widely condemned.

Yes, in the US there is separation of church and state, so religious belief/religion-based "morality" should have no bearing on civil law at all. But what should happen is not always what actually happens. More people, especially religious people, need to be educated about what the separation of church and state really means. In addition, not all countries HAVE constitutionally/legally-mandated separation of church and state. I would guess that most do not, in fact. In the US, marriage equality SHOULD be a no-brainer, yes. But...Well, a lot of people have no brain when it comes to civics. Plus, a lot of people like to cling to tradition because it's one thing that they can hold on to that makes them feel like they have some control over their lives in a rapidly changing world. These attitudes are hard to change and the will of the people is decided by vote. Typically, those who vote are older and more "traditional." Plus, those who are more likely to turn out for sure to vote on something are those who are vehemently against whatever is being voted on. (You'd think it'd be the other way around, but it often isn't.) This is why, although studies show that a majority of Americans currently favor marriage equality, it STILL gets beaten at the polls, because the majority are, unfortunately, silent there. I think it's not something that should be voted on at all, period. It is CLEARLY a matter easily decided when put in the light of separation of church and state, but...*sigh*

Things WILL change, of course. I think we're in a transitional period now with a lot of older people in the population who especially want to cling to tradition to give them a sense of control as many cultural attitudes change all around them, left and right. The old ways are crumbling and older people for whom those ways are the norm want to try to weld it together with Crazy Glue as best they can to avoid having to change. But as us older folks die off, attitudes will change more widely, I think. Until then, we all must forge on as best we can. That's what it boils down to, I think.

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
#49 Old 2nd May 2013 at 7:46 PM
This video sums up my beliefs about heterosexual marriages.

Theorist
#50 Old 4th May 2013 at 8:25 AM
My Big Fat Gay Wedding, starring John Stamos and Bob Sagat, needs to be made.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top