Are really sure you want gay marriage?

[Skylar]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.

As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.

Where did the Bible say Jesus wasn't married?

 

[jillian]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.

As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.

the bible says that the two marys attended Jesus' body after he died. only a jewish man's wife and mother (and maybe sister) could attend to his body. given that magdalen was neither his mother nor sister, the only way she'd have been allowed to attend the body was if she was his wife. also, a 33 year old unmarried jew would have been noteworthy... and no one ever noted that.

plus, if you look at the gnostic bible... (and accept the possibility of its legitimacy) the idea that they were married becomes more logical.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.

As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.

Where did the Bible say Jesus wasn't married?

Where's it say he was? Would think if he had been it'd mention that since it's sorta a big deal.

 

[koshergrl]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

And to force Christians to bake them homo wedding cakes.

 

[koshergrl]

Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian

I think it's more likely that he was married to mary...

Article mentions no scriptural evidence for that.

As a Jew who doesn't marry, teaching love is the greatest commandment certainly feeds the 'gay' hypothesis. Since that was forbidden and punishable by death, one can easily see a gay Jewish rabbi emphasizing love is the most important thing. Even if he could never act on his love for men if that were the case.

the bible says that the two marys attended Jesus' body after he died. only a jewish man's wife and mother (and probably sister) could attend to his body. given that magdalen was neither his mother or sister, the only way she'd have been allowed to attend the body was if she was his wife. also, a 33 year old unmarried jew would have been noteworthy... and no one ever noted that.

plus, if you look at the gnostic bible... (and accept the possibility of its legitimacy) the idea that they were married becomes more logical.

What utter claptrap. Joseph and Nicodemus had already embalmed Christ. The marys purchased more sweet spices and were arguably going to anoint the sepulcher. And who knows if it was the intent of Mary Magdalene to actually anoint, or just attend the others.

It doesn't matter, because he arose before they arrived.

 

[Skylar]

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried.

It was my understanding that marriage was a requirement of rabbis in that era. As was an age of about 30.

The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence.

There are apocryphal records that mention Mary as the wife of Jesus. And even go into detail into the son's of Jesus. You can debate the value of these accounts. But they stand as evidence.

Also, the oldest greek translations of the New Testament use a version of the words 'touch me not' that carry with it a lot of touchy feely action. If translated into modern English it would probably read 'Mary, get the hell off me!'

Which carries with it plenty of sexual connotations.

There's no account of Jesus being gay, engaged in any homosexual behavior, nothing.

 

[Skylar]

Think about it. I mean, look at the divorce rate. Over fifty percent. Then you have alimony and child support. Speaking of which, how would you decide who pays? It's usually the husband who pays. Which one is the husband? With two guys, I guess it would be the pitcher. But which of the lesbos would be the husband? So, if you really want all the problems of marriage, I can be a good little liberal on this one. I believe in the equal sharing of misery. Have at it.

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

And to force Christians to bake them homo wedding cakes.

Cake doesn't have a sexual orientation. Its just cake.

 

[g5000]

Homos have a Cake Agenda.

 

[Skylar]

Psst...there were three Marys at the cross. His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.

 

[bripat9643]

Government sanctioned marriage needs to be relegated to the ashcan of history, and replaced by contracts between consenting adults.

If churches want to sanction these contracts after they are signed, by performing a religious rite, then more power to them.

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.

The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.

Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.

And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.

They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.

They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.

Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

 

[bripat9643]

Psst...there were three Marys at the cross. His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.

However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?

 

[g5000]

However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?

You guys really need to stop bringing your sexual fantasies into these conversations.

 

[jillian]

That's pointlessly complicated. Its far simpler and more effective to simply recognize gays and lesbians as part of the existing union rather than scrap all government sanctioned marriages, and the elaborate system of benefits associated with them.

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.

The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.

Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.

And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.

They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.

They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.

Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...

yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.

however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.

hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.

 

[jillian]

Psst...there were three Marys at the cross. His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.

However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?

quiet, loon.

 

[bripat9643]

The later is the right thing to do. The former is just a scheme for gays to get government benefits and social respectability.

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.

The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.

Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.

And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.

They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.

They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.

Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...

yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.

however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.

hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. yes, that is a fundamental right. A union between a man and a man is a joke, and nothing more.

 

[bripat9643]

Psst...there were three Marys at the cross. His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.

However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?

quiet, loon.

You don't want to touch it either.

Telling.

 

[jillian]

Nope. The latter is a tantrum. The pseudo-legal equivilant of overturning a chessboard because you don't like the outcome of the game.

The former is equal protection under the law. Its cheaper, faster, simpler, and far more effective. By every measure, it works better.

Nope. Gays already have equal protection under the law. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

As Loving V. Virginia demonstrated, the restrictions placed on marriage have meet constitutional muster as well.

The Loving v. Virginia decision was about racial discrimination. The 14th Amendment clearly bars discrimination based on race. It says nothing about sexual orientation or gender.

Using that to support the case for ghey marriage is absurd.

And same sex marriage bans fail those standards utterly. They have no rational purpose, they don't meet any valid legislative end, and they don't serve a compelling state interest.

They just 'are'. And that's not good enough.

They do have a rational purpose, a valid legislative purpose and a compelling state interest: promoting the raising of healthy well adjusted children. Gay marriage diverts legal and social resources away from that purpose.

Which might explain why in 44 of 46 cases heard by the federal judiciary, gay marriage bans were overturned.

Venue shopping and activist liberal judges explain that result. One thing you can't claim is that your desired ends were achieved democratically.

you really shouldn't try to analyze Loving...

yes. Loving was specifically about anti-miscegenation laws.

however, it found that marriage is a fundamental right. and where a fundamental right is involved, the government has to have a very good reason for infringing upon the right.

hint: your bigotry isn't a good reason.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. yes, that is a fundamental right. A union between a man and a man is a joke, and nothing more.

there is nothing in the law that requires it to be a man and a woman. it used to require that the people be of the same race. loving got rid of those laws.

this is what I mean about you not understanding what loving said and did

 

[jillian]

Psst...there were three Marys at the cross. His mother, his mother's sister, and Mary Magdalene.

Well since marrying your mother or your aunt were generally frowned upon in Christ era jewish culture, I'd say the evidence points away from a sexual relationship with either of the first two.

However, turds like you should approve of marrying your mother if you're a legally consenting adult, right?

quiet, loon.

You don't want to touch it either.

Telling.

not really.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Think that's a trend that will continue thru 2016? Or an expected mid-term shift?

Personally, I see martial law by 2016.

Yeah, that's idiotic, and not gonna happen.

Two reasons it could happen. A economic collapse. Or a rash of terrorist attacks on US soil. Either one is a distinct possibility. If our country loses its reserve currency status, were screwed. Social and economic collapse will be the result. And do you really think that Mexicans are the only ones crossing our southern border? No one really knows how many terrorists are in this country.

Yeah, and Jesus could return as well but try to stick with reality. The terrorists are a little too busy at the moment, taking over their side of the world.

If Jesus "returns" think the first thing he'd say is "What the hell are you doing? I'M gay! Didn't they leave that part in?"

Gay or married. In those days that was about it. Since Mary was the closest to him, being married makes sense. Peter hated her guts, a John and Yoko thing.

 

[koshergrl]

The state has no authority to dictate what constitutes a sacrament.

None.

Nada.