I JUST GOT DIVORCED AND MY DAUGHTER IS QUEER!!!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 2:04 pm

THe Senate failed to get enough people to vote (60) to change their proposed Amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage and bring it to a vote. 67 would be necessary to pass the amendment and get it on to the House.

Good news is that 48 senators voted to move it through.

Bad news is that Jerry Falwell has 48 senators in his pocket.

Worse news is now there is nothing that can save the sanctitiy of marriage. Mine crumbled to dust just in the last 3 minutes as I typed this post, and the daycare provider called and told me that my daughter grabbed her boob, so is certainly queer.

If only the Senate could have protected my marriage. Now what will I do!?!?!!

---

but in seriousness, this is a loss for Republicans. They knew that the Amendment had no chance, but they were trying to embarrass Democrats right before the Convention in a week and a half, and they fell right on their face.

all i can say is HAHAHAHAH!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 2:09 pm

I've been watching this debate very closely on cspan2 the last few days.

Personally I find it disgusting that our senate has been debating this for the last week, when the ban on weapons such as uzi's, ak47's etc. is up very soon (only 12 more legislative days to get to it).

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 2:10 pm

Suck it up Voro and start preparing your daughter by showing her PeeWee Herman videos and episodes of Xena. It's your job to make sure your daughter is ready for the world when the time comes!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 2:12 pm

Voronwë wrote:
but in seriousness, this is a loss for Republicans. They knew that the Amendment had no chance, but they were trying to embarrass Democrats right before the Convention in a week and a half, and they fell right on their face.

all i can say is HAHAHAHAH!

I don't think the republicans seriously thought this would pass. It's just a move to secure the fanatical right vote, "well we tried!" and now they can focus on the swing voters.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 2:19 pm

well that was part of it.

They knew it had no chance of passing, but they wanted to get it to a vote.

But when they found out they couldnt even get all the Republicans to vote for it, they scrambled and wanted to change the amendment from the 2 sentence version to a one sentence version. That brought up the procedural vote. The Democrats seized the opportunity knowing the Rep.s were floundering, and threw up a fillabuster(sp.). The Rep's couldnt get the votes necessary to stop the fillabuster and the party was over.

The Republicans simply wanted a "Roll-Call" vote on the Gay Marriage thing, so they could have campaign commercials all over the place saying "John Kerry voted 'No" to the Save Marriage Amendment" or whatever it was called. At any rate it is good for American that this fell flat on its face.

Let's hope that we can get some money for Homeland Security appropriated now, and the rest of the people's real business.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 14, 2004, 2:21 pm

This vote is having quite the effect on the gay community as well. One of my good friends, who is homosexual, decided to become hetrosexual just because being gay isn't as controversial as it once was.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 2:22 pm

Of course it was a political ploy, the democrats called the republicans on it many times.

While many of the democratic senators - including republican John McCain had very valid points - I think Hillary Clinton had the best point by saying if they were trying to protect the sanctity of marriage - it should have been done 30 years ago by making it harder to get a divorce.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 14, 2004, 2:32 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:This vote is having quite the effect on the gay community as well. One of my good friends, who is homosexual, decided to become hetrosexual just because being gay isn't as controversial as it once was.

weird ... i wish mine was like a light switch

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 2:40 pm

Thess wrote:Of course it was a political ploy, the democrats called the republicans on it many times.

While many of the democratic senators - including republican John McCain had very valid points - I think Hillary Clinton had the best point by saying if they were trying to protect the sanctity of marriage - it should have been done 30 years ago by making it harder to get a divorce.

I'm not sure if you're serious or being sarcastic here but increasing the difficulty of getting a divorce will not help protect the sanctity of marriage. Make getting married as difficult as it already is to get a divorce and you'll make some headway.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 2:52 pm

Actually my solution would be to ban divorce and criminalize adultry to protect the sanctity, you have to go to the root of the problem.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 14, 2004, 2:54 pm

then religion would go belly up because no one would get married

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » July 14, 2004, 2:57 pm

Thess wrote:Actually my solution would be to ban divorce and criminalize adultry to protect the sanctity, you have to go to the root of the problem.

Mmmm, back to the days of the scarlet letter...hell, that would be great. All those people walking around marked as adulterers; that way we'd know just where to go for an easy pick-up.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 3:06 pm

but Thess is actually right. If you are going to be intellectually and morally consistent with the idea of using legislation to protect the sanctity of marriage, then that is the real target.

of course your reprise of the scarlet letter turns it on its head for exactly what it is. but if the right wing Republicans were truly intellectually and morally honest about the sanctity of marrage being defended by legislation, then they would target Divorce, since what, we have 50%+ of our marriages ending in divorce?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 3:16 pm

This is a cause best addressed on a personal level, not a legislative level.

God changes people's hearts, not amendments.

Wrong battlefield.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 3:22 pm

Voronwë wrote:but Thess is actually right. If you are going to be intellectually and morally consistent with the idea of using legislation to protect the sanctity of marriage, then that is the real target.

of course your reprise of the scarlet letter turns it on its head for exactly what it is. but if the right wing Republicans were truly intellectually and morally honest about the sanctity of marrage being defended by legislation, then they would target Divorce, since what, we have 50%+ of our marriages ending in divorce?

I disagree. Divorce is only a problem because of clueless people getting married in the first place.

$35.00 and 20 minutes to get married in Las Vegas VS a several month waiting period, reams of paperwork, court appearances, etc is already out of whack.

Then again, I'm arguing a point that shouldn't exist in the first place. The government should only be involved in civil unions and marriage should be left to the fairytale makers and have no legal impact.

Sanctity: the quality of being holy

That doesn't mesh with separation of church and state for democrats or republicans.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 3:53 pm

I forgot to mention how television has been exploiting marriage for quite a few years now, with television shows such as - who wants to marry a millionaire? etc.

Really the amount of sanctity left in marriage in this country is pretty low.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 14, 2004, 4:08 pm

I forgot to mention how television has been exploiting marriage for quite a few years now, with television shows such as - who wants to marry a millionaire? etc.

Art imitates life. I can assure you that there was divorce well before Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. When 2 individuals choose to end thier marriage, I highly doubt they are thinking about what people on TV did. Your whole point is nothing more than obscuring the root of the problem in much the same way people blame music/televesion/video games for violence amoung children.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you are driving at, I just disagree with the concept.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 4:09 pm

Our selfish impulses are the root of bad TV and divorce!

Selfishness is a civilization killer.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 14, 2004, 4:23 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Selfishness is a civilization killer.

interesting statement coming from someone who is agaisnt providing basic health care to poor people.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 14, 2004, 4:27 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:This is a cause best addressed on a personal level, not a legislative level.

God changes people's hearts, not amendments.

Wrong battlefield.

If it's "God" then explain why adultery and divorce are just as common among the religious as they are the nonreligious.

Do you honestly think a system where you can commit adultery (or any other of a multitude of immoral acts), confess, and be absolved is conducive to "the sanctity of marriage."

The only way religious marriages work is if the women are brainwashed and stupid enough to accept a role of inferiority to the man - a common theme in all three major monotheistic religions. But maybe that's what you meant - it's the woman's fault for not accepting her role. You religious types are fond of blaming women for the faults of mankind.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 14, 2004, 4:28 pm

Thess wrote:I forgot to mention how television has been exploiting marriage for quite a few years now, with television shows such as - who wants to marry a millionaire? etc.

Really the amount of sanctity left in marriage in this country is pretty low.

I hope you were being sarcastic about the ban divorce deal.
Who gives a fuck honestly, marriage is what two individuals make it, the law, or the media cannot cheapen the "sanctity of marriage"
Marriage is just a word, not like the past had a higher sanctity of marriage with King Henry the 8th, etc.
In a true relationship, marriage doesnt mean jack shit, its the bond shared between two people.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 14, 2004, 4:31 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:God changes people's hearts, not amendments.

Valid arguments usually change my heart as it does for the majority of people.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 5:00 pm

Really I could careless about the sanctity of marriage - I personally do not believe in marriage, but if 2 people want to get married, regardless of race, sex, etc. I could careless, as long as they are consulting adults.

This tying up our senate floor for a week when there are 5 weeks left in the senate is absolutely absurd in my opinion.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 5:25 pm

My comments pertain to the choice of action rather than the message Lynks.

Validity is a shifting definition used to insulate one's already made up mind.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 5:29 pm

Thess wrote:Really I could careless about the sanctity of marriage - I personally do not believe in marriage, but if 2 people want to get married, regardless of race, sex, etc. I could careless, as long as they are consulting adults.

Since when do adults have to be consultants to be married? : ) Two consenting adults should be all that's required!

Sanctity should not be tied in any way to the government therefore civil unions should be the only form of union recognized by the government and be open to any two consenting adults.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » July 14, 2004, 5:35 pm

glad it failed. This should be a state issue and not a federal one. It has no place in the constitution.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 5:35 pm

Yeah I meant consenting - my mistake

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 14, 2004, 5:55 pm

A few points...

1. Whew... can't believe we were even considering it.

2. Vor, please tell me that was a joke about you getting a divorce, I realize the other part was but just want to make sure the first was as well...

3. Did anyone ever see "Love at Stake"? I actually found it on Showtime about a year ago and taped it. Great movie, had most of the old SCTV cast in it. One of the first lines in the movie is happens as a woman wearing a scarlet letter is leaving the mayors office and the he walks in and asks "Isn't that woman an ADULTERER!?!" to the reply "Yea... and a DAMN GOOD ONE"

Love that movie...

Marb

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 14, 2004, 6:04 pm

Adex, you are right in one respect. This is the wrong battlefield. Trying to legislate morality and religeous issues is a recipe for disaster, anyhow. People have to reach their own conclusions about what is moral, for themselves, which is a truth that organized religeons try to quash routinely in stunts like this one. The government is a tool of Justice and Advancement of society. Trying to hammer it into a tool of morality or fundementalism/superstition can only lead to disaster. History is littered with examples of this.

I really wish the Jesus Crispies would concentrate on their own fucking problems, like the whole molesting priest and intollerance thing, before even trying to suggest to other people how to live their lives. The amount of time wasted on this stupid vote is a perfect example of why my asshole puckers up instinctively every time I hear GW talk about "God's Country" and how god made him president. The sad thing is they are so busy repressing themselves that they just assume that people having personal freedoms will immediately start sucking teh cock and woshiping satan.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 14, 2004, 6:04 pm

yeah i was just being obnoxious =)

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 14, 2004, 6:49 pm

Karae wrote:If it's "God" then explain why adultery and divorce are just as common among the religious as they are the nonreligious.

Do you honestly think a system where you can commit adultery (or any other of a multitude of immoral acts), confess, and be absolved is conducive to "the sanctity of marriage."

The only way religious marriages work is if the women are brainwashed and stupid enough to accept a role of inferiority to the man - a common theme in all three major monotheistic religions. But maybe that's what you meant - it's the woman's fault for not accepting her role. You religious types are fond of blaming women for the faults of mankind.

Oh for crying out loud.

For someone who espouses himself to be a member of the all-encompassing and all-accepting Party you sure are one prejudiced and intolerant fellow.

It seems everything you base your thought patterns off of is categorically wrong and disproven by centuries of history, if nothing else. I keep looking for a post of yours that isn't riddled with a hatred of those who's methods you disagree with. It's painfully obvious you haven't got the first clue about what it takes to have a successful marriage. Heck you may not even know anyone on a personal level that has one.

If you know anyone who's been married over 20 years and will tell you they're happier today than they were when they first got married...say that to them and tell me what happens.

So much arrogance and so little substance.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 7:05 pm

I said that to my parents who have been happily married for 26 years, they agreed with Karae's statement.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » July 14, 2004, 7:07 pm

they agreed that the only reason they are happy is because your mom is brainwashed and inferior to your dad? details.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 14, 2004, 7:11 pm

No they agreed because they are athiests

Edit: Why do you have a period after your name?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 14, 2004, 7:25 pm

Thess wrote:No they agreed because they are athiests

Edit: Why do you have a period after your name?

He may have kept old school name from the IGN Veeshan Vault takeover and name change registration requirement that caused havok for a week or so and had people adding odd things to their names because the original required $$_name_merge something or another.

It may have a deeper meaning that Rekaar may not wish to share! New thread for this?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 8:29 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:Selfishness is a civilization killer.
interesting statement coming from someone who is agaisnt providing basic health care to poor people.

Wrong Kyo,

I am quite interested in supporting efficient heath care opportunities for any who need it.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » July 14, 2004, 8:36 pm

Rekaar. wrote:
Karae wrote:If it's "God" then explain why adultery and divorce are just as common among the religious as they are the nonreligious.

Do you honestly think a system where you can commit adultery (or any other of a multitude of immoral acts), confess, and be absolved is conducive to "the sanctity of marriage."

The only way religious marriages work is if the women are brainwashed and stupid enough to accept a role of inferiority to the man - a common theme in all three major monotheistic religions. But maybe that's what you meant - it's the woman's fault for not accepting her role. You religious types are fond of blaming women for the faults of mankind.
Oh for crying out loud.

For someone who espouses himself to be a member of the all-encompassing and all-accepting Party you sure are one prejudiced and intolerant fellow.

It seems everything you base your thought patterns off of is categorically wrong and disproven by centuries of history, if nothing else. I keep looking for a post of yours that isn't riddled with a hatred of those who's methods you disagree with. It's painfully obvious you haven't got the first clue about what it takes to have a successful marriage. Heck you may not even know anyone on a personal level that has one.

If you know anyone who's been married over 20 years and will tell you they're happier today than they were when they first got married...say that to them and tell me what happens.

So much arrogance and so little substance.

Yea...cos I'm the one who immediately jumps to insult. /yawn

Your ad hominem attack doesn't warrant or deserve a response, but I'm feeling charitable so I'll give you one anyway.

My parents have been married for 32 years, they are happier today than when they got married, and they agree with me. They have both commented to me on their siblings (both religious) marriages and how much less voice their brother's wives have in the relationship.

This is a result of the pattern of anti-feminism and feminine inferiority throughout the entirety of the Bible. It's evidence by the fact that we, a predominately religious society, have never had a female President and only a handful of female Senators, Representatives, and Governors.

Do I despise religion? Absolutely. Religion is the single largest cause for racism, sexism, and any other form of arbitrary prejudice.

However, don't confuse my distaste for religion with an intolerance or prejudice against religious people. I am able to distinguish people and their actions from their socio-cultural affiliations.

Now, please, this time, post something intelligent in response. I won't deign to answer another vapid and insolent post by you.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 14, 2004, 9:01 pm

Karae wrote:If it's "God" then explain why adultery and divorce are just as common among the religious as they are the nonreligious.

Governments have in the past codified marriage contractually in an effort to promote its benefits to society.

Marriage has been around long enough that many religions recognise and
celebrate it.

Karae wrote: Do you honestly think a system where you can commit adultery (or any other of a multitude of immoral acts), confess, and be absolved is conducive to "the sanctity of marriage."

Yes any sin can be forgiven but forgivness don't save you from real world consequences. You can forgive a killer and still want him in jail. Adultery is explicitly listed as one of few reasons for justified divorce in the bible.

So I "do not honestly think" that you statement is correct.

Karae wrote: The only way religious marriages work is if the women are brainwashed and stupid enough to accept a role of inferiority to the man - a common theme in all three major monotheistic religions. But maybe that's what you meant - it's the woman's fault for not accepting her role. You religious types are fond of blaming women for the faults of mankind.

[/quote]

Absolutely not. I totally disagree with your inequality claim. The biblical model of marriage basically suggests different but equal roles for the husband and wife. It says that husbands are to love their wifes with all their might, and wives are to respect their husbands.

If you treat your wife as an inferior then you're not loving her with your might. Loving your wife with all your might places her needs above yours. Inequality between husband and wife is NOT biblical.

The ideals in the bible are great for marriage. It's just that throughout history we've screwed it up time and time again.

The cultural treatment of women as second class citizens is a product of our own selfishness. We can't pass the buck on that.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » July 15, 2004, 12:07 am

The only way religious marriages work is if the women are brainwashed and stupid enough to accept a role of inferiority to the man - a common theme in all three major monotheistic religions. But maybe that's what you meant - it's the woman's fault for not accepting her role. You religious types are fond of blaming women for the faults of mankind.

LOL, Karae is obviously NOT married.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 15, 2004, 12:23 am

Tyek wrote:
The only way religious marriages work is if the women are brainwashed and stupid enough to accept a role of inferiority to the man - a common theme in all three major monotheistic religions. But maybe that's what you meant - it's the woman's fault for not accepting her role. You religious types are fond of blaming women for the faults of mankind.
LOL, Karae is obviously NOT married.

You mean obviously not religious. But yeah he's not married either.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 15, 2004, 12:43 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Absolutely not. I totally disagree with your inequality claim. The biblical model of marriage basically suggests different but equal roles for the husband and wife. It says that husbands are to love their wifes with all their might, and wives are to respect their husbands.

What fucking bible are you reading? Did you pay attention to your vows when the priest read them off, or were you too exited thinking about how you were going to have the first Jeus approved guilt free sex of your life that night? The Bible is VERY specific about the roles in marriage and they favor those with a penis. If you don't believe me, just read the parts where they take about what they did to the women ruled worshipers of Baal, the tale that made "Jezebel" a derrogatory term. Don't bother arguing it; I know you only follow the bible selectively, anyhow and if you have edited out the sexism, more power to you.

In any case, my friendly Jesus freaks, you are once again associating Marriage with Christianity. This, as has been pointed out in numerous threads, is a mistake. Marriage has existed for more than twice the length of time that Christianity has, gay marriage too. Christianity (like most religions) just absorbed it as a means of controlling the masses. Take a look at Medieval Eurpoean politics as an example of this.

People can be married (and should be) as equals, its just not Christian.

On Topic:
Our health system sucks fat cock and everyone knows it. Insurance companies choose when they pay and who they insure. If you don't fit their nice little demographic and get a terminal disease, you can either die or burden your family with the bill. Its become such a far reaching and pervasive racket that employers use loss of health coverage as leverage on their employees. Only someone who is white, male, and well off benefits from the current system. That is, of course, unless you are in the insurance or pharmescutical industry, in which case you are really making out like a bandit from this.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 15, 2004, 1:47 am

Jice what in the heck are you talking about?

Jezebel was a queen of one of the Israelite kings. She egged her husband on to supporting a fake religion and pissed God off. She even tried to kill God's main prophet at the time Elijah. She ended up getting a lot of people killed.

Actually it leads to a very interesting biblical showdown. 850 cultists vs. Elijah. Title Fight

1 Kings:

18 "I have not made trouble for Israel," Elijah replied. "But you and your father's family have. You have abandoned the LORD's commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD . The god who answers by fire-he is God."
Then all the people said, "What you say is good."
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD , which was in ruins. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel." 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD , and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs [1] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood."
34 "Do it again," he said, and they did it again.
"Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD , God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, O LORD , answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD , are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"

One of the more lively old testiment moments.

But back to your question Jice. I'm a bit unclear as to what you refer. What about Jezebel pertains to marriage and troubles you?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 15, 2004, 4:31 am

Thats the BuyBull account. According to historical accounts, Jezebel was queen of a city of Baalists, who were by all historical acounts, their peaceful nieghbors. The Jews basically didn't like the idea of female rulers and when she refused to bow before them, they lured a bunch of Baalists into a chamber under false pretenses and butchered them all, man woman and child. Jezebel was tossed to the dogs, quite literally torn apart and devoured by wild dogs. The Baalists were pretty much all converted or killed after that. After that, being a "Jezebel" equated to being a difficult woman who did not do as she was told. Considering she was a woman and a pagan, its not exactly a suprise the King Jamesified bible spun things a little differently. I know being a rational logical person you will naturally discount historians in favor of a book that was written by thousands of men, compiled by a group of greek orthodoxists looking to cement their power over the church, and subsequently edited by a dozen or so people.

But I could be 100% wrong about that particular subject and it still wouldn't alter the fact that the bible is sexist, practically from the first page. Remember that women are blamed for original sin. If the Bible regards women equally, then why are the male and female vows different in christian weddings?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 15, 2004, 9:56 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:Jice what in the heck are you talking about?

Jezebel was a queen of one of the Israelite kings. She egged her husband on to supporting a fake religion and pissed God off. She even tried to kill God's main prophet at the time Elijah. She ended up getting a lot of people killed.

Actually it leads to a very interesting biblical showdown. 850 cultists vs. Elijah. Title Fight

1 Kings:

18 "I have not made trouble for Israel," Elijah replied. "But you and your father's family have. You have abandoned the LORD's commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table."
20 So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 21 Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."
But the people said nothing.
22 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD . The god who answers by fire-he is God."
Then all the people said, "What you say is good."
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire." 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD , which was in ruins. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel." 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD , and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs [1] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood."
34 "Do it again," he said, and they did it again.
"Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD , God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, O LORD , answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD , are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!"

One of the more lively old testiment moments.

But back to your question Jice. I'm a bit unclear as to what you refer. What about Jezebel pertains to marriage and troubles you?

Damn dude, that story is terribly convincing, i believe every word of it in a literal sence. I mean, "god" makes fires for me every day, so i dont have to waste gas to start up my grill. Im sure "god" made fire for people 2000 years ago, shit he did all kinds of miracles back then, or course he cant do something like "end the war on terror" or create a cure for aids, becouse that would interfere with free will, just like starting fires would to denouce a "false god"

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 15, 2004, 9:58 am

the old testament view of gender equality is a joke. but of course it should be, it is a book written for a 3000 year old culture. applying that to modern culture is absurd.

but when we chose the readings for our wedding (in a Catholic wedding they give you a book that you can pick from pre-selected readings...kind of a choose your own adventure mass). anyway, yeah there is about one course of action where you can eliminate any of the sexist bullshit.

i was just at a wedding in June and these were friends of mine from NYC, and they are pretty contemporary-minded people, and all the readings were the crazy old testament shit about women being subservient and stuff. I thought i was in the twilight zone.

wasn't as wierd as the evangelist wedding i went to a couple years ago where the bride's sisters eyes rolled in the back of her head as she sang some song....trying to remember it...kind of a christian pop/folk song....anyway it escapes me, but it was terrible.

anyway, not just trying to wholesale trash peoples' weddings, i just find it extremely wierd how people just kind of show up in the room, listen to this incredible demeaning speech about a woman and just kind of shrug it off.

is the expression for that 'cognitive dissonance'? where if you kind of shrug off stuff that is inconsistent with your view on things as if it didn't happen?

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » July 15, 2004, 10:32 am

Hubby and I were married by a Navy chaplain that tried to put the subservient wife bullshit into our wedding vows. He actually had the nerve to ask me how I felt about giving complete control over my life to someone else. Before I could respond – I was in complete shock – hubby gave him this response:

Some marriages are like a dog sled team. They need one individual in the front leading the way for the other. Some marriages are like an oxen team. They pull side by side as equals. Our marriage was going to be an oxen team.

I was so proud of him that day – it was actually 16 years ago this month. When the chaplain then said he didn't know if we were ready to be married, hubby told him if he didn't marry us we would be walking down to the JP the next day and just have a civil wedding. I don't think the chaplain liked it, but he did marry us with how we wanted our vows read.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 15, 2004, 10:49 am

Xzion wrote:Damn dude, that story is terribly convincing, i believe every word of it in a literal sence.

Nah man I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I just thought it was one of those interesting, seldom read stories.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 15, 2004, 11:55 am

Voronwe,

The thing people fail to take in account with the marriage thing is they only look at one side of the biblical formula. Yes, the bible says that the man should be the leader in the family. However, people tend to overlook the fact that he is also obligated to love his wife big time. If the guy is treating his wife in an unequal way, he isn’t loving her and what he’s doing isn’t biblical. An unequal marriage is not biblical. The biblical formula assigns separate roles that complement each other. It gets both partners to focus on each other and to build each other up. If done as biblically prescribed it is an act of mutual respect and equality.

And of course we screw it this perfect model all the time. Selfishness is a bitch.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » July 15, 2004, 2:20 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Voronwe,

The thing people fail to take in account with the marriage thing is they only look at one side of the biblical formula. Yes, the bible says that the man should be the leader in the family. However, people tend to overlook the fact that he is also obligated to love his wife big time. If the guy is treating his wife in an unequal way, he isn’t loving her and what he’s doing isn’t biblical. An unequal marriage is not biblical. The biblical formula assigns separate roles that complement each other. It gets both partners to focus on each other and to build each other up. If done as biblically prescribed it is an act of mutual respect and equality.

And of course we screw it this perfect model all the time. Selfishness is a bitch.

so you are agreeing with the notion that there is a leader in the family? I don't care how you paint it, whether the husband is an ass or sweet as hell, saying that he has any kind of authority over the wife is sexist.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 15, 2004, 3:32 pm

People work out marriage on their own terms. It's between the two people how they want to handle things.

The bible simply provides a proven example that if done right, provides a loving, equitable and mutually elevating environment for both partners.

If the guy is treating his wife like some kind of second class servent he is doing wrong according to biblical teaching. He should be treating his wife better than himself.

It's a mutally balancing equation.

VeeshanVault

I JUST GOT DIVORCED AND MY DAUGHTER IS QUEER!!!

I JUST GOT DIVORCED AND MY DAUGHTER IS QUEER!!!

Re: I JUST GOT DIVORCED AND MY DAUGHTER IS QUEER!!!