Robots Getting Married In Japan

No, it's the new reality in the USA, thanks to 5 elites in black robes ignoring the constitution. (this also applies to the 2 rulings before the ruling on marriage)

Laws no longer seem to matter, as the courts just rewrite the law or point to foreign law when the feel like it. Since we already have states ignoring federal drug laws (i.e. marijuana laws), the conservative states should just ignore this unconstitutional ruling by the supreme court, claim it's a states issue (it is)and tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Why do you hate freedom and equality so much? Thought we liked those here in America
 
Why do you hate freedom and equality so much? Thought we liked those here in America

I have no problem with freedom and equality, what I have a problem with is changing the definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years. If you want the legal protections afforded married people, then push for something like a civil union, don't corrupt other peoples traditions.

It started with the argument "what to consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home".
Now we've have had 2 years of judges forcing this redefinition of marriage it on the state (almost every vote of the people or the legislatures have resulting in keeping traditional marriage).

However it's not over yet, as the left has already been talking about the next step (which was part of the real agenda from the start), and that is to sue and to remove the tax exempt status of any church, charity or other group that will not go along with this new definition.
 
I don't know who's freakier,the Japanese and some of their weird fetishes,or people who insist on using an obviously silly publicity stunt as an excuse to argue politics.
 
I have no problem with freedom and equality, what I have a problem with is changing the definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years.
And personally, I don't even have an issue with that. My issues:
1) Liberal hypocrisy and sometimes downright silliness (for example, a 14 year old boy can't consent to sex because he doesn't understand it, can't consent to marriage because he doesn't understand it, but can know with certainty that he's 100% gay and its not a choice, and can consent to having his penis chopped off and go on female hormones if mommy thinks its a good idea... because liberalism)
2) Fact that this is a states rights issue, and the feds don't have a right to redefine marriage and force that on the states without their consent

If the majority of people in a state wish to redefine marriage, even if I don't agree, I can still step aside. But I don't believe the feds have a right to keep bullying the states, as it seems the only rights states have left are when they make the decision the feds deem is correct. Like with speed limits we tried to raise ours, and feds bullied Texas and said they'd withhold all interstate highway funds.
 
I have no problem with freedom and equality, what I have a problem with is changing the definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years. If you want the legal protections afforded married people, then push for something like a civil union, don't corrupt other peoples traditions.

It started with the argument "what to consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home".
Now we've have had 2 years of judges forcing this redefinition of marriage it on the state (almost every vote of the people or the legislatures have resulting in keeping traditional marriage).

However it's not over yet, as the left has already been talking about the next step (which was part of the real agenda from the start), and that is to sue and to remove the tax exempt status of any church, charity or other group that will not go along with this new definition.

biblical_marriage_chart.jpg
 
Pretty sure most of that is old testament stuff, and when Christianity took hold in the Roman Empire it was simplified to the union of a man and a woman. Polygamy was not permitted in the Roman Empire following acceptance of Christianity for example.

FYI, that's a couple thousand years.
 
Just typical of the clueless left. Lets find something written thousands of years ago and claim that's what people currently support.

To quote the brilliant Thomas Sowell

"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area - crime, education, housing, race relations - the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."
 
So are we basing marriage on something that's thousands of years old or not then?

Are you saying the contents.of the bible is antiquated and largely doesn't apply to modern society? I agree. Book it, done.
 
So are we basing marriage on something that's thousands of years old or not then?
You were saying that Christians obey the Old Testament, which was made for Israelites, not for Christians. Christians are supposed to practice the laws of Christ, and obey the teachings of the new testament, and in practice on a macro scale with regard to marriage have done so. So calling Christians hypocrites for not obeying the Old Testament doesn't make sense, as they never have.
 
Show me where it says gays can't marry in the new testament. Show me where Jesus says anything about homosexuality.

I'll wait.

Christians use the old testament when its convenient and supports their positions, and then ignore the rest. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
 
Show me where it says gays can't marry in the new testament. Show me where Jesus says anything about homosexuality.
I already explained to you that in practice, since the advent of Christian power in the Roman Empire, homosexuality and homosexual marriages were outlawed. Regarding the new Testament, Corinthians 6:9–10: "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites"

Effeminate/sodomite was basically referring to homosexuals, since they didn't really have a concept of sexual orientation at the time, and instead just saw that some people did bad things pounding butts or a man acting like a woman. So, right or wrong, they have been consistent for thousands of years.
 
I have no problem with freedom and equality, what I have a problem with is changing the definition of marriage that goes back thousands of years. If you want the legal protections afforded married people, then push for something like a civil union, don't corrupt other peoples traditions.

Amen. We need our legal system to stick to the bible/traditional definitions.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6: "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

How many disgusting widows shame the meaning of traditional marriage by not marrying their brother in law?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Again, raped women dishonoring the Lord and his definition of marriage by not marrying their rapists.

Or, you know, the number of biblical figures with concubines (Abraham, Gideon, Caleb, Solomon, to name a few).

Or Mose's command to kill all of the Midonite's except for the virgin girls, who were required to be married to the soldiers and submit to them sexually.
 
TwistedAegis, you are quoting the Old Testament then, implying that makes Christians hypocrites. Christians follow the New Testament.
 
I already explained to you that in practice, since the advent of Christian power in the Roman Empire, homosexuality and homosexual marriages were outlawed. Regarding the new Testament, Corinthians 6:9–10: "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites"

Effeminate/sodomite was basically referring to homosexuals, since they didn't really have a concept of sexual orientation at the time, and instead just saw that some people did bad things pounding butts or a man acting like a woman. So, right or wrong, they have been consistent for thousands of years.

From the above passage, don't lesbians seem to be ok?

Also, I just flipped a page and saw Corinthians 5:12-13: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside."
 
TwistedAegis, you are quoting the Old Testament then, implying that makes Christians hypocrites. Christians follow the New Testament.

Sooo... your Bible has no old testament? I thought it was a twofer deal. Buy into Jesus and the new testament and get the old testament FREE!

But seriously, I see a growth industry in Japan. I'm gonna become a lawyer and specialize in Robotic Divorce.
 
Do you think marriage was only a slip of paper filed in some bureaucracy?

It really depends on how you look at the history of marriage in society. The concept predates Christianity, Islam and Judaism, but each of those religions incorporated the concept into their faith. As such, marriage is equally a civil contract and a covenant before God for followers of those religions.

The argument for the traditional definition of marriage fails in the religious context due to the current interpretation of the separation of church and state in the United States. As a societal construct, it can be argued that the traditional definition of marriage predates those religions and specifically outlines a civil contract between a man and a woman, as established by societies going back pretty much throughout the recorded history of Western civilization. This was the argument that the states opposing the change in the definition of marriage were using, but ultimately lost, in addition to the extension of that argument that it is a states' rights issue to define the specifics of government-sanctioned civil contracts within the state.

Regardless of which side of the argument you fall on, the issue is a potentially polarizing one. As such, you have groups on both sides that were championing the cause and attracting radicals. Neither side really wants to be associated with radicals, but they both needed numbers to broadcast their stance, and the media loves to focus on the extremes because that is what sells.

Back on topic, this is just another step in the inexorable march toward a future where robots will kill us all. Actually, there has been entirely too much social theory in this thread and entirely too little irrational paranoia with respect to our inevitable robot overlords...
 
TwistedAegis, you are quoting the Old Testament then, implying that makes Christians hypocrites. Christians follow the New Testament.

New Testament doesn't make the old invalid. Which is why it's brought up so much.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Many more. Most Christians follow the 10 commandments, which is Old Testament. There is no cherry picking laws, or I should say, you're not supposed to. But that would be difficult just to live ;)
 
Actually, there has been entirely too much social theory in this thread and entirely too little irrational paranoia with respect to our inevitable robot overlords...

Pretty much this! If robots are getting married, then the next thing they'll do is have baby robots and those will eventually become teenager robots which is when disaster will strike and even the Mayan Cat Lawyers that ended the world in 2012 won't be as scary.
 
Many more. Most Christians follow the 10 commandments, which is Old Testament. There is no cherry picking laws, or I should say, you're not supposed to. But that would be difficult just to live ;)
9 of the 10 commandments came from the Old Testament, but the 10 commandments are in the new testament. I'm not a Christian, but I'm 99% sure that both in practice and in preaching, there is no expectation for Christians to follow anything but the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Actually, duh, just google search and and says nope the Old Testament does not apply to Christians: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).
So no, they aren't being hypocrites, and yes the institution of marriage has been set by Christians for thousands of years, and is now being turned upside down on its head pretty much crapping on the Christian and traditional Western-culture's concept of the family unit around which the institution of marriage and the laws created for it over so many years were designed.
 
It always amuses me how little most "christians" understand the tenants of their own religion. Especially when they come out over something like this and try to argue about it.
 
Still waiting for someone to show me what Jesus said about gay marriage. Cuz the old testament doesn't apply. So the bigotry must have a source, right? It's not like Christians would just use their religion to back their existing prejudice, right?

That would never happen. Jesus said so, and we only listen to Jesus.
 
You have the absolute worst reading comprehension skills ever, lol! I already posted it... *facepalm*

JESUS is not the source of the letters to the Corinthians

Tell me more about my awful reading comprehension you dolt
 
JESUS is not the source of the letters to the Corinthians

Tell me more about my awful reading comprehension you dolt
Christians follow the teachings of the New Testament. That's in the New Testament. I'm not sure which part of that is confusing to you. *facepalm*
 
So I ask where Jesus mentions gay marriage

You point back to a previous post where you quote someone who is decidedly NOT Jesus

And somehow, I'm the dumb one for not being satisfied with that?

Let's try this again

Show me where JESUS mentions gay marriage, and I will continue to wait. Feel free to tell me a few more times how I can't read.
 
You said:
Where in the new testament does it say that, just out of curiosity
and
Show me where it says gays can't marry in the new testament. Show me where Jesus says anything about homosexuality.

I'll wait.

Christians use the old testament when its convenient and supports their positions, and then ignore the rest. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
And then when proven wrong, as usual instead of a "touche'" or "fair enough" or something, you move the goalpost so now it can't just be in the New Testament like it is, but it has to be a direct quote from Jesus on the cross, lol!
 
9 of the 10 commandments came from the Old Testament, but the 10 commandments are in the new testament. I'm not a Christian, but I'm 99% sure that both in practice and in preaching, there is no expectation for Christians to follow anything but the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Actually, duh, just google search and and says nope the Old Testament does not apply to Christians: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

So no, they aren't being hypocrites, and yes the institution of marriage has been set by Christians for thousands of years, and is now being turned upside down on its head pretty much crapping on the Christian and traditional Western-culture's concept of the family unit around which the institution of marriage and the laws created for it over so many years were designed.

Christians don't own marriage, it existed Long before them. It also is something practiced by many other religions and non religions. As such any argument that marriage somehow has to abide by rules christians set is laughable.
 
If you're 99% sure that there is no expectation for Christians to follow anything but the New Testament, you shouldn't be commenting as someone who knows much of anything about Christianity. Which is why Christian churches use a Bible composed of both, and use Leviticus and the story Sodom, for example, of reasons to dislike homosexuality.

Jesus also didn't see much wrong with slavery, either, so not much of a saint in my book.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
Christians don't own marriage, it existed Long before them. It also is something practiced by many other religions and non religions
Fine, I'm not Christian. I was responding to the nonsense that they were being hypocritical and that Christians haven't practiced a consistent approach to the institution since the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire thousands of years ago, which they have.

As I said, that isn't even my concern, as I'm an Atheist, but lets stop the nonsense. My concern is that states rights to self-govern were trampled on, as I said early in the thread.
If you're 99% sure that there is no expectation for Christians to follow anything but the New Testament, you shouldn't be commenting as someone who knows much of anything about Christianity.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/Christian-OT-law.html
Most Christian theologies, however, agree that Christians are not required to fulfill the civil and ceremonial laws. The civil laws were given specifically to Israel to ensure their culture stood out from that of their pagan neighbors. Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection fulfilled the ceremonial laws—His sacrifice replaced all the sacrifices given in the Old Testament.

Do Christians need to obey the Old Testament Law? No.
 
9 of the 10 commandments came from the Old Testament, but the 10 commandments are in the new testament. I'm not a Christian, but I'm 99% sure that both in practice and in preaching, there is no expectation for Christians to follow anything but the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Actually, duh, just google search and and says nope the Old Testament does not apply to Christians: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

And Christ was fully supportive of the old laws. He didn't end them per say, but improved upon them.

Repeating -
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ot.htm
https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-...e-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

But now we're also opening up the contradictions because of the quote you posted. But the bible has many contradictions.
http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
 
Amen. We need our legal system to stick to the bible/traditional definitions.
No, not those bible verses from the actual bible. Use the ones that aren't in the bible but are repeated by people who are apparently completely unfamiliar with the book.
 
You said:

and

And then when proven wrong, as usual instead of a "touche'" or "fair enough" or something, you move the goalpost so now it can't just be in the New Testament like it is, but it has to be a direct quote from Jesus on the cross, lol!

You're super great at thinking you are right when you are dead wrong. I admire your confidence.

P.S., a sodomite is not a homosexual, its someone that worshipped false gods and engaged in male-male prostitution.

So you can't produce anything Jesus said, and instead you have a letter from Paul telling people not to worship idols and be whores.

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't bow down to your victory in this argument. Because you got nothing to say.
 
Back
Top