Gay pride???

[KBCraig]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...rly-girl-meets-girl-formerly-boy-8775000.html

Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)


See what happens in a decaying society?

They can live happily ever after?

 

[eye95]

You've made a leap there. Please connect the two: what were the laws of Moses and Israel concerning a marriage ceremony, and what made it a ceremony at all, much less a religious ceremony?

Nope, because clearly, no matter what I write, what support I provide, you will yet once again accuse me of a leap. And, more to the point, it is not you I am trying to sway. You are merely a foil. The wedding at Cana was a traditional Jewish ceremony, practiced for hundreds of years before and still practiced today. I don't care if you don't believe that. Others will know that it is true.

 

[marshaul]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...rly-girl-meets-girl-formerly-boy-8775000.html

Boy (formerly girl) meets girl (formerly boy)


See what happens in a decaying society?

The horror! Folks engaging in non-aggressive, consensual conduct! Whatever will we do!? :uhoh:

 

[KBCraig]

The wedding at Cana was a traditional Jewish ceremony, practiced for hundreds of years before and still practiced today.

And all I asked, was what that consists of. I don't know, so I'm asking.

I do know that in modern America, Reform weddings look a lot like Christian church weddings. I also believe that is not at all how weddings were done 2,000 years ago in Cana, so if you can tell us how you got from A to C, I'd appreciate it.

Not all of us know "B", so it is a leap.

 

[45 Fan]

Can we all agree the government should stay out of our holsters and Family?


If the government wants to have Civil Unions(what we consider marriage in the US today) then that is for individuals to decide to partake in or not.

Does the Civil Union of 2 people affect the Civil Union of those other 2? Answer: No.

Does deciding that 2 people can not be in a Civil Union because others are simply offended make sense? Answer: No.

Religion should stick to Marriage and if they don't agree with the Governments acceptance of the Rights of Free People, in this case Civil Unions of 2 same-sex people, they should just not get a Civil Union via the Government. You win, I win, we all win.

Now, back to the original topic, where do I find kinky boots?

 

[Red Dawg]

Now, back to the original topic, where do I find kinky boots?

What are these Kinky Boots that are being refered to? All my adds on top are gun stuff...4 holster, an NRA banquet, and patriot Legal defense...Oh well, I guess I'm a boring old, legally married, country boy. LOl...

 

[KBCraig]

The wedding at Cana was a traditional Jewish ceremony, practiced for hundreds of years before and still practiced today.

And all I asked, was what that consists of. I don't know, so I'm asking.

I do know that in modern America, Reform weddings look a lot like Christian church weddings. I also believe that is not at all how weddings were done 2,000 years ago in Cana, so if you can tell us how you got from A to C, I'd appreciate it.

Not all of us know "B", so it is a leap.

Since Eye hasn't revisited this question, I looked it up myself. I consulted a variety of online sources about Jewish wedding traditions, and many focused on the modern "combined" ceremony. But, all referred to the separate betrothal and sanctification stages as historical practice, and all also pointed out that the Jewish marriage tradition is a private contract.

Here's the handiest summary:

http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm

In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new family. There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear, leaving the woman in the awkward state of being married but without a husband. Today, the two ceremonies are normally performed together.

Because marriage under Jewish law is essentially a private contractual agreement between a man and a woman, it does not require the presence of a rabbi or any other religious official. It is common, however, for rabbis to officiate, partly in imitation of the Christian practice and partly because the presence of a religious or civil official is required under United States civil law.

So, just as I thought: while modern Jewish weddings follow the same form as Christian ceremonies in America, a Jewish marriage does not require any religious ceremony. Not now, and certainly not 2,000 years ago in Cana.

 

[eye95]

*sigh*

You make the mistake of thinking that a rabbi needs to preside over the ceremony for it to be a religious ceremony. Rabbis presiding over the wedding is a relatively new (and necessary today only for State licensing reasons). All that is required is for a certain number of people to be present and for certain words to be said.

However, even though it differs from what Christians think of as a "church" wedding, a Jewish wedding is still a religious event. It is defined in Jewish law as given by God to Moses and is just as much a part of Judaism as following any other part of the law, such as keeping kosher.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the wedding at Cana followed the Law to the letter. It was the 1st century Jewish equivalent of a "church" wedding.

Argue all you want, and I don't care if you believe me or not. (I am not trying to convince you.) Folks reading this thread will know that "church" weddings long predated state-sanctioning of marriages.

 

[KBCraig]

Folks reading this thread will know that "church" weddings long predated state-sanctioning of marriages.

And religiously valid marriages occurred alongside "church" weddings, and enjoyed equal sanction.

 

[eye95]

And religiously valid marriages occurred alongside "church" weddings, and enjoyed equal sanction.

Whatever that means.

Someone raised the point (it's been obscured by a lot of unrelated stuff like this) that "church" weddings are historically very recent. I posted about Cana just to show how out of touch with reality that contention was, that religious weddings long predate the kind of civil wedding of today.

Of course, then folks pick at it, ask for dots to be connected, post non-sequiturs, and the like, all to cloud the reality that some fundamental point someone was making was blown to bits.

Thanks for the opportunity to reconnect the single point I was making with the single point I refuted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[45 Fan]

...

kinky...sex...boots...


I think the forum should get a kinky sex boot sponsor..

 

[DrakeZ07]

...

kinky...sex...boots...


I think the forum should get a kinky sex boot sponsor..

I make sex toys as a hobby, I would be glad to put up a website for the things I make, to be a sponsor for OCDO. I'll call it ''Gun runners" or "Pistol packers" or something seemingly innocent but packs big sexual connotations.

 

[KBCraig]

Someone raised the point (it's been obscured by a lot of unrelated stuff like this) that "church" weddings are historically very recent. I posted about Cana just to show how out of touch with reality that contention was, that religious weddings long predate the kind of civil wedding of today.

Of course, then folks pick at it, ask for dots to be connected, post non-sequiturs, and the like, all to cloud the reality that some fundamental point someone was making was blown to bits.

LOL

No, Eye. I was the one who raised the point about "church" weddings being modern, and you have run around the bush all the way back to my point (which you deny, while confirming): the religious nature of the wedding at Cana does not make it a church wedding. No approval, sanction, or priesthood was required for the marriage to take place or to be recognized. There was no such thing as an "official" wedding under the laws of Moses and of Israel. If the bride accepted the proposal, the groom provided a precious gift, and there were witnesses, then they were married.

No rabbis, priests, or official church sanction were needed.

You wouldn't back your contention that Cana was just as much a church wedding as today, so I provided the cites myself.

Ready to "move on", or do you have one more last word?

 

[Logan 5]

AFAIC is someone wants to be gay, be gay. That's their life, not mine. I'm not gay, myself. With that said....
I am still ordained, was once an associate pastor for a few years (actually I forget how long, not that it's important), and I have the lawful right in nearly any state in the Union (that I can think of) to perform a marriage ceremony. Last spring there was an article in the salt Lake Tribune covering gay marriage, and there were a number of homosexuals, both male & female, that were upset that the gay marriage law failed. Or something like that. Look, I don't pay attention to this stuff, ok? It just isn't my cup of tea. Well I did, however, make an offer to a number of the homosexuals that if they wanted to get married, I'd do the ceremony, and at no cost. They cover all expenses involved, like if they have a party or a big bash extravaganza or something, but I myself would be no charge and *I* would handle the license issue. Which I can do and is completely legal. Only one stipulation- NO MEDIA.

Not a single one of them ever responded.

I discussed this with other church leaders in other churches and they pointed out what I already know all along- it's not really a matter of IF they are married or not, but exposure. They want their 5 minutes in the limelight. And it's true. Well, to me it is. You see, I know homosexuals that have been married in this fashion before (not by works), and they were happy with it. It gave them what they wanted, even if it wasn't on record in the courthouse. Heterosexual marriages have been done this way and if it becomes an issue the court needs to get involved, by how it's done it's usually covered and considered legitimate. So if it works for the straights, it can work for the homosexuals.

I feel that is the crucial point behind the failure of the bills, because many of the alleged supporters aren't truly supporting it for itself and alleged purpose, but it's a fight; it's something to believe in.

Which goes to show that if you don't know where you stand, you'll fall for anything.

My offer stands. And I am confident that not a single one (or should I say "couple"?) will take me up on it.

 

[eye95]

Ordained in which church?

 

[arizonaopa]

why not

While I personally do not believe in the gay life style, I prefer not to judge others because of sexual preference. Actions related to human interaction speak louder than actions in a persons bedroom. Besides, one day it may be that gay person that saves your bacon when they stop a bad guy from shooting you.

 

[arab1302]

I said this before in another thread, but it bears repeating:

There are two aspects to what we call "marriage";

1. A religious ceremony in which the government has no business interfering and
2. A civil contract between two legal adults in which religion has no business interfering.

None of those who scream about "traditional marriage" care to look at the fact that, for many years, the government did not interfere with the religious ceremony, not even to the extent of requiring a license. If a church, or other religious body chooses not to perform the ceremony for a same-sex couple, that is within their jurisdiction.

On the other side of the coin, the government cannot sanction, by issuing a license, a civil contract for one group of people and, for religious reasons, completely exclude another group.

And, yes, one aspect of what we call marriage is definitely a civil contract. Why do you think it takes a court of law to dissolve that contract?

One other point: We here on OCDO stand in support of the right of all men and women to bear arms in self defense. That is a civil right which some call a "God-given" and others call a "natural" right. It is still a right. It is just as much a right of two legal adults to be issued a license to enter into a legal contract.

Last comment: We may not like homosexuals or homosexuality; our particular religious beliefs may condemn it heartily; and we may choose not to associate with those individuals engaged in such activities. But we may not infringe on their rights, and unless we are hypocrites, we should legally do whatever is necessary to keep our government agencies from infringing on their rights.

I am not going to read the rest of this thread. You have said all that needs to be said.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PALO]

While I personally do not believe in the gay life style, I prefer not to judge others because of sexual preference. Actions related to human interaction speak louder than actions in a persons bedroom. Besides, one day it may be that gay person that saves your bacon when they stop a bad guy from shooting you.

There is no such thing as "the gay life style". The only real commonality amongst gays/lesbians is that they are attracted to members of their own sex.

We see the extremists of weird behavior, for example, in "gay pride" marches in San Francisco, but guys cruising around in assless chaps, etc. are outliers.

One of my best friends is gay. Her lifestyle is ... training in mixed martial arts, working as a beat cop, raising her kid, and being a middle class homeowner, married with child, in the suburbs

Her lifestyle is actually very similar to mine, except I'm married to somebody of the opposite (or shall i say... for me, the Complementary sex), and I train in a different sport.

She tried to watch Glee and hated it

 

[WalkingWolf]

There is no such thing as "the gay life style". The only real commonality amongst gays/lesbians is that they are attracted to members of their own sex.

We see the extremists of weird behavior, for example, in "gay pride" marches in San Francisco, but guys cruising around in assless chaps, etc. are outliers.

One of my best friends is gay. Her lifestyle is ... training in mixed martial arts, working as a beat cop, raising her kid, and being a middle class homeowner, married with child, in the suburbs

Her lifestyle is actually very similar to mine, except I'm married to somebody of the opposite (or shall i say... for me, the Complementary sex), and I train in a different sport.

She tried to watch Glee and hated it

You are continually full of brown stuff. Just because you know one or maybe two people who have a alternate lifestyle does not make you an expert or even close. As a person who has lived in lifestyle outside of the normal suburban myth, I can attest that each individuals is each individual. I am straight, but for a time was a participant in wild parties, ya know naked people running rampant, assless chaps, and all that. My wife is bi sexual, and that would be different from what you describe of a gay, meaning not having a gay partner. But instead having friends that we both had sex with, sometimes together sometimes not. And yes we did all those wild things you have heard about at lifestyle parties.

So again before making a fool of yourself, don't speak for others. I am sure there are many gays that have a suburban life style, but there are some who are wild and crazy. Please do not speak for gays unless you are gay and speaking for yourself.

 

[PALO]

You are continually full of brown stuff. Just because you know one or maybe two people who have a alternate lifestyle does not make you an expert or even close. As a person who has lived in lifestyle outside of the normal suburban myth, I can attest that each individuals is each individual. I am straight, but for a time was a participant in wild parties, ya know naked people running rampant, assless chaps, and all that. My wife is bi sexual, and that would be different from what you describe of a gay, meaning not having a gay partner. But instead having friends that we both had sex with, sometimes together sometimes not. And yes we did all those wild things you have heard about at lifestyle parties.

So again before making a fool of yourself, don't speak for others. I am sure there are many gays that have a suburban life style, but there are some who are wild and crazy. Please do not speak for gays unless you are gay and speaking for yourself.

An you continue to troll, misstate my statements, etc. because you have a hard-on for cops. Yes, I get it. You hate cops. I get it.

There are only a few of your ilk here and I have generally avoided responding to you and your small cadre of fellow travelers, but I felt it necessary here, since you are maligning an entire demographic (gay people) by defending the concept that there is a gay lifestyle.

I repeat. There is no such thing as *THE* gay lifestyle. The only person making a fool of oneself is you. And in thread after thread, this is the perfect example, you devolve from discussion of ISSUES, and turn it into personal attacks.

There is no such thing as "the gay lifestyle". Orgies et al are participated in by some gays, but the same is true of straights, and people across the spectrum

PERIOD

I never said there weren't SOME gays who were wild and crazy. I said that there is no GAY LIFESTYLE. Some gays are promiscuous, some are monogamous, some are celibate. Being Wild and Crazy is not THE gay lifestyle. Some are. Some aren't. JUST like straights.

PERIOD.

Some gays live closeted. Others are open.

I never said I was an "expert". That's typical of your CONTINUOUS tendency to completely make stuff up (it's called a strawman) so you can attack it and devolve into personal attacks of course.

One does not have to be an "expert" on sexuality to know that the so called gay lifestyle is a myth.

And one is not "speaking for others" when discussing the fact that there is no such thing as THE gay lifestyle. It doesn't exist.

If you think there is something that exists that is THE gay lifestyle., then please enlighten us ignorant masses as to what THE gay life style is. We can lol at your bigotry and ignorance over a beer tonight.