Hey American Homophobes

[TesticleMilkshake]

Jews (and other religions) don't eat certain meat unless it's been killed a certain way. Maybe pig is healthier to eat when it dies a certain way. Has that ever even been studied?

For a meal to be kosher, meat and dairy CANNOT be mixed. This comes from a commandment saying: do not bathe the calf in its mother's milk or something. Something like a cheeseburger (sorry, Devin ) is not kosher.

All parts of a fish are kosher as long as it has A) Fins and Gils B) Scales
Fish is considered to be neutral, meaning it can be mixed with milk or dairy

For an animal to be considered kosher, it MUST:
A) Have hooves
B) Vegetarian (hence why pigs are not kosher, regardless of slaughter)

For meat to be kosher: (took it off of Wiki)
Mammals and fowl must be slaughtered by a trained individual (a shochet) using a special method of slaughter, shechita (Deuteronomy 12:21). Among other features, shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single continuous cutting movement with an unserrated, sharp knife. Failure of any of these criteria renders the meat of the animal unsuitable. The body must be checked after slaughter to confirm that the animal had no medical condition or defect that would have caused it to die of its own accord within a year, which would make the meat unsuitable. These conditions (treifot) include 70 different categories of injuries, diseases, and abnormalities whose presence renders the animal non-kosher. It is forbidden to consume certain parts of the animal, such as certain fats (chelev) and the sciatic nerves from the legs. As much blood as possible must be removed (Leviticus 17:10) through the kashering process; this is usually done through soaking and salting the meat, but organs rich in blood (the liver) are grilled over an open flame.[19] Fish (and locusts, for those Sephardi Jews who agree that they are both kosher and edible) must be killed before being eaten, but no particular method has been specified in Jewish law.

For dairy to be kosher, it must be vegetarian (certain cheeses are produced by adding animal rennet, which is an enzyme taken from the lining of a cows stomach)

 

[JeffTD]

1. 3,000 years ago people had a much longer train of thought than we do now (thanks TV btw) and I'm sure that in many respects they used their brains better. That's how they built the pyramids and shit, probably.

This is just categorically off-base, I'm going to say. 3,000 years ago people didn't have the surplus that allowed them to have spare time that would be utilized by thinking, and they only lived to like 30, 35 years old.

The Pyramids were built by hard, physical labor and geometry. You're going to use those as the crowning achievement of human intellect and say that they used their brains better? You typed that statement on a computer and posted it to the internet. What on earth are you talking about?

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

OK, it was meant to be sarcastic... But it's no different from "blame the Christians" or "blame the Islamics" or "blame the gays". Just to be clear, I have no problems with any of those I just think it's silly to blame some religion because people are being silly in North Carolina.

No worries! I know and agree. North Carolina is North Carolina. And sorry if my rant got off the handle. I actually have no problem with conservative people (I'm fascinated with the Hasidim, the Quiverfull and think that Evangelism has redeeming qualities) My problem is mainly when people start to exploit religion by imposing their beliefs on others.

 

[egan.]

See, you are automatically assuming I'm a religious person and putting me in a group. Well I am not. Did you count how many atheists and other groups voted yes? Or do you have a figure how many atheists in the US do not accept homosexuality? Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general. Btw. aren't both Christianity and Islam derived from the Jewish religion, shouldn't we blame them for all the wrong that is happening in the world?

I assumed you were christian because you are irrationally defensive about this issue as though you have an emotional stake. It's clear from this last post that you are just being obstinate for your own amusement since you refuse to intellectually process a single word I say. Have you read even one article about this amendment or the movement that preceded it? It's funny how every liberal religious person I know is completely apologetic and yet you seem unable to understand the facts here. Jews and Muslims account for less than 3% of the total NC populations. Non-religious account for around 10%. Christians account for 85%. But all of that is beside the point because churches were telling people how to vote and driving them to the polls. This isn't about biblical origin but the actual people who did the actual thing. Which part of that is so difficult to grasp? I have gone so far as to qualify Christian with both a location and a political disposition despite the fact that both were logically implied. If you still can't understand or concede the point I can be much more free with my assumptions of mental capacity.
For the record, I support all churches' right to honor (or not) whatever unions they care to, I just don't see what that has to do with the law.

 

[JHA]

I assumed you were christian because you are irrationally defensive about this issue as though you have an emotional stake. It's clear from this last post that you are just being obstinate for your own amusement since you refuse to intellectually process a single word I say. Have you read even one article about this amendment or the movement that preceded it? It's funny how every liberal religious person I know is completely apologetic and yet you seem unable to understand the facts here. Jews and Muslims account for less than 3% of the total NC populations. Non-religious account for around 10%. Christians account for 85%. But all of that is beside the point because churches were telling people how to vote and driving them to the polls. This isn't about biblical origin but the actual people who did the actual thing. Which part of that is so difficult to grasp?
For the record, I support conservative churches' right to honor (or not) whatever unions they care to, I just don't see what that has to do with the law.

Trust me I'm not emotional about this. It probably just seems so to you because English is not my native language so I'm not fluent writer with it. You again assume a Christian=religious person, that couldn't be further from the truth. Or maybe it is in NC I don't know. And you still seem to categorize all Christians as the same, if that is not your intention, you should be more specific. Religious person sounds better to me. I don't think it's only the churches who try to tell people what to do, all the news, magazines, polls and politicians try to brainwash you to think a certain way too.

 

[egan.]

I've now created multiple granulations across multiple posts of Christianity including denomination, location, and political ideology including countering viewpoints. The failure to grasp these distinctions falls on your shoulders. I used the term "religious people" to refer to people of - check this out -- a few different religions including christianity.
Of course all sorts of people try to influence politics but in this case conservative North Carolinian churches across multiple denominations actively engaged in political action to force their biblical beliefs unnecessarily into the state constitution.
That's my last statement. I hope it's specific enough for you. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[JHA]

I've now created multiple granulations across multiple posts of Christianity including denomination, location, and political ideology including countering viewpoints. The failure to grasp these distinctions falls on your shoulders. I used the term "religious people" to refer to people of - check this out -- a few different religions including christianity.
Of course all sorts of people try to influence politics but in this case conservative North Carolinian churches across multiple denominations actively engaged in political action to force their biblical beliefs unnecessarily into the state constitution.
That's my last statement. I hope it's specific enough for you. Welcome to my ignore list.

You wrote: "Christians account for 85%". What Christians? Here in Europe people talk about Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Judaism etc. It's silly to group them all since they are so different. The Catholics even have their own state. And why would you pick a certain group anyway, do you think they would change their opinion if they diverged from their churches?

We can always continue this with my native language if you think I don't understand what you mean.

 

[JeffTD]

You wrote: "Christians account for 85%". What Christians? Here in Europe people talk about Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Judaism etc. It's silly to group them all since they are so different. The Catholics even have their own state. And why would you pick a certain group anyway, do you think they would change their opinion if they diverged from their churches?

We can always continue this with my native language if you think I don't understand what you mean.

85% of the people in NC are Christian, and all denominations of Christianity have the same teachings about gays - what aren't you understanding about this?

Yes, most people, if not raised as Christians (AKA diverged from their churches), would have nothing against homosexuality. Again; there is no rational secular argument against it.

And why in the hell would having the discussion in your native language, which we're obviously not going to be able to speak as well as English, if at all, help?

Also, why won't you respond to any of my points? Are they too detrimental to your ridiculous arguments?

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

and all denominations of Christianity have the same teachings about gays - what aren't you understanding about this?

This is not true, although I may be missing something in the thread. While Christians share similar teachings, their interpretations vary emmensely.

In fact, in the early 2000s, there was a mass exodus of Catholics to the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. In combination with the admission of sexual abuse by priests, rejection of gay community members, many ex-Catholics choose these two denominations because of their acceptance of gay bishops, clergy, etc. Before I converted, one of my ministers at a Methodist church was openly gay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Presbyterianism

Older Mainline Protestant churches tend be extremely accepting of gay marriage, gay clergy (Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian.) Unitarians are also cool with this.

The Catholic and Orthodox church as well as Protestant churches that accept the South Baptist Convention (which includes the Evangelical movement) tend not to like the gay community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

 

[egan.]

Older Mainline Protestant churches tend be extremely accepting of gay marriage, gay clergy (Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian.) Unitarians are also cool with this.

There is huge division in both the UMC and the Presbytery on this issue and the vast majority down here are against both gay marriage and gay ministers obviously. Add in the massive evangelical and baptist population, and a handful of catholics and you have a massive movement of conservative christianity. You also have to add the AME in on issues of sexuality.
Most of the liberalization is occurring in metro areas and the NE (Gene Robinson) but in the rural south inertia is powerful.
It's not all like that but it's certainly a more powerful force than I would have thought a week ago.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

There is huge division in both the UMC and the Presbytery on this issue and the vast majority down here are against both gay marriage and gay ministers obviously. Add in the massive evangelical and baptist population, and a handful of catholics and you have a massive movement of conservative christianity. You also have to add the AME in on issues of sexuality.
Most of the liberalization is occurring in metro areas and the NE (Gene Robinson) but in the rural south inertia is powerful.
It's not all like that but it's certainly a more powerful force than I would have thought a week ago.

I can definitely see that in the UMC because in how its been evangelized over the past few years, but did not know that about the Presbyterians (then again, I am in the Northeast )

It is a disgusting mess though. I remember church being so different when I was a kid (like 15 years ago.) This article basically sums up how I feel about the culture of the church today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293457/evangelicals-collapsing-cultural-influence-david-french

 

[JHA]

85% of the people in NC are Christian, and all denominations of Christianity have the same teachings about gays - what aren't you understanding about this?

Yes, most people, if not raised as Christians (AKA diverged from their churches), would have nothing against homosexuality. Again; there is no rational secular argument against it.

And why in the hell would having the discussion in your native language, which we're obviously not going to be able to speak as well as English, if at all, help?

Also, why won't you respond to any of my points? Are they too detrimental to your ridiculous arguments?

We have atheists here in Europe who don't accept gays or gay marriage. There is also a lot of atheists who are racists. I don't know by whom or where they are taught that, maybe by their atheist parents or in atheist schools? According to Wikipedia the population of North Carolina is ~9.6 million. 85%, that's a lot of Christians, about 8.16 million. Did they all vote against gay marriage? I think someone mentioned it was 1 million which would be ~12%.

What points should I respond to? You mean this: "We can talk once you present a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality."? Why the hell should I do such a thing? I'm not a "Christian" from North Carolina. I don't think my "argument" is ridiculous at all. You are being a hypocrite if you despise people by their religion just because they don't agree with you. It's essentially the same thing you blame them for.

Edit: I don't know how reliable this is, but it would speak against your claim of 85% being Christian: http://www.city-data.com/states/North-Carolina-Religions.html (says 54.6% were not counted as members of any religious organization.)

 

[Mutant]

Yawn and double yawn.

 

[DanLights]

Testiclemilkshake: so you're Jewish then? May I ask why? I mean, why have you chosen this religion over any other?

 

[John_C]

Well, that's actually nice to see that at least a couple people here actually read some of the crazy shit I put up here, even if you don't agree. I am not trying to attract attention to myself.

To clarify, I am not trying to persuade you folks to believe that these religions are keys to survival. I am only pointing out that it is an interesting theory. And it's more plausible than it may sound at first.

3,000 years ago people had a much longer train of thought than we do now (thanks TV btw) and I'm sure that in many respects they used their brains better. That's how they built the pyramids and shit, probably.

And they may have been smart enough to recognize that fasting helps, so they incorporated fasting into religion.
Q
Jews (and other religions) don't eat certain meat unless it's been killed a certain way. That sounds ridiculous to some of us now but back then there may have been a logical merit to eating kosher stuff. Maybe pig is healthier to eat when it dies a certain way. Has that ever even been studied?

And going back on topic, more people are harder to conquer than less people. So it was good for people to fuck and have kids to increase the population. Gay people would not have helped that aspect of survival. Maybe that's where homophobia originated. Well, that and also that it's disgusting .

You heard it here first: God made us in his image and I wonder if that means God is a virus like us. (That's from a new song of mine so don't even think about stealing that shit lol).

Building a pyramid isn't quite the same challenge when you've got thousands of slaves and considering I just watched the gadget show testing out a mind-controlled skateboard...... I personally think that train of thought argument would have been better if you'd gone for 70 years, but I totally agree TV makes you dumb. Growing up without a TV was one of the best things my parents did for me

Meat is different when killed in different ways, but as far as i'm aware not in any health benefitting way, more just taste. But not eating pork is just a great idea because worms will fuck you up.

Homosexuality has existed for as long as we have history, and as a matter of fact the dominance of judeo-christian religions represents a low point as far as tolerance is concerned. Just look at the Greeks!

I think many religious teachings were attempts to deal with real problems, but that doesn't make them right, it just makes them tenacious guesses for the most part.

 

[JeffTD]

According to Wikipedia the population of North Carolina is ~9.6 million. 85%, that's a lot of Christians, about 8.16 million. Did they all vote against gay marriage? I think someone mentioned it was 1 million which would be ~12%.

What points should I respond to? You mean this: "We can talk once you present a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality."? Why the hell should I do such a thing? I'm not a "Christian" from North Carolina. I don't think my "argument" is ridiculous at all. You are being a hypocrite if you despise people by their religion just because they don't agree with you. It's essentially the same thing you blame them for.

Only 40% of the registered voters actually voted in the most recent election, so of course the numbers aren't going to pan out there.

I asked for a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality because you made the statement "Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general." It has everything to do with religion and how it influences people to think - without religion, there's no argument against marriage equality.

I don't despise people by their religion; I despise their religion (which I'm totally entitled to do; I respect their right to have it, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it in/of itself). It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they actively seek to limit the rights of others based on their beliefs. I do nothing of the sort.

 

[DanLights]

Only 40% of the registered voters actually voted in the most recent election, so of course the numbers aren't going to pan out there.

I asked for a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality because you made the statement "Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general." It has everything to do with religion and how it influences people to think - without religion, there's no argument against marriage equality.

I don't despise people by their religion; I despise their religion (which I'm totally entitled to do; I respect their right to have it, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it in/of itself). It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they actively seek to limit the rights of others based on their beliefs. I do nothing of the sort.

I can agree with that last statement so much I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[JHA]

Only 40% of the registered voters actually voted in the most recent election, so of course the numbers aren't going to pan out there.

I asked for a reasonable secular argument against marriage equality because you made the statement "Just asking because I think this issue has nothing to do with religions and more to do how people think in general." It has everything to do with religion and how it influences people to think - without religion, there's no argument against marriage equality.

I don't despise people by their religion; I despise their religion (which I'm totally entitled to do; I respect their right to have it, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it in/of itself). It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they actively seek to limit the rights of others based on their beliefs. I do nothing of the sort.

I'm not making a statement against equal marriage and I'm not even trying to argue against it. You are reading my post wrong. You are basically saying Christians can't think themselves without the church, which is a huge generalization. How can you say the result is because of them if only 40% of the population voted? How many of those were Christians? You have no idea how the rest would have voted and according to this page http://www.city-data.com/states/North-Carolina-Religions.html 54.6% of NC population are atheists. Though it seems to be from 2000 so I don't know how accurate it's in this day. And if it so happens to be that the religious people are the majority in NC isn't that just how the world runs, the majority decides what to do.

Since you're not a religious person and don't go to church why do you even care what they think?

 

[JHA]

I would also like to comment on this:

This is an absolute horseshit statistic. I'm technically counted as a Catholic, and subsequently a Christian. It would be quite difficult for me to remove my name from that registry; same goes for anyone else who was raised in a specific parish or baptized at all.

Does the above statement not apply to this:

85% of the people in NC are Christian, and all denominations of Christianity have the same teachings about gays - what aren't you understanding about this?

Yes, most people, if not raised as Christians (AKA diverged from their churches), would have nothing against homosexuality. Again; there is no rational secular argument against it.

How do you know that they in fact aren't Christians at all but raised and taught atheists who are being counted as Christians and are just struggling to get their names removed from the registry. The real number could be a third of that.

Isn't that 85% an "absolute horseshit statistic" too or is there a different rule for North Carolina?

 

[DanLights]

Since you're not a religious person and don't go to church why do you even care what they think?

This is possibly the worst argument EVER against active anti-theism. Surely religion has never affected anyone who didn't share their same beliefs throughout history, yeah, it's simply a "thought". I've never used the ignore list before, but I just might.