Atheists are so funny!

tekkychick said:
and you ignored the rest of my post, showing the marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. Such a putz you are. But I knew that.
Click to expand...

some aberrations in ancient history?......since you were born, since your mother was born, since your grandmother was born, since your great grandmother was born since your great great grandmother was born, since your great great great grandmother was born.....marriage is between a man and a woman......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, you might remember that in Genesis 3 God tells Eve that one of the consequences of disobedience is that there will be pain in childbearing.......that does seem to imply that there had been childbirth before.......and that it was painless.......
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

If God meant it as you say, then why didn't he say "from this day forth you will bear children in pain"?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well, you might remember that in Genesis 3 God tells Eve that one of the consequences of disobedience is that there will be pain in childbearing.......that does seem to imply that there had been childbirth before.......and that it was painless.......
Click to expand...

Considering my point was that Cain left Eden and married someone from another area, the question of whether childbirth was painful is really irrelevant.

"...16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.
17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech."

So either there were other people living in Nod, or Cain wandered (the Hebrew word 'nod' means to wander) and found his wife in his travels. In either case, either God made other people or Cain married his sister (or niece).
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Not necessarily.

If God meant it as you say, then why didn't he say "from this day forth you will bear children in pain"?
Click to expand...

pretty close actually...

16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
 
WinterBorn said:
In either case, either God made other people or Cain married his sister (or niece).
Click to expand...


or the descendant of someone Eve gave birth to a thousand years earlier......and yes, that merely steps the incestual act back a few generations.......of course you have the same problem with the first human that evolved from a primordial slime ancestor.....with the added complication of the frustration that must have occurred when he discovered the only other human that evolved was another guy......
 
Might want to read some evolutionary biology, PMP.

But you're getting pretty tiresome on all these threads; I won't bother reading you anymore.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well you know...that should be pretty obvious by now.....since what you are trying to do is change the legal definition in the US......you stupid putz......
Click to expand...

Great, now that we have your agreement. We have changed the legal definition before when it conflicted with a more fundamental societal principle of equality before the law and that is why it will change again.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
or the descendant of someone Eve gave birth to a thousand years earlier......and yes, that merely steps the incestual act back a few generations.......of course you have the same problem with the first human that evolved from a primordial slime ancestor.....with the added complication of the frustration that must have occurred when he discovered the only other human that evolved was another guy......
Click to expand...

Lol, omg you are so stupid.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
some aberrations in ancient history?......since you were born, since your mother was born, since your grandmother was born, since your great grandmother was born since your great great grandmother was born, since your great great great grandmother was born.....marriage is between a man and a woman......
Click to expand...

So wait, now you are back to all of human history and your fairy tales? I thought you said we were confining this to US law? Make up your mind, moron.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no.....its always been one man, one woman......
Click to expand...

As you well know, legal definitions prohibited interracial marriages. There have been lots of other changes too, including allowing married women to own property, have an abortion without the consent of their husband and refuse sex. If the law defines marriage then these are changes to the definition of marriage.
 
Professor Baxter said:
As you well know, legal definitions prohibited interracial marriages. There have been lots of other changes too, including allowing married women to own property, have an abortion without the consent of their husband and refuse sex. If the law defines marriage then these are changes to the definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

that wasn't a change in definition....that was a prohibition.....those that didn't want interracial marriage had to prohibit it because it fit within the definition......that is not true about a man marrying a man.......they didn't have to prohibit it.....it was already impossible......

also, letting women own property didn't change the definition of one man, one woman......

getting an abortion didn't change the definition of one man, one woman.......

so what remains clear is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that wasn't a change in definition....that was a prohibition.....those that didn't want interracial marriage had to prohibit it because it fit within the definition......that is not true about a man marrying a man.......they didn't have to prohibit it.....it was already impossible......

also, letting women own property didn't change the definition of one man, one woman......

getting an abortion didn't change the definition of one man, one woman.......

so what remains clear is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about......
Click to expand...

Why don't you simply let God be the judge? You don't have to agree with it to allow taxpaying citizens their civil rights.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that wasn't a change in definition....that was a prohibition.....those that didn't want interracial marriage had to prohibit it because it fit within the definition......that is not true about a man marrying a man.......they didn't have to prohibit it.....it was already impossible......

also, letting women own property didn't change the definition of one man, one woman......

getting an abortion didn't change the definition of one man, one woman.......

so what remains clear is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about......
Click to expand...

Your argument is worthless. The prohibition against interracial marriage affected the legal definition of marriage just as a prohibition against same sex marriage does. The legal definition is the rights associated with marriage.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it would be more stupid to believe that two humans happened to evolve at the same time and in the same place....I mean "shit happens" but how much shit do you expect to actually happen.....
Click to expand...

LOL. Speciation does not occur in one single individual alone, you fucking moron. That could not possibly work for a species dependent on sexual reproduction. You quite clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about. Nothing new, though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top