Gay Marriage revisited, Political postings discouraged

[GodOfRhythm]

It became religious through interpretation and superseding from old Roman law constructions by the Church (mostly because of jurisdictional strife and attempts to rise to supranational (supra-kingdom) power). Hence, around the time of Jesus there was no mention at all of 'religious' marriage, other than a few Jewish customs, which were actually nothing like the religious marriage u speak of, as it is interpreted by people today.

There is no argument anyone in this thread can come up with that I have not already heard and/or even used.

I studied Pandectarum for a year, most of the times it was just ME and the Professor sitting in an empty classroom, because other students didn't take the course. This professor was Laurent Waelkens, who is

A) Christian
B) A world expert on Roman Law and MARRIAGE / MATRIMONIUM in particular.
C) An expert of economical and trade law

We had hours and hours and hours of discussion on gay marriage, while we were ear deep in the original manuscripts and writings [Holding a 2 million dollar book in your hand is quite a rush, let me tell you] it is all based upon. He was anti-gay marriage, I was pro.

He also tried making the distinction between the religious institution and the civil status, which in most secular states is now fact.

Suffice to say, he was never able to find fallacy in my reasoning, nor did I conclusively 'talk him under the table'. SO I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS WE ARE NOT GOING TO REACH ANY KIND OF CONCLUSIVE OPINION ON A GUITAR FORUM.

[SEEGERMANY]

Hey, we're all experts! Just ask us!

[Endrik]

so, with the hooded monk IT is better?

I guess I'm a lucky European

[Bengal]

so, with the hooded monk IT is better?

I guess I'm a lucky European

Everything I've read says "YES".

It's a sensational thing in the head. Since it's protected by foreskin, it does not rub against underwear all the time. That rubbing takes away some of the sensation in the head itself.

That makes sense to me. So much sense that I didn't curcimcise my first son. He still has his.

I wasn't going to do my second son either but he had whats called a "hooded foreskin", meaning it had to come off.

So I have one son who is and one who isn't.

Sigh...

[Bengal]

SO I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS WE ARE NOT GOING TO REACH ANY KIND OF CONCLUSIVE OPINION ON A GUITAR FORUM.

Doesn't make it any less fun.

[GodOfRhythm]

Doesn't make it any less fun.

It was Karyn's explicit wish not to have this discussion in here again. I think we should honor it.

[Bengal]

It was Karyn's explicit wish not to have this discussion in here again. I think we should honor it.

Well then Karyn can delete the thread.

I don't feel I've said anything that would bother her. If someone else does, that's not MY problem.

Lets not try to use guilt trips to stiffle converstion. So far it's been very civil. As long as it stays that way, what's the harm?

Karyn can take care of herself, she doesn't need us looking out for her.

[VitaminG]

I don't think GOR was trying to lay a guilt trip on anyone, only to remind folks not to let things get out of hand after Karyn has asked expressly that it not become a political thread.

btw, I've never had sex with an uncircumcised penis - I've only ever used mine...

[Bengal]

G,
Well, by stating it's Karyn's wish that it not turn political is somewhat of a guilt trip. I sure don't want to offend her in any way so then the guilt comes on and I'm looking at all my posts to see if anything could be taken wrong and all that jazz. That's what I meant. But maybe that's just my good 'ole American Guilt. HA!

And this has become a religious thread, not a political one. At least for me. I have stayed out of the marrage thing but I've taken a shot or 2 at religion. I can't help it.

But hey, his intent was good. My response was a bit edgy as usual, or smarmy as Sully puts it. But I'm cool either way. Discuss or not.

But it has been an intersting thread that's took a few unexpected turns. I like threads like that.

[necrotechno]

Wasn't circumcision used to tell Jew from Non-Jew back in the day? The Jews were the only ones to do it back then, right?

So why do we all do it now? I'm not Jewish but my foreskin was taken from me at a young age. Why? Don't give me that "cleanlyness" bullshit.

I heard a story about a guy that had to have a circumcision in his early 20's, because there was some kind of infection in there where he hadn't maintained proper hygeine.

A friend of mine told me that he had his infant son circumcised because he didn't want his son to get weird looks from other boys in the shower room after gym class.

I don't really understand either one of those stories.

[VitaminG]

G,
Well, by stating it's Karyn's wish that it not turn political is somewhat of a guilt trip. I sure don't want to offend her in any way so then the guilt comes on and I'm looking at all my posts to see if anything could be taken wrong and all that jazz. That's what I meant. But maybe that's just my good 'ole American Guilt. HA!

And this has become a religious thread, not a political one. At least for me. I have stayed out of the marrage thing but I've taken a shot or 2 at religion. I can't help it.

Religion, politics. It's all the same to me. Invariable either side start slinging muck at the other's "ridiculous" viewpoint, some crosses the line and the thread disappears (usually taking one of my most excellent, considered and lengthy posts with it, thereby conferring my efforts to the ether & depriving the JCF of the benefits of all my wisdom)

But hey, his intent was good. My response was a bit edgy as usual, or smarmy as Sully puts it. But I'm cool either way. Discuss or not.

Edgy, sure. Smarmy? I'd never consider you smarmy. Rsmacker, now that guy is smarmy. And proud of it.

But it has been an intersting thread that's took a few unexpected turns. I like threads like that.

it has been interesting. And everyone has managed to maintain a civil tongue. Which is nice.

[Bengal]

I heard a story about a guy that had to have a circumcision in his early 20's, because there was some kind of infection in there where he hadn't maintained proper hygeine.

A friend of mine told me that he had his infant son circumcised because he didn't want his son to get weird looks from other boys in the shower room after gym class.

I don't really understand either one of those stories.

I think I get both.

You do have to clean under it. So I've shown my son how to do that and he takes care of it. But sure, if you don't wash it I'm sure it could get infected and whatnot. I'm sure there are parts on my body that if I don't wash I'll have issues.

The second is another side I've heard from people. Some co-workers were horrified when they found out I didn't do that to my first son. First was the clean issue. I told them that wouldn't be a problem. The second was this one. It's an interesting one because I can see what they mean, most guys are. But how many kids did you judge by their penis in Gym Class in Jr. High? I know I didn't. I'm pretty sure my buddies didn't. I don't remember looking at other dudes cranks much. So that was my response to that one.

My decision not to came from how they do it. They strap them to a board and lop the fucker off. They use to not even use novocain or anything like that. It wasn't until recently that they have decided babies feel intense pain. I know they didn't use any kind of novocain when I had mine, according to my parents. And it bleeds and bleeds. And they do it right before they send you home. Go figure.

So we didn't do my first son and they came to our hospital room in the early moring and took him. I went after the nurse to see what she was doing. She was taking him for his curcumcision! WHA! I showed her the charts were it was highlighted "No Curcumcision" and asked what the hell that meant. She just grunted and mumbled something about it being very common for baby boys to have this procedure. I glared at her and said something to the effect that it wasn't going to be common for my son. Man, I was pissed.

Then the other one had to have it done. They waited until he was 6 months old before they would do it. I guess 6 month olds can tollerate the stuff they use to knock you out better. Man, that sucked. He bleed and bleed. The scars are still pretty red. He's only 7. It was a big deal. I can still remember changing that first diaper and seeing all that blood in it. I knew right then I had made the right decision with my first. Wish I could have with the second.

But everyone has to make thier own decisions. I hold no ill will to anyone who sees it the other way. That is a decision only a parent can make and no one can say that it's right or wrong.

[lerxstcat]

It's not my logic. It's theirs.

Nice strech to try to prove a point but it fails on several levels.

As soon as christians start saying God Hates Bad Guitar Players-Douchebag 4:16, then we can talk about it. Until then, it's apples and oranges man.

Lets not forget, the Catholics belive that sex is for procreation only. Not for pleasure. By that mark, at least 95% of Catholics are sinners.

That also follows to birth control. Only for procreation remember? Can't do that.

Christians strive for perfection? HA! That's funny. They STRIVE for it but DEMAND it from everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with them. Don't demand perfection from me when you yourself (not anyone here, that's the "They" you) can't do it.

No, it's humans, not God, in both cases wrongly demanding perfection. I guess you didn't understand the point.

Your percentage of sinners is also wrong because 100% of humans are sinners. That is part of the idea that nobody is perfect.

Who's demanding perfection from you? Christians aren't, your thinking that is way off base. Some might tell you they think what you're doing is wrong, but that doesn't mean they're demanding perfection of you because they know that's impossible.

But it's understandable that you didn't get that; after all, nobody's perfect!

[Bengal]

No, it's humans, not God, in both cases wrongly demanding perfection. I guess you didn't understand the point.

Your percentage of sinners is also wrong because 100% of humans are sinners. That is part of the idea that nobody is perfect.

Who's demanding perfection from you? Christians aren't, your thinking that is way off base. Some might tell you they think what you're doing is wrong, but that doesn't mean they're demanding perfection of you because they know that's impossible.

But it's understandable that you didn't get that; after all, nobody's perfect!

Well, by standing up against gay marrage, aren't those churchs holding someone else to their ideas? Ideas that it's OK for those that follow to pick and choose what they like and don't like but that's not OK for someone who doesn't believe exactly like they do?

Shouldn't it really be up to each religion to decide if they want to allow gay marriage? Or is it a state thing? Because if it's a state thing, religion should (I repeat should) stay out of it. But we know that's not the case.

Right, 100% of humans are sinners. That's how they hook you. Get you buying into that and then tell you the only way out of that sin is throught that church. I know how that works. I was raised in the church.

But if it's for you, that's cool. I don't mean to sound like I'm dumping on you personally.

I personally feel that churchs should look after those in their own flock and leave the rest of us to do what we want.

[lerxstcat]

umm.... it never had anything to do with religion... never... and it's the same word

it's the same with many other nations

"Abielu" is not the same word as "marriage". And it's listed as meaning both marriage and divorce, as well as marital sex and adultery, which are opposites.

Also, who is Tharapita? Do you know? Might be that you just don't know of Estonian religion because the Russians suppressed religion.