Since when do you Marxists have a sense of humor?
This ad is even better (and truthful for that matter): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSxDE1QCHA4
October 11, 2012 at 5:30pm
KUPO, you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of analogy.
October 11, 2012 at 5:22pm
“There’s Christianity and there’s Christianity. I don’t believe in the Christianity that says one thing and then goes and kills innocent people and tries to rob women of their fundamental human right to control their reproductive lives or deny people of the same sex their right to be married and have relationships and is judgemental and narrow minded and angry and vengeful. That is not the Jesus Christ that I believe in. And there’s a lot of people like me out there.” — Jane Fonda (“Cat Ballou”)
October 11, 2012 at 5:20pm
way. to. miss. the. point. you should really think more before you write.
October 11, 2012 at 4:36pm
@Darmok: Astounding. You’ve named yourself after something from a Star Trek episode that is entirely about analogies, metaphors and parables, and yet you can’t see one when it’s staring you in the face. Jackson isn’t saying polygamy makes you gay (duh), he’s saying that since marriage has changed before, it can change again—that the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman isn’t even in supported by the bible, so the idea that its form is written in stone isn’t even in scripture. Was that so hard to understand? By the way—Gene Roddenberry’s future won’t include dinosaurs like you. Sorry. No room for your species on the space ark.
October 11, 2012 at 3:57pm
So you agree that the nature of marriage has changed over time. And therefore agree with Jackson. You seem oddly antagonistic toward someone you agree with.
October 11, 2012 at 3:50pm
There don’t seem to be many on this thread who understand what an analogy is. Jackson isn’t saying that having multiple wives makes you gay. What is wrong with you people? He’s saying that the nature of marriage has shifted over time, and even within the bible, so why couldn’t it shift again? Analogy. Simple idea. The people here who are calling Jackson an idiot for saying that having multiple wives makes you gay are just embarrassing themselves. It’s just too bad that he waters down his argument later on by saying that there are more important things to talk about during the election. You don’t actually have to choose whether to talk about jobs or civil rights at election time. You can talk about both. Hopefully people’s brains are big enough to handle that. This sort of prevarication is just playing both sides of the street—which, unfortunately, all three panelists were doing. I doubt there would be a one of them who would agree to put racial equality on the back burner while we talked about jobs.
And so now you are a mouth piece for the good Rev???? Are you POSITIVE that is what he was saying because I am not so sure!!!!!
October 11, 2012 at 3:23pm
@oldmantex: Don’t presume to dictate morals to others based on a book that you cherry pick from to support things you would believe anyway, book or no, just to feel superior. If the bible doesn’t even agree with itself, how can anyone agree with it?
October 11, 2012 at 11:44am
Read Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Apparently God was also in favour of forcing women to marry their rapists, as long as the rapist pays 50 pieces of silver for her. Let’s bring that law back, too! Go traditional marriage!
October 11, 2012 at 11:30am
You misses his point, JC—although it was pretty obvious. He was saying that marriage has changed over time. It even changed within the pages of the bible. So…if it changed before, why not again?
October 11, 2012 at 11:23am
I don’t know what bible you’ve been reading, but the one on MY shelf sanctions not just polygamy, but polygamy + concubines. So very far from 1 man + 1 woman. Oh, and marrying kidnapped girls after god told you to slaughter all their menfolk. Now THAT’S traditional marriage!
October 11, 2012 at 11:02am
how did you arrive here, PONTIOUSPIRATE? you are the only sane voice i’ve found here so far. my disappointment with jackson is that he wavered later on in the debate to say that there are more important issues. there are NO more important issues than equality. and anyway, that’s just a cop-out. if the question were about racial civil rights, no one, especially this panel, would be arguing that jobs were more important.
October 11, 2012 at 10:52am
his point was that marriage has changed over time, even within the pages of the bible. sorry you missed it.
October 11, 2012 at 10:38am
He’s refuting the claim that there is a biblical case for the immutability of marriage. Seemed obvious to me.