PDA

View Full Version : God hates scrimps



Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 06:19 AM
I knew there were sumthin fishy bout em lobsters!!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 06:19 AM
I knew there were sumthin fishy bout em lobsters!!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

robban75
03-02-2004, 06:23 AM
What a bunch of wacko's! I love shrimp! Yummy!


http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Bearcat99
03-02-2004, 06:25 AM
LMAO...... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gifIts a good thing that Jesus came along and updated all that.....It aint what goes in but what comes out that defiles a man..... All ffoods havebeen made clean.... (peter on the roof..) oh & BTW.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif cool with me but SOMEONE'S gonna come in here and blast ya... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 06:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif cool with me but SOMEONE'S gonna come in here and blast ya... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, I know. Not enough flamewars in here anymore. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

R.I.P
Pilot Lounge

Huxley_S
03-02-2004, 06:44 AM
It's a satirical site in protest at George Bush's stance on gay marraige, pointing out that the same religious nutters who use the bible to brand gays an abomination should not use double standards... people who eat seafood are commiting a mortal sin as well, probably a far worse sin since it is explicitly and unambiguously defined by both Leviticus and Deuteronomy as an abomination.

Religion is characterised by it's hypocrisy which is why I don't like any of it. People always pick out the bits that fit in with their own personal prejudices and ignore the bits that don't.

Yum yum... lobster! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 06:50 AM
Is eating gay people ok by the good book?

Slush69
03-02-2004, 06:57 AM
"John 6:53-4 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

So if the gay in question is a son of man, it should be pretty okay. Gay shrimps should be avoided though.

cheers/slush

Disclaimer: All in good humour. No offense intended, etc. Oh, and in before the lock. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.wilcks.dk/crap/Eurotrolls.gif

Bearcat99
03-02-2004, 07:33 AM
Although Gay people should be allowed to share medical benifits, leave property and all that stuff.... IMO gay marriage should NEVER be put on the same level as hetero..... one perpetuates the species...one doesnt...by virtue of that fact alone they arent equal...all the social nuances of today's society notwithstanding. Just because we are "modern" and "enlightened" doesnt mean we should forget the basic facts of human existence for the sake of political expediency.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Huxley_S
03-02-2004, 07:46 AM
Hey Bearcat... you forget that the planet is already over-populated. The fact that some people aren't choosing to become breeding machines should be welcomed.

I actually believe that homosexuality is nature's way of defending itself. It is all part of the scheme of things. Some of us get the genes for procreation and some of us don't. Simple as that.

There is absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't have a ceremony to confirm their status as permanent partners if they want to. It shouldn't be for others to tell them what they can and can't do... it really is none of their business.

Bearcat99
03-02-2004, 08:00 AM
I said that it shouldnt be put on the same level as hetero marriage... I said nothing about a ceremony.....

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I actually believe that homosexuality is nature's way of defending itself. It is all part of the scheme of things. Some of us get the genes for procreation and some of us don't. Simple as that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting theory. I like it. lol.

T_O_A_D
03-02-2004, 08:02 AM
ROFLAMAO
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif

Where is Badsight????

He should be in here ranting something about your Gay http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
131st_Toad's Squad link (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
2.11 drivers (http://home.mchsi.com/~131st-vfw/NaturalPoint_trackIR_2_11.exe)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I said that it shouldnt be put on the same level as hetero marriage... I said nothing about a ceremony.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. The church is a, from the government separated institution and it's up to em who they wanna wed.

A ceremony at the city hall is another thing.

Huxley_S
03-02-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I said that it shouldnt be put on the same level as hetero marriage...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One good rational reason why not? Anything less is simply discrimination on the grounds of sex, which is illegal in your country.

clint-ruin
03-02-2004, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Although Gay people should be allowed to share medical benifits, leave property and all that stuff.... IMO gay marriage should NEVER be put on the same level as hetero..... one perpetuates the species...one doesnt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should childless couples marriages be retroactively revoked if they end up childless?

Should infertile couples be denied marriage on the 'same level' as potentially childbearing marriages?

Should a woman who has a hysterectomy or a man who has vasectomy be denied a conventional marriage?

Is the above quoted reason really the only reason you think gay marriage is undesirable?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

michapma
03-02-2004, 08:12 AM
So Ven you're using shrimp as bait these days, eh. I was bored enough to bite...

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_chap.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)

The ongoing IL-2 User's Guide (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/) | Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com/)
But we are all that way: when we know a thing we have only scorn for other people who don't happen to know it. - Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

M0NS
03-02-2004, 08:20 AM
Hehe - simple chatechism for christians: the Gospel replaced the Law - no need to make up another one. The dietistic restrictions, however, can be extremely entertaining...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

& Bearcat: Regarding homo/hetero-marriage I believe that every community should have the right to deside who they want to bless - no need for a law here either - punching out now before I get myself banned.

S!

M0NS

"So when Diogenes perceived that he was greatly excited and quite keyed up in mind with expectancy, he toyed with him and pulled him about in the hope that somehow he might be moved from his pride and thirst for glory and be able to sober up a little. For he noticed that at one time he was delighted, and at another grieved at the same thing, and that his soul was as unsettled as the weather at the solstices when both rain and sunshine come from the very same source."

(Dio Chrysostom "Discourse" 4.77-78)

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by michapma:
So Ven you're using shrimp as bait these days, eh. I was bored enough to bite...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


:lol

LilHorse
03-02-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Although Gay people should be allowed to share medical benifits, leave property and all that stuff.... IMO gay marriage should NEVER be put on the same level as hetero..... one perpetuates the species...one doesnt...by virtue of that fact alone they arent equal...all the social nuances of today's society notwithstanding. Just because we are "modern" and "enlightened" doesnt mean we should forget the basic facts of human existence for the sake of political expediency.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when is marriage about perpetuating the species?

Since when does it take marraige to perpetuate the species?

Do we really want the state to define what constitutes a "Sacred Union"? That's for peoples' religious beliefs. The state should only define marriage as a civil union and, as such, should not discrimintate between straight and gay couples.

The state is not supposed to be in the religion business. When we allow that to happen we move a little closer to being like the Taliban. And that was the whole reason why the Founding Fathers made sure to create a separation of church and state.

tfu_iain1
03-02-2004, 08:29 AM
y'know, just because a man is gay doesnt mean he can't or won't procreate. I happen to know many gay men and women who would like to have children, either adopted or otherwise, and i know 2 gay couples personally who have children. i also know as many gay and straight people who aren't hot on the idea of kids. the procreation argument doesn't hold water... for one thing d'you honestly think gay people would be callous enough not to procreate to save their own species if they thought it was necessary? we're not panda's y'know.

i do agree with the church argument tho- no church should be made to marry anyone it doesn't want to. city hall is a different matter- its secular, not religious.

personally im not even bothered if a union between two people of the same gender is called marriage or not, as long as whatever 'civil union' it is confers the same rights and privilages on a homosexual couple as it does on a heterosexual couple.

the reason gays in the US are currently pushing for marriage and not civil union is because they know that civil union as proposed by most US politicians does not provide the 1,049 federal rights that only full marriage equality can guarantee.

arcadeace
03-02-2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by arcadeace:
Let's watch as the lines get drawn. Another assinine political subject guaranteed to bring the community together. Thanks for the enlightenment Veng, have fun watching members understand and of course, love as YOU do. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

perioikos
03-02-2004, 08:34 AM
It's a legal contract ... whether or not it's blessed by one church or another doesn't much matter.

Also, the protection of other points of view is not in itself a violation of your constitutional right to your own perspective.

F19_Ob
03-02-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vengeanze:
Is eating gay people ok by the good book?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I think that is a no no! I think its called cannibalism in the bible, and only the highpriests were allowed to do that sort of thing. It should be the other way around for normal people. U should be gay while eating the blessed food.
But wait..... now it starts to come back to me.....yes, cannibalism is allowed . Wasnt it Jesus him self who said something like; "This is my blood" and "this is my flesh"?....Well anyway...it was something fishy about that, but I guess it had nothing to do with shrimps.?

M0NS
03-02-2004, 09:03 AM
I remember Forest Gump & his wartime buddy talking about shrimps... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

S!

M0NS

"So when Diogenes perceived that he was greatly excited and quite keyed up in mind with expectancy, he toyed with him and pulled him about in the hope that somehow he might be moved from his pride and thirst for glory and be able to sober up a little. For he noticed that at one time he was delighted, and at another grieved at the same thing, and that his soul was as unsettled as the weather at the solstices when both rain and sunshine come from the very same source."

(Dio Chrysostom "Discourse" 4.77-78)

Bearcat99
03-02-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Although Gay people should be allowed to share medical benifits, leave property and all that stuff.... IMO gay marriage should NEVER be put on the same level as hetero..... one perpetuates the species...one doesnt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should childless couples marriages be retroactively revoked if they end up childless?

Should infertile couples be denied marriage on the 'same level' as potentially childbearing marriages?

Should a woman who has a hysterectomy or a man who has vasectomy be denied a conventional marriage?

Is the above quoted reason really the only reason you think gay marriage is undesirable?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont be ridiculous....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I said what I have to say and I stand by it. You can twist it anyway you like..... It is my opinion which I am entitled to. My reasons for opposing giving gay marriage the same status as hetero marriage are sociological and yes biblical. If that offends some of you then too bad....suck it up. Its my opinion and like I said I am entitled too it. In the bigger scheme of things it wont change the way things are going anyway. Do I think gays should be afforded the same rights and protections under the law as heteros? Of course..... But hetero marriage should IMO be kept in its own special place. The family unit is the basis of any society and if history has taught us nothing else it has taught that when this fact begins to break down or fall out of vouge then the fall of said society is soon to follow. We can come up with all kinds of hypothetical situations to make a point..but IMO the NATURAL essence of the family is Man,Woman, Children. All things removed....THAT is what will perpetuate the species. That union should NEVER be trivialized or put on the same level as any old bond because it isnt. One reason why we have so many screwed up individuals in our world today is because that unit has been under fire for so long.....millenia in fact. This is not the place to get into the whole philosophical,religious meat and potatoes of the issue...so I will be bowing out of this thread before it gets locked or deleted.... but like I said...thats MY opinion and Im sticking to it.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

DrDave242
03-02-2004, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Hey Bearcat... you forget that the planet is already over-populated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Excessively general statements like "the planet is over-populated" are easily refuted by a combination of a tiny bit of research and a tiny bit of elementary arithmetic:
The world's population is currently estimated to be roughly 6.4 billion people. The total land area of the United States of America, certainly not the largest nation in the world but the one most familiar to me, is 3,536,338 square miles. These figures are easily obtained by anyone using Google. Now, if every man, woman, and child in the world were to move to the United States (and I'm not suggesting they should - I'm perfectly aware that some people would prefer to live in Dirtistan or East Malaria) and the land were divided equally among them, each individual would be given about 13,969 square feet. Now, I'd feel sorry for the people whose land allotment placed them at the top of Mount Washington or smack in the middle of Death Valley, but that's not the point. The entire world population does not live in the US, and this is nothing more than a simple mathematical exercise.
Yes, some areas of the planet are overpopulated. Others are uninhabited wilderness. Some groups of people are underfed. Others throw away tons of perfectly good food each year. Some segments of the population are dirt poor. Others live like kings. I will never in my lifetime be convinced that the planet as a whole is over-populated. It's a LOT more complicated than that.

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.

clint-ruin
03-02-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dont be ridiculous....... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I said what I have to say and I stand by it. You can twist it anyway you like..... It is my opinion which I am entitled to. My reasons for opposing giving gay marriage the same status as hetero marriage are sociological and yes biblical. If that offends some of you then too bad....suck it up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bearcat - I like your posts and mine was not meant as an attack on you, just an attempt to find out if your point of view was in any way self-consistent.

As it turns out, it's not, and you don't expect it to be, either.

I'm fine with that, and don't think any less of you because of it. Couldn't give a toss.

DrDave242 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I disagree. Excessively general statements like "the planet is over-populated" are easily refuted by a combination of a tiny bit of research and a tiny bit of elementary arithmetic
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I ran into this exact same problem when I was talking to Lexx in an earlier thread.

Your statistics work out fine if you ignore:

Food
Power
Water
Waste

And mindlessly cram all of those people into a space without any plan for them to live past lunchtime.

Works out fine otherwise, though!

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Old_Canuck
03-02-2004, 09:36 AM
FOR SALE ... unable to compete. Market flooded with cheap bait.

http://www.bait-shop.com/WHITE_LOGO.gif

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

DrDave242
03-02-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Your statistics work out fine if you ignore:

Food
Power
Water
Waste

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Thus the statement, "It's a LOT more complicated than that." The problem is not that there are too many people. The problem is that the existing populace does not properly manage its resources. The solution, as usual, is education.

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.

tfu_iain1
03-02-2004, 09:54 AM
gay people have children too!

gay people procreate!

gay people raise healthy, happy, well balanced children too!

Huxley_S
03-02-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The world's population is currently estimated to be roughly 6.4 billion people. The total land area of the United States of America, certainly not the largest nation in the world but the one most familiar to me, is 3,536,338 square miles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has absolutely nothing to do with physical space. Sure, everyone in the world could fit in the USA but what kind of life would they have? There wouldn't be enough food, water or energy for them all.

I'm talking about the number of people that the world can only support a limited number of people... what that figure is exactly can be debated but there _must_ be a limit. Whether that is 6 billion, 20 billion or 100 billion, eventually there will not be enough resources to go around and everyone will suffer as a result, rich and poor.

The truth is that as people become wealthier around the world and their demand for energy and other resources increases, so the capacity for the Earth to sustain them decreases.

i.e. the Earth could probably sustain 20 billion hunter-gatherer types, but a maximum of around 6 billion modern consumer-culture americans or europeans.

Homosexuality exists. It is a reality of life. Any religious beliefs you have do not make it any less a fact. Do not forget that your religious beliefs also state that eating shrimps is an abomination before God. Strange how no one goes round getting hysterical about those immoral shellfish eaters, isn't it?

The question is "why" does homosexuality exist? It seems illogical at first until you realise that it is not unique to humans. I believe that homosexuality will increase as the population rises, specifically to protect the human race from over-population. Nature is all about balance.

i.e. the increase in homosexuality will actually protect those traditional doctrine of Man / Woman / Child values you hold so dear.

Make fun of gay people by all means but afford them the same human rights you would give heterosexuals. If they want to get married then let them.

To me this argument is exactly the same as when women demanded the right to vote. All the men said no way and came up with purely irrational reasons why they shouldn't i.e. a woman's place is in the home, it goes against tradition etc etc... and they were wrong.

No difference here - a bunch of reactionaries trying to deny equal status to a group of which they disapprove.

arcadeace
03-02-2004, 10:16 AM
BAN frustrated ex-mods who perpetuate the Ubi ZOO!

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_222_1073167658.jpg

Fehler
03-02-2004, 10:17 AM
What an enlightening thread...

NOT

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

ElektroFredrik
03-02-2004, 10:25 AM
Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to procreate
with eachother http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif
Adoption, I don't know... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif
Sexual intercourse for the fun of it is ok with
me as long as I won't have have to watch them
doing it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

EDIT: btw, the same goes for the schrimps http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

http://fanart.lionking.org/imgarchive/FanArt/NisseNjursten/profile.jpg
"What I study is sex and squirrels"

porcupine1
03-02-2004, 10:36 AM
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.millers-rentals.com/lobster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.millers-rentals.com/Photo_Gallery_Novelty.htm&h=753&w=488&sz=31&tbnid=uAgEtywUM8kJ:&tbnh=138&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlobster%2Bsuit%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie %3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG
OK so I am confused. lets see if I have this right.
I can only eat shrimp if they are gay, but if said homosexual shrimp has a child then i cant eat them .
but if the homosexual shrimp has no child, but disires to have children with a clam. I am aloud to eat thier child/children. correct!
aghh!! but now for the real head scratcher what if the homosexual fathers/mothers are unmarried and give birth to a shrimp that is heterosexual can that shrimp child when that child is old enough to, can that shrimp child marry a tuna. if so ,seeing that a tuna has both fins and scales could the child of the shrimp child and the tuna be eaten by a homosexual. and if so must that homosexual be married before partakeing of the shrimp childs clammy young???
DUM dum dum!!!!

there is one mystery that remains. why do we continue to post such obviously politicaly charged posts, and what do we expect to happen when we post them.
I understand that people are very passionate about some sobjects, and that is wonderful. I am glad to see people thinking about things.
but honestly a subject along the lines of religion in this country, at this time is split almost 50/50. and since the arguements are more or less religious in nature it is almost Impossible to sway or change any minds on this subject. I wish that wasnt the case but this thread is the altimate example of preaching to the choir.
threads like this although free speach have no place here. and bringing them up here will only make the rift wider between the two sides. convince dont convert! these 2 things have the same result but the reasoning behind it is very different as well as the attatudes left behind when the "subject" is no longer a "subject"
one more thing
PLEASE STOP THIS! PLEASE! these trolling run on arguments are doing one thing for sure. its makeing people stop careing, listining, and thinking. so please for the good of everyones beliefs STOP!!! I find myself getting tired.

clint-ruin
03-02-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrDave242:
Exactly. Thus the statement, "It's a LOT more complicated than that." The problem is not that there are too many people. The problem is that the existing populace does not properly manage its resources. The solution, as usual, is education.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While "the solution, as usual, is education" is a nice phrase, it doesn't actually get us anywhere on this issue right this moment. Unless, of course, that education is some kind of education where we overthrow reality and replace it with one that can sink water tables and transport food worldwide at an acceptable economic cost to the first world. Did you mean "magic education"? Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat - them's good eatin'!

According to dictionary.com:
o‚∑ver‚∑pop‚∑u‚∑la‚∑tion
n.
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.

According to population.org:
The highest world population growth rate was 2.04 percent in the late 1960's. This year, it is about 1.31 percent. NY Times
[i]It took just 12 years to leap from 5 billion to 6 billion. In the 19th century global population grew by only 600 million, but in the 20th century it grew by 4.4 billion. There are twice as many people today as there were in 1960. Even with a continued decline in fertility rates, the United Nations projects a population of 8.9 billion in 2050. With current trends, world population isn't expected to stabilize until after 2080. UNFPA '99

The idea of a centralised controlling system where one government would allocate food and housing and cars and just about anything else has actually already been tried. "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest is about as good a place as any to read up about how well that worked.

In a capitalist economic system the problem is a different one. Supplying massive food aid to poor countries sounds good and saves some people from immediate starvation, but the problems with this have been documented quite extensively as well. What tends to happen is that the domestic market for local farmers evaporates immediately, and, being unable to compete with the "free trade" world market coming out of a drought or a war, there is no longer any incentive for farmers to farm, land falls into disuse, farming expertise disappears, and the country has a very hard time kick-starting its economy, agriculture for the local populace being about the one thing poor countries can usually depend on to keep cash flowing through. Kind of like Ukranian peasants getting pissed off at the total dis-incentives to actually go out and farm, don't you think?

The solution has much more than many parts, but here's a few for starters:

a) offer disincentives to international arms dealers to arm up and then set african nations against each other - the UK keeping a tighter lid on its lot in Africa, and the US actually agreeing to sign the small-arms control treaty would be a nice start on that. Saves a mint in the inevitable public funded aid that has to be shipped out to the affected countries later, too.

b) education is indeed a nice start, starting with educating third world women that they can actually refuse sex or insist on a condom being used. "overpopulation" isn't just about there being too many people, it's about them being born to people who aren't even aware that they have a choice about having children.

c) third world debt / "free" trade. Unfortunately one of the harder ones to deal with due to the influence of first world agriculture and first world financial institutions on first world governments. If cash crops or food crops are really the only things that certain countrys can support as the basis for their economy, it makes a bit more sense for them to be paid for it rather than watch them collapse into famine/war/poverty, while at the same time paying out massive subsidies to first world farmers. It's not even sensible from an economic rationalist point of view. It only makes economic sense if you consider which money is going into private hands and which money is being taken from the first world public cleaning up the aftermath. You might think the World Bank would work differently given the source of its money, but, unfortunately it doesn't.

d) give the developing world a sustainable model to follow. It's nice to think of everyone in the world owning a Hummer, but it's not going to happen until you can get one that runs off hydrogen rather than hydrocarbons. Disposable nappies, the waste associated with modern agriculture, the complete contempt for water resources - this is not something that you are going to be able to base an economy of a country with a billion people on. Unless, as mentioned, you intend to keep a ******* lot of them on the bottom, living the life of a bangladeshi dump-scavenger.

This is the point where I get to say, it's a lot more complicated than that. Unless you want to give overthrowing worldwide capitalism another go, we are left with trying to make do with what we have. A nice step towards that would be to make sure that the planet can support the population it has right now in a way that doesn't condemn a great deal of it to death by disease or starvation. If you don't want to control population growth by those two more traditional methods, I would suggest that you are indeed in the market for birth control. If you have some other plan for keeping population levels within the ability of a country to support them - I am indeed, all ears.

Population to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration would appear to be indeed what we have right now. Saying "but everything's cool though, look how many people you can squeeze into this area" doesn't make you look smart, I think it just makes you look like a smartass. Sorry. I don't mean to be harsh on you, but some people actually take this stuff seriously :/

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 10:46 AM
Don't try to change the subject please.

We were talking about schrimps. I have nutting against schrimp. In fact some of my best friends are scrimps.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And Fehler, I'm unbannable!!

PS: Where is East Malaria?

DrDave242
03-02-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vengeanze:
PS: Where is East Malaria?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just east of West Malaria. Duh!

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.

porcupine1
03-02-2004, 10:51 AM
so if there are TOO many shrimp isnt it our oplogation as good stewards to eat them???
sorry couldnt resist

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 10:54 AM
I'd answer your question but can't find "oplogation" in my dictionary.

Huxley_S
03-02-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so if there are TOO many shrimp isnt it our oplogation as good stewards to eat them???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry that job is strictly for the non-christians, muslims and jews only.

Shrimp cocktails and fresh lobster tails for the athiests, liberals and heathens only I'm afraid... slurrrp! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

porcupine1
03-02-2004, 11:02 AM
oops typo. nice come back!!
hey Vengeanze I am very amused by the god hateing shrimp thing though. I sent that link to my brother as soon as i saw it. what i said in my comments was not ment to be directed at you. I have a feeling you started this thread because its a funny ironic story.
what i got upset about is the way people run away with things. pulling parts of statements into thier own corners. to relight their favorite arguments, it gets old some times.
any way thanks for the shrimp story it is very funny!

BoCfuss
03-02-2004, 11:03 AM
Sounds to me Huxley that you hate christians, etc as much as they hate gays. Thats the way to get things changed.

In my opinion both groups just feed off of the hatred of the other.

BaldieJr
03-02-2004, 11:03 AM
God said don't eat shellfish because at the time, you stood a good chance of becoming ill.

As for the gay marriage thing:
The law in cal. defines it as "a union between a man and a woman". Not "a union between a human and a human".

As for changing the law: the majority supposedly rules, so ca. needs to put it to a vote, and then LEAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY ALONE about it, since intolerance of christian views is just as bad as intolerance of gays.

That mayor out there should be removed. Who is he to tell people to break the law? He thinks he is god maybe? The checks and balances of law are thrown out the window because this guy sees himself as far more than what he is. The fact that he hasn't been lynched just shows how screwed up the people in that town really are.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

DrDave242
03-02-2004, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
While "the solution, as usual, is education" is a nice phrase, it doesn't actually get us anywhere on this issue right this moment.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, that was just my way of placating the liberals. What I meant was, "The solution, as usual, is findin' them folks what needs killin', and killin' 'em."

I appreciate that you take this seriously. I don't. Especially not in this thread, on this day, on this forum.

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.

clint-ruin
03-02-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrDave242:
Hey, that was just my way of placating the liberals. What I meant was, "The solution, as usual, is findin' them folks what needs killin', and killin' 'em."

I appreciate that you take this seriously. I don't. Especially not in this thread, on this day, on this forum.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry - you are at least two posts too late in the thread to spring "you have been trolled". Good luck in convincing others to buy that though :&gt;

Couldn't care less about the forum myself - but what you posted was scheduled for demolition.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

bashii
03-02-2004, 11:22 AM
Whut teh he11 iz a scrimp?!!1

Gays can marry any woman they want, assuming the proper age and sufficient distance from their own bloodline, just like the rest of us. So where's the problem? ;)

* * *
Misspellers of the world, untie!

[This message was edited by bashii on Tue March 02 2004 at 10:53 AM.]

DrDave242
03-02-2004, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Sorry - you are at least two posts too late in the thread to spring "you have been trolled". Good luck in convincing others to buy that though :&gt;

Couldn't care less about the forum myself - but what you posted was scheduled for demolition.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This entire thread was scheduled for demolition as soon as it was posted. Why the schedule hasn't been followed is anyone's guess. Maybe the guy working the plunger got hold of some bad shellfish.

Perhaps you misinterpreted me. Here's what I'm saying, in a nutshell: I'm not going to spend every waking hour worrying about the problems of every individual on the planet. I try to confine my worries to my loved ones. Selfish? Nah, practical.

---
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.

HL callsign: FruitPieJones
Today is a good day for pie.

ajafoofoo
03-02-2004, 01:24 PM
I love people who always fall back on the "majority rules" crap when it comes to basic rights.

That's faulty logic considering our system has many features with the purpose of stoping a "tyranny of the majority".

Go back to the 60's in this country and you could find a majority of people in southern states that wanted segregation. Our court system made the right decision a told a majority of whites to shove it just like the court system should tell a majority Americans to shove it on the gay marriage issue.

By the "majority is always right" logic, segregation would have only ended very recently in the south.

Amazing that the founders of this country understood this problem. Even more amazing that people today don't.

A majority isn't always right. If this country was based purely on majority rules from the beginning, America would have taken a downward spiral.

BaldieJr
03-02-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by ajafoofoo:
I love people who always fall back on the "majority rules" crap when it comes to basic rights.

That's faulty logic considering our system has many features with the purpose of stoping a "tyranny of the majority".

Go back to the 60's in this country and you could find a majority of people in southern states that wanted segregation. Our court system made the right decision a told a majority of whites to shove it just like the court system should tell a majority Americans to shove it on the gay marriage issue.

By the "majority is always right" logic, segregation would have only ended very recently in the south.

Amazing that the founders of this country understood this problem. Even more amazing that people today don't.

A majority isn't always right. If this country was based purely on majority rules from the beginning, America would have taken a downward spiral.

What basic right is being denyed here?

The accepted definition of marriage includes same-sex unions... they may not be recognized by the state, but this in no way unties the knot. Try dictionary.com.

Any couple that requires legislation to confirm thier union is, in my opinion, just looking for a tax break.

Please don't compare the equal-rights acheivements of the 60-70's to this trivial attempt by gays to be subsidized.



______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

repco
03-02-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
As for changing the law: the majority supposedly rules, so ca. needs to put it to a vote, and then LEAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY ALONE about it, since intolerance of christian views is just as bad as intolerance of gays.

That mayor out there should be removed. Who is he to tell people to break the law? He thinks he is god maybe? The checks and balances of law are thrown out the window because this guy sees himself as far more than what he is. The fact that he hasn't been lynched just shows how screwed up the people in that town really are.


Hmmm... first you moan about intolerance, then suggest the mayor should be sacked/lynched. :|

If it's made legal all it'll mean is that clergymen can follow their own conscience when deciding whether to marry gays or not.

BaldieJr
03-02-2004, 02:22 PM
Where are you from? Not the states no doubt.

A Mayor can not say "Break the law, I said its ok".

It sets a VERY bad example. Why should I not knock your mother over her head and steal her purse when the mayor, who is just as much HUMAN as me, can break laws at will?

The man should be BEATEN beyond all belief because he is abusing his power, breaking the law, and attempting to BUY gay votes (by offering those idiots something so trivial that it shouldn't be an issue).

He has single-handedly pitted one half of the country against the other, when all he had to do was set about the change LEGALLY.

You can not set laws into place and have them only apply to the common man. Thats EVIL. It deserves death.



______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

Huxley_S
03-02-2004, 02:25 PM
[i]God said don't eat shellfish because at the time, you stood a good chance of becoming ill.[i]

No he didn't say that he said eating them was an abomination. You find me a dictionary that transaltes the word abomination into "will make you ill".

The definition in the Websters English Dictionary is:

1. The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing;
2. That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.
3. A cause of pollution or wickedness.

This is what I mean about people ignoring the parts of the bible they don't like and interperating other parts (like the bits about homosexuality which are much more vague) with hysterical zeal. Imagine if it said in the Bible that homosexuality was an abomination. Imagine what the world would be like for gays if that was the case. They would be in big trouble. But it doesn't say anything of the sort. It alludes to a few things but it doesn't come down as hard as it does on the consumers of shellfish.

BaldieJr
03-02-2004, 02:28 PM
Hey, last I checked, the bible wasn't written in english.

Abomination in hebrew might have meant a bowel movement of monumentous strength.

Honestly, a lot of the bible was just common sense stuff for the time period. That does not mean we should ignore it, as most of the moral teaching still apply today.



______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

LilHorse
03-02-2004, 03:04 PM
One could view Gavin Newsome's actions as civil disobedience. There's nothing that says a publicly elected servant can't engage in civil disobedience. That's a lot different from whackin' somebody's mama on the head and taking her purse.

It will probably end up being that all those licences will be concidered void by the state of California. But it does bring up the fact that these ppl want to be concidered married in the eyes of the state. Were it left to a popular vote, that probably wouldn't happen. But that's where the idea of plurality comes into play. People will claim to have rights whether the majority feels comfortable with that or not. And here IMHO I think they have a right. They're not saying "we want the right to go around and kick anybody's a$$es we feel like without having charges brought against us.". That's not a right. I don't see how gays being married is gonna hurt anybody.

ajafoofoo
03-02-2004, 03:39 PM
Yea, breaking the law is so bad.

Blacks who organized sit-ins at segregated resturants must have been horrible people for technically breaking the law.

Like others said, marrying Gays in cal is civil disobediance. They are breaking unjust laws, not mugging old ladies.

I will compare this to the 60's. Straight married couples should have a different tax code?

Gee, sounds like discrimination to me.

bashii
03-02-2004, 03:45 PM
I find it puzzling that folks are so ready to abandon the rule of law simply because they like the curent sentiment.

Once lost, rights are difficult to wrestle back. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either you get your say or you don't. The *tyranny of the majority* nonsense makes for good Chicken Little emotional responses but really it's the same as *majority rules*, which is the basis for most democracies.

The next act of *civil disobedience* may not be so much to your liking. But by then, you may no longer have the opportunity to express your opinion in any meaningful way (read: with a vote) if we encourage our *leaders* to go off the reservation and start making or breaking laws selectively without accountability.

There are avenues for change and, frankly, I think SF's mayor has done more to set back the cause for gay rights than promote it. A quick look at the polls and the number of states scrambling to enact legal definitions of marriage barring same-sex marriage or respecting same-sex marriages performed in other states bares this out.

Unfortunately, as always, the only ones who will win in this fight will be the lawyers.

Vengeanze
03-02-2004, 03:53 PM
It's alive. My precious!

ajafoofoo
03-02-2004, 03:54 PM
The basics it teaches are known to even athiests.

An athiest amazingly still knows not to murder, steal, cheat, lie, or rape.

People don't need to bible to tell them all these things. We could certainly do without people who's beliefs on marriage are derived from the bible keeping laws that create a seperate tax code only for straight married couples.

If they want to have it that way, then they really need to stop being hypocrites and stop eating shellfish.

repco
03-02-2004, 04:08 PM
Well said LilHorse, the problem is with a tiny minority of religious bigots that think they've got the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. That's what the Taliban tried in Afganistan.

I'm off the order my shrimp t-shirt :)

BaldieJr
03-02-2004, 04:45 PM
Comparing racial issues with gay marriages is shamefull.

Gays can eat anywhere they want.
They can work anywhere they want.
They can vote any way they want.
They can sit anywhere on the bus they want.

Look up 'marriage' in the dictionary. Gays can marry, but the marriage is not recognized by the state. If you need your love validated by legislature, you've got problems. Thats a step in the direction of slavery... something the good book warns about. But you can't be bothered to read a 2000 year old book, the 'PC' movement has taught you everything.

Somewhere beyond those trees is a forest. I just know it.



______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

ajafoofoo
03-02-2004, 06:04 PM
It has tax, child custody, financial, and other implications.

No, gay marriage isn't as serious an issue as racial in the 60's was.

To say drawing a parallel is shameful makes no sense.

Many of the same states that had segregation on their books in the 60's had sodomy laws until recently.

It's the same backwards thinking with segregation, sodomy laws, and not recognizing gay marriages.

Reading that 2000 year old book is reflected in many people's outdated thinking.

I'm sure you could find some mormons who still think all blacks-indians are cursed sinners.

That religion read out of a hat is no different than a bunch of outdated beliefs read off a 2000 year old collection of stories.

I only thing I need to know is to treat others as I want to be treated.

The bible didn't come up with that. Someone a long time ago thought they needed to put what decent humans already knew into a "code" or law for the rest of the people who were too stupid to act decent. Toss in a little "God" and fear of enternity in a "Hell" and suddenly even the dumb people started to act right. Then over a few thousand years the basic message got polluted with all the extra crap you find now in these texts.

nickdanger3
03-02-2004, 06:12 PM
Buuuut gay's can't...visit a sick significant other in emergemcy hospital situations. Or take advantage of state sponsored tax breaks and probate issues that benefit married couples (don't believe the hype - the "marriage penalty" is a hoax).

So let's see Baldie...the "Thou shall not eat shrimp" was just common sense from 2000 years ago and we can look at it as outmoded in our age.

Um, so... are there any other parts of the bible that we can move beyond?

So why can't homosexuality fall into that category? Good idea back then (maybe), but now we've come to realize that it's hopelessly out of synch with our society today.

ajafoofoo
03-02-2004, 06:59 PM
Forgot about that hospital bs.

Had a college teacher who's signifigant other almost died in a car accident.

She couldn't see her while she was in the emergency room.

It was crazy. Didn't even know she was gay until the incident and she vented to the class about the crap she had to put up with.

They had been together for years and she couldn't see the person she loved until she was moved out of the emergency ward.

bashii
03-02-2004, 07:01 PM
Darwin once wrote: "great is the power of steady misinterpretation."

FWIW, I spent several years in a seafood kitchen and if you knew what I've seen you may not be so self-assured that the biblical dietary laws meant to keep folks from getting sick aren't still relevant in our squeaky clean world. Keep in mind that when you eat a once-living creature you are essentially eating what they ate. I hope you're all aware of what most shellfish and bottomfeeders subsist on.

WilliVonBill
03-02-2004, 07:05 PM
"don't believe the hype - the "marriage penalty" is a hoax"

I respectfully disagree. Worst taxation my wife and I have suffered through was after we married. Now, after you have a child... well, its a whole 'nuther story. We had our first last year... talk about some serious tax breaks! First time I've ever been genuinely happy to complete my tax forms!

HangerQueen
03-02-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Huxley_S:
It's a satirical site in protest at George Bush's stance on gay marraige, pointing out that the same religious nutters who use the bible to brand gays an abomination should not use double standards... people who eat seafood are commiting a mortal sin as well, probably a far worse sin since it is explicitly and unambiguously defined by both Leviticus and Deuteronomy as an abomination.

Religion is characterised by it's hypocrisy which is why I don't like any of it. People always pick out the bits that fit in with their own personal prejudices and ignore the bits that don't.

Yum yum... lobster! :hammer:



The question behind all this is "Which bits of the Old Testament Law are still relevant / binding on Christians?" It's a very good question. AFAIK, the OT law can be split into three sections: moral, judicial and ceremonial. The moral laws are still binding on Christians. The judicial law is not, 'cause we don't live in a Theocracy no more. The ceremonial law is not, 'cause Jesus fulfilled that section of the law. In the New Testament, the restrictions on unclean foods are largely removed, wheras the ban on gay sex still remains in place.

"You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider." N. G. Golodnikov