Lets consult the book for examples of how one should live one's life:
Full article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653)
Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

...

Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.

But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for."

The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter).

Why do people look to the Bible for examples as to how to lead their lives and cherry pick? If you abhor homosexuality, why don't you display the proper abhorrence to soothsaying like horoscopes, psychics,and that ilk? Why don't you embrace slavery? Why aren't you waving signs asking for the death penalty for adulterers?

Is it because you all really don't take the Bible literally... except when it suits you? Could you all be that hypocritical?

And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.Yes they do.

Why do people look to the Bible for examples as to how to lead their lives and cherry pick? If you abhor homosexuality, why don't you display the proper abhorrence to soothsaying like horoscopes, psychics,and that ilk? Why don't you embrace slavery? Why aren't you waving signs asking for the death penalty for adulterers?

Is it because you all really don't take the Bible literally... except when it suits you? Could you all be that hypocritical?

I find it telling that when attempting to start a discussion on the Bible, rather than refer to the Bible, you refer to a commentary reinterpreting what the Bible says.

Homosexuality, horoscopes, psychics, slavery, death penalty for adulterers, eating pork, mixing linens, i.e. all the well-worn chestnuts that sneering liberals attempt to beat us over the head with, is Old Testament, which is, for Christians, filtered through the eyes of Jesus in the New Testament, you know, us being defined as . . wait for it . . Christians.

Yes, hard concept to grasp, but we try to follow the Bible based on what Christ and His disciples taught. If you pick a New Testament up, and actually read it, you might discover Christ taught many things that softened the seemingly hard things of the Old.

One example: Death penalty for adultery.

Old Testament does indeed say to stone adulterers.

Christ says in John 8:3-11:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on, sin no more."

Jesus changed the penalty for sexual sins from death (Old), to verbal rebuke (New). He and His disciples did that with several issues you listed. Dietary laws, polygamy, etc.

Again, it bears repeating, Christians view the Old Testament, filtered through the New.

Oh, and I'm sure you can list off many Christians that don't *perfectly* follow Christ's teachings. This does not make His teachings any less valid, you know.

So what did Jesus say against gay marriage?

Lay it out for me, I'm a noob when it comes to the Bible. What is the Christian argument against same-sex marriage?

That's the point, Pan.

They pull out Old Testament mumbo jumbo when it suits them.

But when they want to distance themselves from it, they say, "We are Christians, we don't follow the Old Testament."

They got a built in out, for everyone who wants to swallow their steamy sheep pies.

They got a built in out,They don't even need the out, since they routinely ignore the alleged teachings of Jesus when it suits them: You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIVEven holier-than-thou Gunny ignores it, with his bloodlust for executions.

I guess the "old filtered through the new" BS is still handy, when you need an excuse and it's an "old" law you happen to be breaking (e.g., thou shalt not kill (murder), one Christians love to break repeatedly).

It's rather ironic that a wimpy pacifist Jew, whether real or fictional, was to serve as the inspiration for the bloodiest, most violent, and most oppressive religion this planet has ever known.

What is the Christian argument against same-sex marriage?If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.Then there's the whole thing about Sodom.

Though it makes me wonder why they want to abolish lesbian marriage, too, since lesbian sex doesn't appear to be prohibited, or even mentioned.

Quote"Then there's the whole thing about Sodom.

Though it makes me wonder why they want to abolish lesbian marriage, too, since lesbian sex doesn't appear to be prohibited, or even mentioned."

Because according to biblical times and scripture, The only thing a man should stick in another man is a sword, or in modern cases a bullet. It is far more socially acceptable. Woman on Woman has always been a wonderful thing to be a part of, or have the opportunity to watch. That is hot.

Quote"
Originally Posted by Jesus
You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV"

This was also in many of the non canonical versions, even the ones deemed heretical, which is in itself, the canonical versions heretical anyways. But, I often wondered, why Christians did not just just use the above quote for the guideline towards homosexual marriage. Sure, vote for it, equal rights and all that who cares, We will let our God go ahead and sort them out, rather than torture them on earth for 70 years or so, let them burn for all eternity in a lake of fire they were already going towards anyways, no sense in risking our own souls.... hehe.

So what did Jesus say against gay marriage?

Lay it out for me, I'm a noob when it comes to the Bible. What is the Christian argument against same-sex marriage?

Assuming you're actually asking out of curiosity,

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away."
And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
ark 10:2-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:2-11&version=47)

So, obviously, before you can ask for a divorce, you have to be married, since divorce is the negation of marriage. Jesus defined marriage as a male and a female leaving their parents, and joining together to become one flesh.

I hope that's understandable. It's the clearest passage I could find on the subject, in Jesus' words.

However, if you don't think Jesus' teachings are valid, or even that He existed at all, then why the question in the first place?

And to answer the lesbian point on this thread brought up by Tudamorf, the New Testament does speak to both gay and lesbian sex.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1:21-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:21-27&version=47)

Again, I think that's pretty clear, when it says things like "unnatural" and "shameless", and "an error", when describing homosexual acts of both varieties.

So even the New Testament doesn't approve of any homosexual acts, and it also doesn't approve of any heterosexual acts outside of marriage, preferring everyone remain virgins until marriage. I could quote "avoid sexual immorality" passages throughout almost every single book of the New Testament. It doesn't say it's an unpardonable, unforgivable sin, it just says, "Stop doing them."

I'll emphasize again that Jesus reinterpreted several punishments for various behaviors from Mosaic Law to Christian practice. In the cases of sexual sin, death to adulterers became "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

I would think being told "Go, and sin no more" is a lot more preferable than being stoned to death.

But if you're looking for a way for Bible-reading Christians to condone and approve of a homosexual, or for that matter, a swingin' heterosexual lifestyle, then you'll need to re-write your own version of it, editing all those passages out. It wouldn't be the Bible anymore, of course.






P.S. Not to derail, but Thomas Jefferson did exactly that, except instead of pro-homosexuality, he was anti-supernaturality. So he wrote out every single miracle that happened in the New Testament. He retitled it though.

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus is OT, right? And Gunny says that that was filtered out. I'm curious about the filtering though.


Assuming you're actually asking out of curiosity,
A-yup.

So far you haven't shown me anything Jesus said against homosexuality or marriage between same-sex. You're just assuming that because he didn't cover it, he didn't condone it. Perhaps the thought never occurred to him.

And yet you show me, in the next paragraph that all these supposedly rightly righteous heterosexual couples are definitely going against Jesus by getting divorced and remarried. So how come there isn't the out-cry about divorce that there is about gay marriage? He actually came out pretty strongly against it in your quote.

However, if you don't think Jesus' teachings are valid, or even that He existed at all, then why the question in the first place?
Because this is the basis that people are using in opposing gay marriage. If one exposes the utter hypocrisy of this, then perhaps people will re-think a little. Ok, I'm hopelessly optimistic but there you go.

Personally I believe marriage is a civil function, it defines rights and responsibilities in a civil fashion. But religions keep trying to co-opt it as their invention. It has always been, in every society, a contract and has varied depending on the civilization you're looking at. Personally I think religious marriage and civil marriages should be separated. If you want to get married in a church, terrific. Go for it. But if you want a civil function it should entitle you to the same rights as the religious one and it shouldn't have a different name depending upon the genders of the people involved.

As far as I know, churches don't have to marry everyone. Catholic churches don't marry non-Catholics, right? So... it seems to me Christians should practice what Jesus really seemed to be promoting: Tolerance, living your own life as best you can and stop harassing other people (live and let live), looking after the big honking thing poking you in the eye (divorce) instead of dust fragment in your neighbor's eye(gay marriage), celebrate people sharing love instead of standing in the way of it, etc. I think if Jesus was this guy that everyone seems to think he was, I think he'd be pretty disappointed with the judgmental, interfering ways Christians behave.

So how exactly does this "filter" work? We filter out what everyone except Jesus says? Or we filter out everything in the OT? Is there stuff in the NT we filter out? Are there rules to filtering? And is this filtering your particular sect's filter or does it apply to all Christian sects?

Leviticus is OT, right? And Gunny says that that was filtered out.Well, they can't totally filter it out because, as Gunny points out, Jesus didn't say anything clear on the subject, whereas the Jews clearly said that gay men should be killed. (The passage he cites from Romans is ambiguous and subject to interpretation (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm)).So how exactly does this "filter" work?If it suits you, use it. If it doesn't, discard it.

Jesus's renouncement of "an eye for an eye" is a perfect example. Christians don't like it, so they simply pretend it doesn't exist. Even Gunny just pretended it didn't exist.

Leviticus is OT, right? And Gunny says that that was filtered out. I'm curious about the filtering though. . . . So how exactly does this "filter" work? We filter out what everyone except Jesus says? Or we filter out everything in the OT? Is there stuff in the NT we filter out? Are there rules to filtering? And is this filtering your particular sect's filter or does it apply to all Christian sects?

It is not filtered out, it is filtered through.
No, we filter the OT through the NT. Things Jesus changed, we change. Things Jesus didn't change, we leave alone.
OT still has lots of good teachings within it, like Proverbs and Psalms. Even has a sex book, Song of Solomon.
As far as I know, each denomination has their own method about what to emphasize. I think those that emphasize the Old Testament verses, waving them on signs in rallies in a RL attempt to troll are . . . unwise and counterproductive to say the least.
y "sect"? I am about to declare myself a sect of one, like Thomas Jefferson, but I'll stay as a Evangomethodobaptarian for now.

Anyways, back to the much-bandied about example:
Leviticus 20:13, combined with Jesus's teachings:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: Jesus does not condemn them to death. He says go, and sin no more.

(Disclaimer: Assuming Jesus's teachings on reworking the penalties for one sexual sin also applies to the other, seeing as how both adultery and homosexuality earned the same penalty (stoning) in the Old Testament.)


Anything Jesus or His disciples said usually altered the penalties, for things such as sexual sins, or got rid of them altogether, such as dietary laws.

And yet you show me, in the next paragraph that all these supposedly rightly righteous heterosexual couples are definitely going against Jesus by getting divorced and remarried. So how come there isn't the out-cry about divorce that there is about gay marriage?

First, divorce by itself is not explicitly prohibited by the New Testament.
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.LINK (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:10-11;&version=47;)

Christian couples that get divorced and remarry a different spouse are committing the same level of transgression as someone who is practicing homosexuality. And there should be the same outcry in Christian churches over divorce, but there isn't. The text is clear. Hypocrisy can be found very easily in all areas of life; churches are not immune to this human condition. Yes, they should be better, but they aren't, especially in the area of divorce and remarriage, in which the statistics are indistinguishable from the general populace.

Personally I believe marriage is a civil function, it defines rights and responsibilities in a civil fashion. But religions keep trying to co-opt it as their invention. It has always been, in every society, a contract and has varied depending on the civilization you're looking at. Personally I think religious marriage and civil marriages should be separated. If you want to get married in a church, terrific. Go for it. But if you want a civil function it should entitle you to the same rights as the religious one and it shouldn't have a different name depending upon the genders of the people involved.

arriage is a great many functions in one: Civil, social, religious, familial, psychological, child-rearing development, etc, etc. Religions are not trying to co-opt, the Roman Catholic church did co-opt the historical Roman model in the 4th century, and it has been that way in Western societies since that time.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Give no penalties, give no benefits, everyone is a citizen, and pays taxes the same. That would solve the whole debate real quick. Inheritance? Write up a will, name your heirs. Visitation rights? Anyone that wants to come. Legal power of attorney? Have the foresight to appoint one, or the state will appoint one for you. Everyone writes up the same documents, names who they want to name, doesn't name who they don't want to name.

However, as long as there is a US official civil ceremony with official reprecussions resulting from the officials of the county, state, and/or federal governments, then marriage = one man + one woman. The US gov't already had this out with the Mormons last century. The Mormons had a different view other than marriage = one man + one woman. The Mormons lost.

And so Tudamorf doesn't feel like I am ignoring him, I'll sidetrack a bit to agree and disagree with the removal of the "eye for an eye" aspect. And no, it is not "make up the rules as suits us".


Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.
Live in harmony with one another.
Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.
Never be wise in your own sight.
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


So if someone strikes *ME* I am not to take vengeance on them. If someone steals from *ME*, I am not to track them down and beat the money out of them. However, I fully admit I desire to destroy those that would hurt defenseless children or elderly folks. Stories about some low-life beating to death a 75 year old for their SS check enrage me greatly.

If someone harms someone that cannot defend themselves, we should protect the defenseless as a society by removing the aggressor from society in a manner we deem fit. This follows as the next verses of what I just quoted, actually.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.
Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.

For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

The authorities are the avengers who carry out God's wrath on the wrongdoers, not the individuals. We are fortunate to live in a country in which we get to vote on the lawmakers of the land, and thus control which laws rule over us to some extent, and what wrath as a society we will mete out to those who trangress our laws.

Thanks for acknowledging the hypocrisy of the church when it comes to homosexuality and divorce/remarriage. As near as I can tell divorce/remarriage, visiting the local psychic/fortune teller isn't considered an issue at all, while homosexuality seems to really upset many Christians. (I'll reserve the "stoning references" for the Christians that want to put to death homosexuals based on the Bible).

I would think that if a group of people want any credibility with outsiders that they'd at least try to observe their own rules. It'd be like the Senate sort of ignoring rules about taking money from lobbyists (which they do, but they currently get punished).

Another question, slightly tangential, is there anything in the New Testament that counters what the Old Testament says about slavery being groovy?

Your idea about having "marriage" be completely religious isn't bad. In that case I'd like it though if those of us who don't believe had a shortcut for assigning those various legal/civic functions. People are pretty lazy about these sorts of things and having the state decide in lieu of a life-partner isn't a good default. You could call it a civil union. But again, it should be the same for everyone, regardless of race, gender, etc.

Then homosexuals can find churches that are sympathetic to them to get a religious marriage, if they felt the need. Or they could start their own. Our Lady of Flame or some such, with the feather boa around the virgin. I'd so go to that service.

et every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.
Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?
Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.

For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.So basically, the guys with the biggest guns can do evil with impunity, since they have supernatural authority simply by virtue of having the biggest guns. All of Jesus's teachings about doing no evil and turning the other cheek don't apply to them.

And anyone can circumvent any of Jesus's teachings simply by using a third party to do their bidding.

Gotcha. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. Give no penalties, give no benefits, everyone is a citizen, and pays taxes the same. That would solve the whole debate real quick. Inheritance? Write up a will, name your heirs. Visitation rights? Anyone that wants to come. Legal power of attorney? Have the foresight to appoint one, or the state will appoint one for you. Everyone writes up the same documents, names who they want to name, doesn't name who they don't want to name.That's all the gays want, plus the societal recognition of being a couple as worthy as any other couple (no "separate but equal").

I have never heard any gay person express any interest in being blessed by your god or churches. (I'm not saying there aren't any, just that I haven't heard them, so they must be rare if they exist at all.) In fact it would violate the First Amendment to force you to accept them into your church.

Quote"Tolerance, living your own life as best you can and stop harassing other people (live and let live), "

Funny little word tolerance, how I hate it. Tolerance to me brings up negative feelings, while probably not the actual defination according to Webster or whoever, but, probably pretty close. To refrain from open hostility. The hostility is there, but, it is not acted upon.

I much prefer the term indifference, where you couldn't care either way on issues such as this. That would go alot more towards removing the religeous marriage idea(fine if they want to use their religeous figures, if not, that is fine also), and focus more on domestic partnerships, civil unions(including homosexuals) or whatever term people feel like using, rather than focusing on preconceived ethnic bias.

First off, if I'm lumping you into a group of folks where you don't belong, then I apologize but I can imagine why folks in the south dislike the word tolerance. A lot of tolerance has been forced on them; bi-racial marriages forced down their throats in the 1960's, desegregation, school busing, women asking for equal rights and now gays, teaching evolution in schools and removing religion from them.

If people had been indifferent well... lets just say that would have been really nice comparatively, but in general indifference isn't applicable when it comes to people and subjects like these.

But you know gay rights is coming. It's just a matter of time until the uptight old folks die off. Younger people today just don't get worked up over homosexuality, since they've been associating with openly gay people all their lives, they accept them as peers, with the same rights they have.

Yep, pretty much sums it up well Pan, so, I am not to much like alot of southerners, one I am not from here, just live here, most of the older idealogies they were famous for are dying out with age basically, with some remnants of previous thinking still lingering on occassion. So, why wait for it, I would rather get that done as soon as possible and go about our lives.

So, why wait for it, I would rather get that done as soon as possible and go about our lives.Exactly. You know what will happen as soon as we give gays equal rights?

Well, just about nothing. Everyone will wake up the next day, everything in their life will be the same, and they'll wonder what they got all worked up about.

Well, I hope that some people might eventually feel ashamed of themselves for passing a law to discriminate against their fellow humans. But that's another bit of fantasy.

Well, I hope that some people might eventually feel ashamed of themselves for passing a law to discriminate against their fellow humans. But that's another bit of fantasy.They will.

Just as Americans are now ashamed of slavery and segregation laws.

Our descendants will look back at us and shake their heads, wondering how we could have been such cruel barbarians.

And at the same time, they will be busy discriminating against the people they hate or look down upon.

Ya, when everyone is brown.

It is going to be like the Philipines. Where everyone is going to be a different shade of brown.

Or like Mexico, where shades of brown determine what class you are in.


Ya right.

If we were all grey. The different shades of grey would determine us. Contradict us. Predetermine us.

If not color, then it would be nasal morphology. Or forehead configuration. Or hairline. Or length of fingers. Or something so completely innocuous such as who knows what.

OMG! Love it!

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/celebrity-pictures-takei-prepare.jpg

I think someone other than me has an IPhone with the cheezeburger app.