FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: acecadet24 on August 20, 2013, 09:02:55 pm
-
I don't know if this will spark lively debate but where do you stand on gay marriage? Personally, I'm conflicted with faith and gay friends. For example, I am a christian so I am oppose to gay marriage but I have quite a number of gay friends. It seems like for me it is a balance between being a friend of someone with a different lifestyle and following the teachings of the Bible. I have always heard the phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner." What do you say?
-
Gay people need love too. But God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I do not agree with gay marriage, but I have people I am related to that are gay. I have a female cousin who lives in Chicago, and she disclosed to me that she was gay; she was broke in by their babysitter at 7 years old. I treat her no different than anyone else. She has been with the same woman for over 20 years. I have a niece who is gay, a nephew who became gay by no choice of his (he was molested from ages 5 through 7; his molester was sentenced to 16 years in prison and killed by another inmate. He struggled with his sexuality for years, got a girlfriend, bought her a necklace, and she dumped him. He is now full blown gay). I do not believe you are born gay; it is something in your circumstances that lead you to believe you are that way. Marrying your gay lover is your choice, but I don't see you having children because you cannot be impregnated by a woman, nor can a man be impregnated and have a baby, unless you are the pregnant man. ??? ??? ??? :wave:
-
That's why we have a separation of church and state. If your faith holds that homosexuality is a sin, then your church just won't allow / acknowledge homosexual marriages. But this has nothing to do with whether the state accepts homosexual marriage. If the state feels that it want to define the union of two people as being a marriage regardless of their sexual orientation, then it has the right to do so. However that separation of church and state goes both ways... This means that the state should not force churches to perform / sanction homosexual marriages either.
There is a picture going around FB that basically states how I feel... It shows a picture of an ascetic Jew and the caption reads "He doesn't believe in eating pork... But he isn't forcing me to stop eating bacon!"
-
I know that this is a sensitive topic and gay marriage is a controversial subject but I am a true believer of to each his own.
-
I think most people are born gay, not made gay.
As the comedian asked: Why shouldn't they have the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people?
-
Your CHURCH doesn't have to allow gay people to get married. Your government should. If you do not agree with this you are wrong. This is not an opinion. When you throw a ball in the air it comes down because of gravity. That is not an opinion.
-
I haven't got a problem with gays wanting to marry - let them eat cake!
I haven't got a problem with you being proud of who or what you are.
I DO have a problem when they CONSTANTLY have to bring up the fact that they're gay. Personally, I don't give a rat's ***. It's not necessary, in my opinion, to try and twist anyone's arm to allow you to be you - just do it. I also don't think that ANYONE deserves any "special" privileges because of what or who they are. It should be the same for all of us, all around.
-
I don't know if this will spark lively debate but where do you stand on gay marriage? Personally, I'm conflicted with faith and gay friends. For example, I am a christian so I am oppose to gay marriage but I have quite a number of gay friends. It seems like for me it is a balance between being a friend of someone with a different lifestyle and following the teachings of the Bible. I have always heard the phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner." What do you say?
Not my life. Not my business.
-
It seems like for me it is a balance between being a friend of someone with a different lifestyle and following the teachings of the Bible.
Then if you ever have a son, you should also practice this teaching because it's in the same chapter that says homosexuality is wrong-
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Sure there's some stuff that's still good, but overall the bible is a primitive and outdated source for a moral compass in our current society. People try to justify illogical things such as condemning the basic rights of homosexuals when homosexuality is seen all over the animal kingdom. Not only that, but it's an overwhelmingly accepted action. Only humans have a problem with it. It's quite interesting that this behavior was made natural and yet your god condemns it. Talk about a malevolent quality.
Gay people need love too. But God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I do not agree with gay marriage, but I have people I am related to that are gay. I have a female cousin who lives in Chicago, and she disclosed to me that she was gay; she was broke in by their babysitter at 7 years old. I treat her no different than anyone else. She has been with the same woman for over 20 years. I have a niece who is gay, a nephew who became gay by no choice of his (he was molested from ages 5 through 7; his molester was sentenced to 16 years in prison and killed by another inmate. He struggled with his sexuality for years, got a girlfriend, bought her a necklace, and she dumped him. He is now full blown gay). I do not believe you are born gay; it is something in your circumstances that lead you to believe you are that way. Marrying your gay lover is your choice, but I don't see you having children because you cannot be impregnated by a woman, nor can a man be impregnated and have a baby, unless you are the pregnant man. Huh? Huh? Huh? wave
Gay couples can adopt children or do the whole artificial insemination process. And if you believe nobody's born gay, you honestly think straight males and females just reach puberty and then choose to like the opposite sex? That's not how it works. It's the same with homosexuals. And I do enjoy your whole "had problems growing up, therefore gay" argument. The gay people I know had normal upbringings and still turned out gay. Some also dated women before they realized they were gay. It's normal behavior.
Your CHURCH doesn't have to allow gay people to get married. Your government should. If you do not agree with this you are wrong. This is not an opinion. When you throw a ball in the air it comes down because of gravity. That is not an opinion.
Not my life. Not my business.
I DO have a problem when they CONSTANTLY have to bring up the fact that they're gay. Personally, I don't give a rat's ***. It's not necessary, in my opinion, to try and twist anyone's arm to allow you to be you - just do it. I also don't think that ANYONE deserves any "special" privileges because of what or who they are. It should be the same for all of us, all around.
These are factual claims and rational opinions.
-
I do not feel that gay marriage is a immoral issue. I believe that instances in the Bible that speak against it have been misinterpreted over the years. For instance, What Paul talks about in Romans (I think) deals with more of a social structure than anything to do with sexuality. In fact, the term homosexuality was not even existent back during these days. It is known through Roman writings and other archaeological information that gay couples were indeed fluent and accepted amongst the society as long as one came from more of a dominant family and one came from more of a submissive family. The issue of Sodom and Gomorrah deals more with gang rape than any issue of sexuality. I think it simply comes down to the fact that people fear what they do not know, and label it as sin, the devil, you name it. I am studying to be a counselor in a local seminary and I assure you that gay marriage will NOT bring forth famine, pestilence, earthquakes and the anti-christ. If you study history a bit, the same things were being said over the ending of slavery, women gaining the right to vote and desegregation. Face it, there are people, Christians included, that live their lives against things that are stated in the Bible (if you interpret those things literally.) Plus, you go Old Testament and we shouldn't even be playing football...
I think sometimes common sense needs to be applied in studying spiritual truths. I think a monogamous relationship, no matter what two individuals are involved, is a beautiful and highly spiritual experience. For those who are stuck on literal intepretations of the the Bible, I would simply bring up something that Jesus said himself: "Think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Just think about it.
The "devil" is not in those that think and act differently than us. The "devil" is the fear we have in those that think and act differently than us.
-
Marriage is between a man and a woman. If gays get married it means virtually nothing except evidently it means a lot to them.
-
Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women.
-
What to do with tax money, how much to tax, when a fetus becomes a person, how many bullets a gun can hold are all thing that can be debated. Treating everyone like a human being is not.
-
So for it. Love is love. I am sick of everyone writing off love to church views. The whole Adam/Eve thing was to procreate, not about love. Defined as man vs woman-outdated thinking.
-
Quick bump.... just curious... Does anyone that knows the Earth is more than 6,000 years old have an argument against same sex marriage?
-
I really don't care what they do. I had a strict upbringing, which seemed to involve a lot of judgment of other people. I don't believe for a minute that someone wakes up one morning and decides to be gay.
-
I am opposed to gay marriage. To me marriage is between a man and a woman. I also have friends that are gay.. I don't agree with their lifestyle but I don't hate them either. I love them and I pray for them!
-
I am opposed to gay marriage. To me marriage is between a man and a woman. I also have friends that are gay.. I don't agree with their lifestyle but I don't hate them either. I love them and I pray for them!
6,000 years or 4.54 billion years?
-
Quick bump.... just curious... Does anyone that knows the Earth is more than 6,000 years old have an argument against same sex marriage?
I have a friend who can't wrap her mind around the earth being older than 6000 years, but has no problem with same sex marriage.
I, on the other hand, totally accept the earth being way older, but am not a proponent of same sex marriage.
Two separate issues that don't necessarily connect.
-
I, on the other hand, totally accept the earth being way older, but am not a proponent of same sex marriage.
I think he's just wondering if you either don't like same-sex marriage due to religious ideals or just because you don't like the concept.
-
I, on the other hand, totally accept the earth being way older, but am not a proponent of same sex marriage.
I think he's just wondering if you either don't like same-sex marriage due to religious ideals or just because you don't like the concept.
For me, personally, it's not about religious ideals, or the stuff that's being presented as 'ideals.' The same person who said 'God created Adam an Eve, not Adam and Steve,' also said, 'We should just send the CIA to take him out,' calling for the assassination of the leader of Venezuela, because Chavez wouldn't sell his country's oil to the US.
Not a religious person, or a religion, I would want to emulate. About anything.
As for same sex marriage, I'm not actively against it, I'm just not totally for it, if that makes sense.
Goes back to "Not my life. Not my business."
-
Goes back to "Not my life. Not my business."
Lazy, apathetic response. It's akin to someone turning a blind eye to a black person not being served at a diner.
-
Goes back to "Not my life. Not my business."
Lazy, apathetic response. It's akin to someone turning a blind eye to a black person not being served at a diner.
Sorry I don't live up to your expectations. Nor do I need to.
-
I don't judge because it is not my place to judge. that is God's place. So I accept them because you don't know what caused them to do that decision.
-
As for same sex marriage, I'm not actively against it, I'm just not totally for it, if that makes sense.
What makes you not care about the rights of people who have been illogically and irrationally persecuted for decades/centuries? This group does not have the same rights that you and I take for granted. It's an injustice caused by silly and unintelligent laws in this day and age and (imo) everyone with an ounce of brain power and moral sense should at least support their human rights. In no way am I saying "go to rallies!" or any of that stuff-- I just think your opinion should be a little more supportive of this particular minority since you aren't barred from it like the religious zealots.
Sorry I don't live up to your expectations. Nor do I need to.
...And in no way am I saying you need to adhere to my same opinion. It's just a logical suggestion!
-
I honestly think that it shouldnt matter what i think lol We are all free to do whatever we want with our life and body so just everyone should mind their own :) JMO
-
Interesting debate!
I am a individual who is open to anyone's preference, I myself believe that marriage should be between a man and woman, But one's who choose to fall in love with the same gender as they are doesn't bother me at all. My cousin happens to be gay, and is looking to getting married. IT is not my job to past judgement on any individual but myself.. :heart:
-
There's no reason to be against it.
I just don't understand how people can be for war and kill other humans but be against two humans of the same sex loving each other.
The more people who say no, the more opposition that will be received.
Being gay is becoming a norm and soon so will gay marriage.
-
I don't necessarily agree or even understand what makes gay people, but I do think we all should be given the exact benefits regardless of our sexual preference. Why should two people who love each other be denied a marriage, no matter what their sexual preference is. I know a few gay couples who have been together over 20 years, but in my state are not allowed to marry. Also, if one is in the hospital their partner has no rights to their love one, how can you say that is right? Let them alone and let them marry, it's not our business or right to judge anyone.
-
I believe that marriage is a bond between to people who love each other and promise to love, honor and all that other good stuff be it a man and woman or woman and woman or man and man it is a privilege that should be extended to those who promise to honor those vows.
Besides I was taught that only God can judge you no human has that power.
-
Besides I was taught that only God can judge you no human has that power.
People judge people all the time though. Heck, you can judge any god you want as well!
-
I'm an atheist and I'm married, so no, personal religious superstitions have no bearing on this conversation. If marriage was a religious institution, I wouldn't have been able to get married. It's a contract between you and the person you decide to marry. So, if homosexuals want to be married, they should not be prevented from doing so. It's just pure and simple discrimination otherwise.
As has already been pointed out, unless you're willing to adhere to everything your religious texts say, like stoning rebellious children, you're cherry-picking, which means I can disregard your viewpoint as a load of :bs:
-
I think most gay marriage will probably last longer than straight marriages because gay people have to fight the odds to get married. Their getting
married because they really want to not like most of the straight people who are just getting married because they think they should or their parents
are pushing them into it. :angry7:
-
I do not feel that gay marriage is a immoral issue. I believe that instances in the Bible that speak against it have been misinterpreted over the years. For instance, What Paul talks about in Romans (I think) deals with more of a social structure than anything to do with sexuality. In fact, the term homosexuality was not even existent back during these days. It is known through Roman writings and other archaeological information that gay couples were indeed fluent and accepted amongst the society as long as one came from more of a dominant family and one came from more of a submissive family. The issue of Sodom and Gomorrah deals more with gang rape than any issue of sexuality. I think it simply comes down to the fact that people fear what they do not know, and label it as sin, the devil, you name it. I am studying to be a counselor in a local seminary and I assure you that gay marriage will NOT bring forth famine, pestilence, earthquakes and the anti-christ. If you study history a bit, the same things were being said over the ending of slavery, women gaining the right to vote and desegregation. Face it, there are people, Christians included, that live their lives against things that are stated in the Bible (if you interpret those things literally.) Plus, you go Old Testament and we shouldn't even be playing football...
I think sometimes common sense needs to be applied in studying spiritual truths. I think a monogamous relationship, no matter what two individuals are involved, is a beautiful and highly spiritual experience. For those who are stuck on literal intepretations of the the Bible, I would simply bring up something that Jesus said himself: "Think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Just think about it.
The "devil" is not in those that think and act differently than us. The "devil" is the fear we have in those that think and act differently than us.
The Bible very clearly states that God considers Homosexuality a sin. (Going so far as to call it an abomination)In several passages of both the Old & New Testament. So,regardless how one might feel on the issue,I don't think anyone can honestly say with a straight face that God condones the practice.
-
As has already been pointed out, unless you're willing to adhere to everything your religious texts say, like stoning rebellious children, you're cherry-picking, which means I can disregard your viewpoint as a load of :bs:
It's not a case of "cherry picking",but of reading the scripture in historical and cultural context.
-
I don't have a issue with gays getting married.
-
The Bible very clearly states that God considers Homosexuality a sin. (Going so far as to call it an abomination)In several passages of both the Old & New Testament. So,regardless how one might feel on the issue,I don't think anyone can honestly say with a straight face that God condones the practice.
So this god creates homosexuality, makes it natural behavior throughout the animal kingdom that (in many cases) actually benefit groups of animals, and then condemns it a couple thousand years ago. Illogical.
It's not a case of "cherry picking",but of reading the scripture in historical and cultural context.
And since we don't stone children anymore due to historical and cultural context, we should also learn to shed such bigoted beliefs in condemning people for loving each other.
-
And since we don't stone children anymore due to historical and cultural context, we should also learn to shed such bigoted beliefs in condemning people for loving each other.
But, but but... bu "Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE... durrrrrrrr"
-
But, but but... bu "Adam and EVE, not Adam and STEVE... durrrrrrrr"
I'd expect such answers from JediJohnnie, but you!? lol
-
There is an inherent difference between the regulations God gave the nation of Israel to set them apart from the heathen nations that surrounded them and the laws against perversion.If you can't see the difference for yourself,it's doubtful there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise. :dontknow:
-
live and let live it does not matter what one does if they are not saved anyway. god is more understanding then we realize anyway i have my hands full dealing with my own sins to worry about someone elses conduct which they may have already taken to god
-
I am totally against it.
-
I am totally against it.
I wasn't expecting this considering your gay name.
-
I am totally against it.
I wasn't expecting this considering your gay name.
Way to get people on your side! :thumbsup:
-
I am totally against it.
I wasn't expecting this considering your gay name.
Way to get people on your side! :thumbsup:
Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.
-
There is an inherent difference between the regulations God gave the nation of Israel to set them apart from the heathen nations that surrounded them and the laws against perversion.If you can't see the difference for yourself,it's doubtful there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise. :dontknow:
Right. Right. Because stoning disobedient children to death is justifiable if the goal is to say "Hey heathens! Neener neener. I'm not like you!". Thanks for that clarification.
-
The passage that you're referring to,Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Isn't condemning 8 year olds to stoning for not doing the dishes,as some of you would like to believe. ::)
Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today) get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.
-
To each their own, I was surprised that as I was filling out paper they ask what sex my spouse was.
-
I am totally against it.
I wasn't expecting this considering your gay name.
Way to get people on your side! :thumbsup:
Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.
But ridicule doesn't change anyones' mind. It simply says "You're stupid," and the only thing that accomplishes is that the person being ridiculed won't bother thinking about the right or wrong of it. And the people who see/hear the ridicule have their prejudices reinforced.
If you want people to respect your point of view, then you have to be willing to respect theirs, even if it's wrong.
-
The passage that you're referring to,Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Isn't condemning 8 year olds to stoning for not doing the dishes,as some of you would like to believe. ::)
Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today) get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.
I'm familiar with the passage as I have read before in context. I'm familiar with what it entails (drunkenness and gluttony). I'm also familiar with this facepalm inducing response that basically says "No, you don't understand... If they're a drunk gluttonous MAN, their parents stoning them to death is ok". Yeah, 'cause the age is what I have a problem with. Are you actually serious with these responses?
The same thing with the she-bear passage. "Those weren't kids teasing Elijah for being bald. It was young male thugs. So having she-bears rip them limb from limb is ok :thumbsup: ". Because as we all know, adult males talking about another adult males hair is worthy of death by stoning. :sad1:
-
Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.
But ridicule doesn't change anyones' mind. It simply says "You're stupid," and the only thing that accomplishes is that the person being ridiculed won't bother thinking about the right or wrong of it. And the people who see/hear the ridicule have their prejudices reinforced.
If you want people to respect your point of view, then you have to be willing to respect theirs, even if it's wrong.
No. I can respect your right to have a view, but I don't have to respect the view if it's idiotic. I'm not trying to change the mind of an idiot. It's not worth it. They lack the capacity to understand basic concepts. I already responded to this so I'll just be repeating myself, but anyway "Someone 'totally against' someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that".
If someone can't figure out that denying others rights is wrong, they're an idiot and will be treated like one. I'm not going to waste my time reasoning someone out of a position they clearly didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
-
Someone "totally against" someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that. Right is right. An individuals hurt feelings does not compare to fellow human beings being treated as second class citizens.
But ridicule doesn't change anyones' mind. It simply says "You're stupid," and the only thing that accomplishes is that the person being ridiculed won't bother thinking about the right or wrong of it. And the people who see/hear the ridicule have their prejudices reinforced.
If you want people to respect your point of view, then you have to be willing to respect theirs, even if it's wrong.
No. I can respect your right to have a view, but I don't have to respect the view if it's idiotic. I'm not trying to change the mind of an idiot. It's not worth it. They lack the capacity to understand basic concepts. I already responded to this so I'll just be repeating myself, but anyway "Someone 'totally against' someone having the same rights as them deserves ridicule. You're not going to sway someone that can't grasp something as basic as that".
If someone can't figure out that denying others rights is wrong, they're an idiot and will be treated like one. I'm not going to waste my time reasoning someone out of a position they clearly didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Have you never been totally convinced of something, only to find out later that you were wrong?
Would being told you're an idiot have made any difference in what you thought? Or would it have made you question your beliefs?
And one more thing..were you born knowing right from wrong? Because if you weren't, someone taught you.
-
The passage that you're referring to,Deuteronomy 21:18-21,Isn't condemning 8 year olds to stoning for not doing the dishes,as some of you would like to believe. ::)
Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today) get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.
I'm familiar with the passage as I have read before in context. I'm familiar with what it entails (drunkenness and gluttony). I'm also familiar with this facepalm inducing response that basically says "No, you don't understand... If they're a drunk gluttonous MAN, their parents stoning them to death is ok". Yeah, 'cause the age is what I have a problem with. Are you actually serious with these responses?
The fact that you disagree with the passage should matter to me,because....?I'm sure you also disagree with stoning adulterers,but that was the law back then in the same way.Which brings me back to cultural/historical context being key.It was a harsher law then,and Christ came to fulfil the law.We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.
-
Read in context,it's talking about a rebellious mature man,given to drunkenness and other sin.The meaning was not to let "street punks" (as we might call them today) get coddled by their parents,but to shape up or face a severe punishment.
Oh okay that justifies stoning someone to death. Way to uphold that moral superiority card there.
We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.
So let's have a vote-
1.) Follow an ancient book that implores inequality and the barbaric treatment of people.
2.) Value/cherish love and logic between human beings.
-
The fact that you disagree with the passage should matter to me,because....?
I don't recall asking you what you felt about my disagreement with the passage. I would hope this being condoned by your god matters to you. It obviously doesn't though.
I'm sure you also disagree with stoning adulterers,but that was the law back then in the same way.Which brings me back to cultural/historical context being key.It was a harsher law then,and Christ came to fulfil the law.
There's no cultural/historical context that can make any of this ok. Your god was/is fine with it because he laid it out and presided over it. To be fine with this is just insane.
We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.
Yes, a lot of things are forbidden in the bible. A lot of things can get you stoned to death. I don't see how you separate homosexuality out as the one that sticks to today and the others can be forgotten about or somehow downgraded. Again, it's called cherry-picking. It makes zero sense. Anyone ok with denying fellow human beings rights is an a-hole.
-
Have you never been totally convinced of something, only to find out later that you were wrong?
Would being told you're an idiot have made any difference in what you thought? Or would it have made you question your beliefs?
And one more thing..were you born knowing right from wrong? Because if you weren't, someone taught you.
Being wrong about something that must be taught/learned (like driving a car) is different than being wrong on something where the answer can be reached through reason. In those instances, when you don't even attempt to apply reason, I'm going to call you an idiot.
So, if I park somewhere I shouldn't because I didn't know or forgot the rules of the road: No idiot. If I agree with denying others rights and can't justify it (because it's not justifiable): Idiot.
-
Argh! Now the debate is turning towards the end that I disagree with. Hopefully this won't incite more flaming replies (no pun intended; "flaming" in the computer sense of the term)...
The problem I have is when this topic turns into being about human rights... Marriage (esp. when you are talking about the legal definitions of it) is not a right; it is merely a contractual construct that dictates the interaction between people that form a family unit. It become a definition that can then be applied towards other laws, such as beneficiary laws, family law, tax laws, etc. As such, as long as the definition is fairly applied to all people, it shouldn't be considered to be infringing on a person's right to equal protection as defined in the 14th Amendment, even if the law appears biased, esp. if the person arguing for homosexual marriage based on a "human rights" issue uses a more common definition of marriage as being a union between two people in love. Furthermore, since "marriage" is defined in family law, the separate states are the ones that should be defining how they define marriage, and the federal government should be reflective of these many laws when it comes to a context in the national jurisdiction (eg how to handle retirement benefits of a federal worker with respect towards the person's marriage partner). So I agree that DOMA should have been struck as unconstitutional (since it would have been an unequal treatment of homosexual couples that were legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex unions as being legal marriages), and for the most part I agree with the Respect for Marriage Act.
The actual human rights of homosexuals are already applied in the law. Homosexuals are allowed to associate with, date, speak with, and love with whomever they want as protected under the 1st Amendment. And in part this argument was used when the courts correctly struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas (in addition to the Equal Protection clause in that many sodomy laws were only being used against homosexual type of sexual congress, but not when it came to similar actions in a heterosexual relationship) allowing people to have sex in any manner they wished to express themselves.
Thus if a state decides to define marriage as being between a man and a woman under some specious argument like wanting to increase that state's population, then I actually don't see a problem with it, as long as a) that law is equally applied (eg allowing for the "loophole" of having a homosexual man to marry a homosexual woman) and b) it doesn't infringe on other rights (eg the law doesn't ban an actual homosexual couple from cohabitating, since I feel that this does infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights to freely associate). But by the same token, most reasons for banning same-sex marriages seem to be based solely from a religious context, and because of that I can't really understand why a state would decide to make such a law if that state is also trying to keep that separation from the church.
-
Argh! Now the debate is turning towards the end that I disagree with. Hopefully this won't incite more flaming replies (no pun intended; "flaming" in the computer sense of the term)...
The problem I have is when this topic turns into being about human rights... Marriage (esp. when you are talking about the legal definitions of it) is not a right; it is merely a contractual construct that dictates the interaction between people that form a family unit. It become a definition that can then be applied towards other laws, such as beneficiary laws, family law, tax laws, etc. As such, as long as the definition is fairly applied to all people, it shouldn't be considered to be infringing on a person's right to equal protection as defined in the 14th Amendment, even if the law appears biased, esp. if the person arguing for homosexual marriage based on a "human rights" issue uses a more common definition of marriage as being a union between two people in love. Furthermore, since "marriage" is defined in family law, the separate states are the ones that should be defining how they define marriage, and the federal government should be reflective of these many laws when it comes to a context in the national jurisdiction (eg how to handle retirement benefits of a federal worker with respect towards the person's marriage partner). So I agree that DOMA should have been struck as unconstitutional (since it would have been an unequal treatment of homosexual couples that were legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex unions as being legal marriages), and for the most part I agree with the Respect for Marriage Act.
The actual human rights of homosexuals are already applied in the law. Homosexuals are allowed to associate with, date, speak with, and love with whomever they want as protected under the 1st Amendment. And in part this argument was used when the courts correctly struck down sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas (in addition to the Equal Protection clause in that many sodomy laws were only being used against homosexual type of sexual congress, but not when it came to similar actions in a heterosexual relationship) allowing people to have sex in any manner they wished to express themselves.
Thus if a state decides to define marriage as being between a man and a woman under some specious argument like wanting to increase that state's population, then I actually don't see a problem with it, as long as a) that law is equally applied (eg allowing for the "loophole" of having a homosexual man to marry a homosexual woman) and b) it doesn't infringe on other rights (eg the law doesn't ban an actual homosexual couple from cohabitating, since I feel that this does infringe on a person's 1st Amendment rights to freely associate). But by the same token, most reasons for banning same-sex marriages seem to be based solely from a religious context, and because of that I can't really understand why a state would decide to make such a law if that state is also trying to keep that separation from the church.
I do not agree, but I respect this post. It is articulate and well thought out. It has no place on this forum.
-
No one has the ability to choose their gender preference.- Just as one can not control which person/people one is attracted to or not. - Or to what degree.
Besides, who is anyone to tell two consenting monogamous adults what they can or cannot do with each other. That is just between them and is no one's business but their own. - Just as is for anyone, be they homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual.
Another point I'd like to add is this - Everyone should be free to have their own beliefs, whether any other single person agrees or not. And no one should have to endure having other people shove their belief systems in their face.
What faith doesn't proclaim that the next and all others are wrong and that theirs is the only true faith and you must believe or else (Except Buddhism).
And, ya know, there is a reason it is called "faith". - It isn't fact.
- Just Saying.
-
The fact that you disagree with the passage should matter to me,because....?
I don't recall asking you what you felt about my disagreement with the passage. I would hope this being condoned by your god matters to you. It obviously doesn't though.
I'm sure you also disagree with stoning adulterers,but that was the law back then in the same way.Which brings me back to cultural/historical context being key.It was a harsher law then,and Christ came to fulfil the law.
There's no cultural/historical context that can make any of this ok. Your god was/is fine with it because he laid it out and presided over it. To be fine with this is just insane.
We really needn't concern ourselves with these things when the topic at hand is homosexuality,which as a behavior is expressly forbidden in scripture.
Yes, a lot of things are forbidden in the bible. A lot of things can get you stoned to death. I don't see how you separate homosexuality out as the one that sticks to today and the others can be forgotten about or somehow downgraded. Again, it's called cherry-picking. It makes zero sense. Anyone ok with denying fellow human beings rights is an a-hole.
And with that said, JJ disappears into the darkness once more after being outsmarted by basic reasoning skills!
I do not agree, but I respect this post. It is articulate and well thought out. It has no place on this forum.
For all the stupids we have in D+D, there are a few people who know how to actually make a decent point. Cling to them!
-
What happened to equality? Love is love people.
-
I'm straight but I think that if Gay men or Lesbian women want to get married they should be allowed to I don't have a problem with it.
-
gay marriage if god wanted us to marry the same sex then he would not have made women or man so I am not with it .
-
gay marriage if god wanted us to marry the same sex then he would not have made women or man so I am not with it .
It seems as though you would benefit greatly from reading this entire thread. I suggest you do.
-
i am a christian... but who cares let the gay people marry it is not your lifestyle it is theirs! So out of respect let them do it! :wave: :peace:
-
did i mention that 2 family members of mine died of AIDS and were gay?
-
I am against that sort of behavior, I was raised to think otherwise....There is a saying "To each his own".
Thats all I have to say....They will have to face thier God in the end...
-
did i mention that 2 family members of mine died of AIDS and were gay?
Did you know straight people die of AIDS all the time too?
-
Love is precious and should be cherished wherever and with whoever it's found. Christ taught us to love everyone. He would not have turned anyone away. Adam and Eve were necessary to start a population, but now we have enough people to enjoy other options. Any couple who love each other and are committed to each other should have the same rights. :peace: :heart:
-
did i mention that 2 family members of mine died of AIDS and were gay?
Did you know straight people die of AIDS all the time too?
duh.... my point is i have nothing against gay people... i loved my uncle and cousin it is more common for gays tho...Thank the monkeys for the problem.
-
i am a christian... but who cares let the gay people marry it is not your lifestyle it is theirs! So out of respect let them do it! :wave: :peace:
Did u read this post too? mr falconer02?
-
What do u have against christians? hmmmmm....
-
gay marriage if god wanted us to marry the same sex then he would not have made women or man so I am not with it .
Projecting your illogical, antiquated, and unfounded view points based on an imaginary friend is infuriating ! People like you are intolerable!
-
i am a christian... but who cares let the gay people marry it is not your lifestyle it is theirs! So out of respect let them do it! :wave: :peace:
Did u read this post too? mr falconer02?
-
did i mention that 2 family members of mine died of AIDS and were gay?
Did you know straight people die of AIDS all the time too?
duh.... my point is i have nothing against gay people... i loved my uncle and cousin it is more common for gays tho...Thank the monkeys for the problem.
-
uh.... my point is i have nothing against gay people... i loved my uncle and cousin it is more common for gays tho...Thank the monkeys for the problem.
Well yes it is factual that it's more common in male homosexuals, but this is primarily because they don't use any forms of contraception (obviously).
Did u read this post too? mr falconer02?
I imagine I did, but I was just concentrating on your most recent post. I'm glad you quoted your previous post though!
What do u have against christians? hmmmmm....
A lot. Well...it's not necessarily the individuals, but the belief system as a whole that they adhere to. Cuppycake summed it up pretty well-
Projecting your illogical, antiquated, and unfounded view points based on an imaginary friend is infuriating !
-
Thats what makes it very difficult for me to follow every christianity group to the T. Becasue yes, in the bible it says that it is an abomination, but it aslo says that eating certain foods or animals are an abomination and we do it everyday. But the Christian commun ity focuses more over the debate of Homosexulaity. I've met so many evil spiteful hypocritical so called christians throughout my life. I feel like they are having relationships regardless or not we think its right or wrong. If someone wants to get married, at least they have enough respect for their partner to dedicate to them. Because even in the heterosexual world today, marraige is not always what everyone wants. At least someone wants to get married.
-
I've met so many evil spiteful hypocritical so called christians throughout my life.
I can almost guarantee you some of those have been on this forum.
-
That's why we have a separation of church and state. If your faith holds that homosexuality is a sin, then your church just won't allow / acknowledge homosexual marriages. But this has nothing to do with whether the state accepts homosexual marriage. If the state feels that it want to define the union of two people as being a marriage regardless of their sexual orientation, then it has the right to do so. However that separation of church and state goes both ways... This means that the state should not force churches to perform / sanction homosexual marriages either.
There is a picture going around FB that basically states how I feel... It shows a picture of an ascetic Jew and the caption reads "He doesn't believe in eating pork... But he isn't forcing me to stop eating bacon!"
I agree! Well said. Nice example, btw! :thumbsup:
-
God loves everyone, sinner too... who am I to say that something is wrong when God forgives us for whatever we do...
-
It is not my choice to make. It is God's choice since he made up the rules. So as long as God isn't interfering I will just stay out of it. As long as they are nice people that is all that matters to me.
-
thats interesting being friends with gays but against their marriage, personnally i think its awesome but thats me an all.
-
I hope that this train will crash soon, but right now it is on autopilot....
-
Question do Gay people believe in religion? If so what God do they believe in? I am just curious. No harm just a question.
-
too scary to know about this all :(
-
I agree blacksheepny, Im glad im not GOD judgement day..... 8)
-
We believe that the practice of homosexual acts, is unnatural and against God's law as laid out in the Bible. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
But we also understand that all humans are imperfect, we have all inherited sin from Adam and Eve, and the tendancy to have homosexual thoughts and inclinations may be another aspect of our imperfection. It is no different then, than any sin a person must fight against. Some of us heterosexual people may have tendancies we have to fight against too, Some may be tempted to commit adultery, or to sleep with someone they haven't married. Some may have to fight a desire to view pornography, or to drink too much or many other bad and sinful habits.
The person who is tempted by something, isn't a bad person, they are a sinner, the same as we all are. It is the person who acts on their temptations that has to work harder to fight against committing a sin.
So to answer your question? We have some brothers or sisters within our congregations who have homosexual tendancies (but who are not practicing homosexual acts). We do not view them as bad people. They may be willing to tell you that they feel "different" inherently. But they are willing to wait on Jehovah to correct any sinful tendancies they may have.
We don't teach hatred or disrespect of any individual. We do believe that each of us is responsible for our own actions, and that God has clearly taught in the Bible what actions are acceptable and what actions are sinful. We try and avoid sinning against Jehovah.
I know many in the world tell you that a person is "born" homosexual. This may be true. A person may be born blind too. Or may be born missing fingers or have some other physical imperfection. Or for whatever reason a person may have a strong inclination to want to have sex with children. Feeling this way, does NOT excuse acting on it. A person may have serious feelings of anger, and they may feel inclined to act on that anger, they may even want to kill someone. Feeling that way, doesn't excuse acting upon it.
God expects us to obey him and to avoid acting on sinful thoughts.
But we don't hate people. We love and respect all people. We know that they and we, all have our own sinful inclinations we are tempted to act upon "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".
They (because they have these feelings) are no worse than we who have feelings that make us want to commit other sins. But the Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are condemned and those who practice them (the same as those who practice fornication or adultery) are sinning against God.
-
But we also understand that all humans are imperfect
Homosexuality is not an imperfection. It is simply a difference from the norm.
We don't teach hatred or disrespect of any individual.
This is laughably false. Jehovah's Witnesses are actually some of the most hateful and disrespectful people I've known. The fact that this religion uses childish shunning and bullying tactics on people is proof enough. The fact that they use such ideals rather than simple loving routes in dealing with problems is the sign of a bad group of people.
...but I'm sure you're just going to push your face into one of your Watchtower magazines and completely ignore the fact I've stated rather than argue like an actual human being.
But the Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are condemned and those who practice them (the same as those who practice fornication or adultery) are sinning against God.
So you're preaching homosexuality as being the same as adultery and fornication? You are a sick, awful, misguided, and uneducated person. Have a nice day.
-
So basically we are all born sinners.
-
Romans 5:12
King James Bible
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
-
I figure, to each his/her own. They are people two, and need the option of marriage. Yes it is hard to understand as a Christian, but I don't have to live with it, they do. I know some and have two in my family and can't snub them. :highfive:
-
...but I'm sure you're just going to push your face into one of your Watchtower magazines and completely ignore the fact I've stated rather than argue like an actual human being.
Romans 5:12
King James Bible
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Called it.
-
Falconer.....first off i am quite flattered that you are annoyed that i dont stoop down to what you want.You must have died a 1000 deaths without me here for a year.
I let the other Falcons mean disposition get the best of me.I will compliment you.I dont perceive that kind of mean-ness in you.Just an obsession you have towards 1 who has a real dis-like for the way God has done things.And you being of free-will like all of us has a right to feel whatever way he wants to.
So all i can say is if you dont enjoy some of my biblical answers theres an ignore button.
Have a nice day!!!LOL!!
-
I dont perceive that kind of mean-ness in you.Just an obsession you have towards 1 who has a real dis-like for the way God has done things.And you being of free-will like all of us has a right to feel whatever way he wants to.
I'm not the one who believes a natural lifestyle is on par with adultery and fornication. That's a despicable thing to say.
So all i can say is if you dont enjoy some of my biblical answers theres an ignore button.
I have no problem with showing the falsehoods of what you preach. If you ever want to engage in an actual debate or discussion and not a bible-quote-athon, I'm all ears.
-
I know that everyone should have the right to marry. :rainbow:
-
Falconer,i dont need the bible to know that when a husband and wife have normal sexual relations and give life that its not hurtful desire and based on love.I also know that unsafe and abnormal sex brings on disease.God gives us instruction thru his word for protection.Again i am sure you are familiar with scripture "You reap what you sow"
Kinda hard to argue bible is full of falsehoods when you see the consequences of rebellion to the instruction.But again im not gonna beat my brains out to try and convince you.
You arent gonna hire a paintor to do your electrical work.If i choose to use bible to answer issues what of it?
You wanna discuss sports or music?I dont need the bible to speak of that...unless......
-
I'm a strong believer in god but I believe when he made man he made some people to be gay. I think that god did this to test us in tolerance.
-
Hey Teenangel....how would you like it if you were extremely obese and your dad went out and got a refrigerator and filled it up with ALL fattening food and plugged it in right next to your bed???
-
i think that they should have the same rights and abilities as the straight couples. and for those who say that they are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage what about all the celebrities who get married for 10 hours and then divorced or those who get married strictly for publicity like that's not ruining marriage.
-
Falconer,i dont need the bible to know that when a husband and wife have normal sexual relations and give life that its not hurtful desire and based on love.I also know that unsafe and abnormal sex brings on disease.
You do know that straight couples can and do get those same diseases, right? With this logic, lesbianism is the ideal relationship.
Kinda hard to argue bible is full of falsehoods when you see the consequences of rebellion to the instruction.
In this specific case we're discussing, I do not. Rebellion requires a choice and willingness to change something. When you're attracted to the same sex, that is a natural state. It's seen throughout the animal kingdom and actually benefits a lot of animal types (I can post examples if you wish). There's no need to rebel against this behavior. Such a choice would be unnatural behavior since you're choosing to restrict natural behavior.
And who are you to exclaim what's right? The only people effected by this behavior is the couple. No one else. If your god is against such behavior, he is bigoted.
But again im not gonna beat my brains out to try and convince you.
Like I've stated before, if you can come up with a decent and logical reason as to why this behavior is bad, you can easily convince me. I would only hope that when you read this, you can do the same.
You arent gonna hire a paintor to do your electrical work.If i choose to use bible to answer issues what of it?
Because you're a painter doing electrical work. You don't seem to have the proper aspects highlighted on this issue to really be displaying moral answers.
You wanna discuss sports or music?I dont need the bible to speak of that...unless......
Hahaha!
-
i think that they should have the same rights and abilities as the straight couples. and for those who say that they are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage what about all the celebrities who get married for 10 hours and then divorced or those who get married strictly for publicity like that's not ruining marriage.
Yes. There are too many of these people running around out there-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/d2/d2077112fb39afed4884aac9c1a18f401dbc7307cce92dc102499a39950125ae.jpg)
-
Sooo Gays do not have a religion or believe in it? Since they think they should have same rights but do they believe in same rights of the LORD.
-
i don't know where i stand on this issue i just don't know why the government needs to be in our bedrooms when the economy is so bad that some are losing their houses
-
Falconer if you went to Vietnam,it was a lot easier to get shot there then just walking out of your house.That doesn't mean the opposite couldn't happen."Time an unforeseen occurrence befalls all of us."A smoker has a better chance getting lung cancer than a non-smoker.Again that doesn't mean the opposite couldn't happen."Some people are mightier than others."
Practicing unsafe sex pertains to gays and straights.Gods arrangement of marriage wasn't to practice unsafe sex period!!It was an act of love that brought life between a man and a woman.
-
Falconer,as I stated in an earlier post there are baptized xtians that have strong feelings towards the same sex.But as long as they don't act upon them and dismiss them its NOT a sin.And the sinful condition of man contributes to us having those feelings.Its like a recovering alchoholic...its rough but with Gods help you can win the battle.
-
Funny you should call it 'gay' marriage. Most marriages today are 'gay'---both homo- AND hetero-; the minute they stop being 'gay' & start being 'work with a delayed payoff,' people today (with today's media-caused ADHD) start hunting for divorce ... possibly even 'cheating' FOR THE PURPOSE OF divorce (as 'Jesus says that adultery's the only GOOD reason for divorce').
How Christians ever got the idea that marriage involves 'two people who LOVE each other,' I can't see. The only God-ordained marriage I see (besides the big metaphor-one between Jesus & The Church) was between FATHER & DAUGHTER! (bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh) for the purpose of ... life-purpose? verification of righteousness? other things a man lacks when he is alone?
Marriage today is just another distraction to keep our minds off the prison where we wait on the hope that seems to never come true. :(
-
I follow my beliefs as a christian and respect the rights of others to live their life as they choose, after all Jesus did not judge so why should I. I have gay friends and family members and love them all the same.
-
Practicing unsafe sex pertains to gays and straights.Gods arrangement of marriage wasn't to practice unsafe sex period!!It was an act of love that brought life between a man and a woman.
So gay marriage is alright then? As long as they practice safe sex?
as I stated in an earlier post there are baptized xtians that have strong feelings towards the same sex.But as long as they don't act upon them and dismiss them its NOT a sin.And the sinful condition of man contributes to us having those feelings.Its like a recovering alchoholic...its rough but with Gods help you can win the battle.
I'm not sure alcoholism is a good parallel to a normal human relationship pattern. Unless the beer has a conscious itself, is capable of handling a relationship, and you're sexually attracted to the beer? Either way, this is an extremely rude example.
Willingly resisting normal attraction can cause humongous emotional problems in people. So these people you speak of? Their resistance to being themselves is probably hurting them deeper and deeper than you will ever know. Since they're in a group of people that shuns such behavior, I can only hope they realize their fault of being in that group of people before they waste their life away not being the person they truly are.
-
Practicing safe sex being gay????
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose when you played <if you did> baseball when you were out you were really safe!!!!
Again permit me......LOL!!!!
-
Practicing safe sex being gay????
To prevent STDs and infections, yeah. You were the one who brought up diseases, so I'm just going off of that notion. Homosexuals can use this approach.
-
I follow my beliefs as a christian and respect the rights of others to live their life as they choose, after all Jesus did not judge so why should I.
What they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine ... UNTIL IT BECOMES A PUBLIC AFFAIR! When that happens, your children see it and--not being firmly indoctrinated 'in your image' yet--they think it's okay for them (just like swear-words & violence in today's entertainment).
-
Practicing safe sex being gay????
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose when you played <if you did> baseball when you were out you were really safe!!!!
Again permit me......LOL!!!!
Wow, you gleefully wallow in ignorance. You actually think the things you say make sense. It's absolutely unreal.
I follow my beliefs as a christian and respect the rights of others to live their life as they choose, after all Jesus did not judge so why should I.
What they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine ... UNTIL IT BECOMES A PUBLIC AFFAIR! When that happens, your children see it and--not being firmly indoctrinated 'in your image' yet--they think it's okay for them (just like swear-words & violence in today's entertainment).
Yes, this is why gay kids only come from gay homes, living in gay societies. ::)
-
Gay kids should be dealt with their parent's. Christians should stay in their place of their religion. Stop Judging. Your not PERECT. Help your other Religion peoples like Catholics.
-
I AGREE with the whole separation of church & state statement . Church doesn't have anything to do with law . If two people want to marry, it should be allowed. Who are we to say no to love ? Nobody . People should be able to have peace within their relationship no matter what age, gender, or color. Love is LOVE . You cant help who you're attracted to. :female: :female: :male: :male: :female: :male:
-
Practicing safe sex being gay????
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose when you played <if you did> baseball when you were out you were really safe!!!!
Again permit me......LOL!!!!
Wow, you gleefully wallow in ignorance. You actually think the things you say make sense. It's absolutely unreal.
I follow my beliefs as a christian and respect the rights of others to live their life as they choose, after all Jesus did not judge so why should I.
What they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine ... UNTIL IT BECOMES A PUBLIC AFFAIR! When that happens, your children see it and--not being firmly indoctrinated 'in your image' yet--they think it's okay for them (just like swear-words & violence in today's entertainment).
Yes, this is why gay kids only come from gay homes, living in gay societies. ::)
So each homosexual thinks IT ITSELF is inventing 'coming out'?
-
I am a Christ follower as well. So I choose to believe what the Bible says about marriage. Therefore, I don't agree with gay marriage. All of the examples that mention homosexuality, according to the Bible, lets me know that it is something that is an abomination before God.
-
Practicing safe sex being gay????
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose when you played <if you did> baseball when you were out you were really safe!!!!
Again permit me......LOL!!!!
Wow, you gleefully wallow in ignorance. You actually think the things you say make sense. It's absolutely unreal.
I follow my beliefs as a christian and respect the rights of others to live their life as they choose, after all Jesus did not judge so why should I.
What they do in the privacy of their own homes is fine ... UNTIL IT BECOMES A PUBLIC AFFAIR! When that happens, your children see it and--not being firmly indoctrinated 'in your image' yet--they think it's okay for them (just like swear-words & violence in today's entertainment).
Yes, this is why gay kids only come from gay homes, living in gay societies. ::)
So each homosexual thinks IT ITSELF is inventing 'coming out'?
I don't even understand what you're saying here.
-
When many think gays can have safe sex it really isn't worth discussing the issue anymore cos it tells me just how far gone their morals are.Also I understand they could give a dam about what bible say about this.There are posts here that make Jesus sound like hes neutral re this.LOL.Do you really think he would go against what his father viewed as a sin?So not only do you contend with atheists,non-beleivers etc.....you deal with some who write their own rules re bible.
But that's par for the course in this world we live in being held together by a Band-Aid.
Glad to see some here support what God thinks on this matter.
-
I don't know if this will spark lively debate but where do you stand on gay marriage? Personally, I'm conflicted with faith and gay friends. For example, I am a christian so I am oppose to gay marriage but I have quite a number of gay friends. It seems like for me it is a balance between being a friend of someone with a different lifestyle and following the teachings of the Bible. I have always heard the phrase "hate the sin, not the sinner." What do you say?
And you are in the middle. You are the sample of the correction. You stand in the middle to correct them in right way of love. They have love in a wrong way and you are the one will bring them in the correct way. You have the power and faith in you. And use it to power the other with love in right direction... :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :heart:
-
When many think gays can have safe sex it really isn't worth discussing the issue anymore cos it tells me just how far gone their morals are.
They can though. Perhaps you aren't aware? I'm uncertain as to how this is immoral. It's between the couple-- it's not up to you or some ancient god or book to say what they can and can't do. Even straight couples do ay-nul (I spell it like that due to the forum filter bleeping it) and the same risk is present.
I understand they could give a dam about what bible say about this.
Well if it does not take basic individual rights into account, I don't blame them. You're talking about a book that you think has moral superiority, yet it condones slavery, so...
Glad to see some here support what God thinks on this matter.
Yes, and they've already displayed themselves as bigoted narrow-minded individuals who cannot grasp the concept of basic human rights.
-
BTW Mr Johnson i meant to ask you...being that you seem to reply to posts that you dont understand,what happens when you understand one?
Write a novel??
-
BTW Mr Johnson i meant to ask you...being that you seem to reply to posts that you dont understand,what happens when you understand one?
Write a novel??
(http://i.imgur.com/ZCkbaxF.gif)
-
BTW Mr Johnson i meant to ask you...being that you seem to reply to posts that you dont understand,what happens when you understand one?
Write a novel??
Well, it's not surprising that you and your friend JJ find this amusing giving that neither of you can grasp this simple concept:
When you don't understand something due to someone being unclear, you should express that you don't understand so that you may gain clarification as opposed to your current approach of not only pretending you understand but insisting you have some insight on a subject when it can easily be proven that you clearly don't, spout uneducated nonsense, receive correct verifiable information but promptly ignore it because you would have to admit to embracing idiotic beliefs all of your life, continue to sound like a fool and wallow in ignorance like a pig in slop.
So no, I don't need to write a novel when I understand something. A paragraph or so will do. Thanks for your inquiry into how I approach understanding... if only you'd apply this same curiosity to how all human beings and the world work. I look forward to the day when you two understand anything at all.
-
Why even ask this question here unless your intent is to stir up? I mean what is the point? Why should you care what my opinion is? Live your life the way you see fit.
-
When many think gays can have safe sex it really isn't worth discussing the issue anymore cos it tells me just how far gone their morals are.
This isn't a moral issue, it's a mental capacity issue. "Safe sex" is simply using protection while having sex. So, if homosexuals use protection while having sex, guess what? They're having safe sex :o
I guess I get your point though, given that heterosexuals only have sex in wedlock from arranged marriages (to their cousins of course to keep with the teachings of the bible), only for the purposes of procreation with one partner their entire lives, and only in missionary position through a hole in a sheet. This is of course why heterosexual's never contract STD's and never have kids out of wedlock.
Also I understand they could give a dam about what bible say about this.There are posts here that make Jesus sound like hes neutral re this.LOL.Do you really think he would go against what his father viewed as a sin?So not only do you contend with atheists,non-beleivers etc.....you deal with some who write their own rules re bible.
Let me get this straight (as opposed to getting it gay...'cause that's unsafe): The bible condones slavery, treats women like crap, kids can be stone to death for being disobedient, contains wonderful tales of god sending she-bears to kill kids because they were teasing a bald man as well god killing the first born sons of Egypt for the transgressions of their parents, and sacrifices his own son to himself (wow, your god really hates kids) to appease himself, but what really sticks in your craw is gay people touching each other with their cooties? This is all fine with you but you have the nerve to lecture others on morality?
Please look up the words "irony" and "hypocrisy" given that you absolutely must stand against homosexuality because the bible says so, but the immorality of murder and destruction are in the same damn book and are condoned or committed by your god, yet this is fine with you and you say it's others "who write their own rules re bible"? That fog of ignorance and hypocrisy you live in must be choking off oxygen to your brain.
-
Why even ask this question here unless your intent is to stir up? I mean what is the point? Why should you care what my opinion is? Live your life the way you see fit.
One) I don't think anyone's here for any reason more-serious than the $3-per-month FC graciously allows us to take. But two)--if there is a 'practical' reason for asking such a question--I imagine it is this: to navigate the opinion-minefield social-media can be.
-
Well Mr Johnson I guess I got my moneys worth asking you that.
So lemme get this straight <no pun intended>....anyone using protection is having safe sex?
So as long as I bring a slingshot in to the bedroom with my wife I can do anything to her?
Ya see,sometimes you can answer someone based on their answers and be influenced on what to say and rather than argue or debate the issue be entertaining to the rest reading this.
-
BTW Mr Johnson i meant to ask you...being that you seem to reply to posts that you dont understand,what happens when you understand one?
Write a novel??
Well, it's not surprising that you and your friend JJ find this amusing giving that neither of you can grasp this simple concept:
When you don't understand something due to someone being unclear, you should express that you don't understand so that you may gain clarification as opposed to your current approach of not only pretending you understand but insisting you have some insight on a subject when it can easily be proven that you clearly don't, spout uneducated nonsense, receive correct verifiable information but promptly ignore it because you would have to admit to embracing idiotic beliefs all of your life, continue to sound like a fool and wallow in ignorance like a pig in slop.
So no, I don't need to write a novel when I understand something. A paragraph or so will do. Thanks for your inquiry into how I approach understanding... if only you'd apply this same curiosity to how all human beings and the world work. I look forward to the day when you two understand anything at all.
So basically,Like Falconeer,you consider yourself so intellectually superior,that us fleas are beneath you with our primitive beliefs and are not worthy of your great wisdom.
I swear,I've seen arrogance in Atheists in my time in cyberspace,but this place sure knows how to breed 'em.
-
I have brought this up before.I am not sold on the fact that Mr Johnson and Falconer are atheists.And as I said when you see their distaste,distain and just overall dislike for a Creator,how can you feel that way about someone you didn't think existed?
Its also funny how they choose parts of the bible that they think makes God look cruel.
Why don't they look at the definition of Love in Corinthians?You wont find a better one for a word that is taken for granted in this world.Or the fact that God allowed A&E to have off-spring?So ungrateful for being born.Or that food tastes so good or whats more beautiful than a sunset?
I could go on and on but I need not.
-
Why even ask this question here unless your intent is to stir up? I mean what is the point? Why should you care what my opinion is? Live your life the way you see fit.
One) I don't think anyone's here for any reason more-serious than the $3-per-month FC graciously allows us to take. But two)--if there is a 'practical' reason for asking such a question--I imagine it is this: to navigate the opinion-minefield social-media can be.
Because your guaranteed to get a answer like this one which really does not answer your question but take you on a merry go round of what they feel is a educated answer. My Opinion is we have a bunch with nothing to do, but flood the forum with their education or what they feel is much smarter than most. ::) ::) ::)
-
So basically,Like Falconeer,you consider yourself so intellectually superior,that us fleas are beneath you with our primitive beliefs and are not worthy of your great wisdom.
I swear,I've seen arrogance in Atheists in my time in cyberspace,but this place sure knows how to breed 'em.
I sense a lot of insecurity in that post.
.I am not sold on the fact that Mr Johnson and Falconer are atheists
You're partially correct with me- I'm an agnostic-atheist, which simply means I don't rule out the possibility of there being metaphysical life, but since there isn't any proof nor has there ever been any, it's foolish to act like there is. Especially when one claims ancient people's writings who knew very little of the natural world are proof of these beings.
And as I said when you see their distaste,distain and just overall dislike for a Creator,how can you feel that way about someone you didn't think existed?]
Because you believe in this one ancient god and are spreading misinformation around- example being you don't understand the definition of safe sex and are going on wild tangents (Sling shot? Really? Your S+M thoughts are very unique! lol). You also skipped the points I made about this one god being a malevolent and unjustly god, so you're either playing the ignorance card here, or you failed to read my post.
Or the fact that God allowed A&E to have off-spring?So ungrateful for being born.Or that food tastes so good or whats more beautiful than a sunset?
I'm certain modern-day homo sapiens didn't come from incestuous roots, I am not ungrateful for being born because we live in a remarkable time, I like food, and enjoy sunsets when it's not wickedly cold out. Your entire statement incorrect- you have now proven yourself to be a liar, which...is a sin. But I guess I'm arrogant for pointing that out, right? ::)
-
Well Mr Johnson I guess I got my moneys worth asking you that.
So lemme get this straight <no pun intended>....anyone using protection is having safe sex?
So as long as I bring a slingshot in to the bedroom with my wife I can do anything to her?
Ya see,sometimes you can answer someone based on their answers and be influenced on what to say and rather than argue or debate the issue be entertaining to the rest reading this.
Falconer already beat me to the S&M quip, so I'll just address the fact that your attempt at humor is only to avoid the subject. If your points were valid, there'd be no need for distractions.
When you don't understand something due to someone being unclear, you should express that you don't understand so that you may gain clarification as opposed to your current approach of not only pretending you understand but insisting you have some insight on a subject when it can easily be proven that you clearly don't, spout uneducated nonsense, receive correct verifiable information but promptly ignore it because you would have to admit to embracing idiotic beliefs all of your life, continue to sound like a fool and wallow in ignorance like a pig in slop.
So basically,Like Falconeer,you consider yourself so intellectually superior,that us fleas are beneath you with our primitive beliefs and are not worthy of your great wisdom.
I swear,I've seen arrogance in Atheists in my time in cyberspace,but this place sure knows how to breed 'em.
The projection is strong with this one.
The very first sentence is about how I deal with not understanding things. Why would someone claiming such intellectual prowess admit to not understanding something? That's not stated in this paragraph nor in anything I've read in posts by Falconer... but anyway, been there, fielded that...
Btw, without fail, no matter the forum, online or otherwise, believers will always whip out "he's so arrogant" or "he thinks he knows everything". This is of course an ad hominem. It's very high school. I liken it to a pretty girl who all the guys are into, walking by another group of girls. She says nothing and is just minding her business, but what's the first thing that comes out of the other girls mouths? "She thinks she's all that!" She's just walking by! YOU must think she's "all that" and you don't compare. Instead of acknowledging this inadequacy, you instead project it on to her where it manifests itself (in your head) as her being conceited. You can now, of course, proceed to attack this short coming "she" has.
The only one talking about how "intellectually superior" we are, is you... on more than one occasion I might add. This says way more about you than us. You're the guy that says "everywhere I go, it always smells terrible", and never once thinks to check the bottom of your own shoes.
I have brought this up before.I am not sold on the fact that Mr Johnson and Falconer are atheists. And as I said when you see their distaste,distain and just overall dislike for a Creator,how can you feel that way about someone you didn't think existed?
I'm sure, as is the case with most Christians that try to run this tired line, you have some warped idea of what atheism is which would be why you're not "sold". I discuss god the same way I discuss any villain in any book, play or movie. When you discuss Star Wars, when talking about Darth Vader, do you start off every sentence with "Though I don't believe Darth actually exists..."?
My distaste and disdain is for people like you. You spout this garbage and have no concern for the fact that this actually affects people's lives. Homosexuals are your relatives, your friends, your coworkers... they are real people. They are soldiers, police, fire fighters, babysitters, and teachers. You have the nerve to admonish others for being cafeteria Christians when that's all you are. You pick and chose what you want believe. You're a hypocrit. The passages on slavery and homosexuality are both in Leviticus yet you only chose to focus on one of those. I wonder why that is? You're a coward. Either own it all or own none of it. When this is pointed out to you, instead of addressing it head on (because you know you can't reconcile this), you, like a coward, want to change the subject to the parts of the bible that make you feel all warm and fuzzy in side...
Its also funny how they choose parts of the bible that they think makes God look cruel.
I don't have to make your god look cruel, the bible does that without my help. You ignore it because you can't reconcile what you want to believe with what's actually there.
Why don't they look at the definition of Love in Corinthians?You wont find a better one for a word that is taken for granted in this world.Or the fact that God allowed A&E to have off-spring?So ungrateful for being born.Or that food tastes so good or whats more beautiful than a sunset?
Why don't you look at the fact that Hitler was a painter? Some serial killers give to charity too. I'm grateful for my parents and cooks that make such great food and the farmers that grow it.
I could go on and on but I need not.
Please don't. You should've never started. Keep your head in your bible learning wonderful things like not suffering witches to live and I'll keep refusing to suffer fools. We'll see which piece of advice turns out to be more useful.
-
I don't have much faith in marriage to begin with. It is a stupid custom. I think if gay people want to get married let them. At least they really want it. The Christian faith has done nothing but cause problems for everyone. >:( >:( >:(
-
Mr Johnson...seriously,keep your posts short.It bores me to tears how you rant on and just say the same stuff!!
Trust me,i know how feel about bible etc.My replys to you are for others to learn....NOT to debate or convince you!!
http://youtu.be/wcEAD3G8wBE
-
... My Opinion is we have a bunch with nothing to do, but flood the forum with their education or what they feel is much smarter than most. ::) ::) ::)
Oh? Then what is the purpose of these forum, that is accomplished by something other than "letting my light shine brightly for all to see"?
-
Mr Johnson...seriously,keep your posts short.It bores me to tears how you rant on and just say the same stuff!!
Trust me,i know how feel about bible etc.My replys to you are for others to learn....NOT to debate or convince you!!
http://youtu.be/wcEAD3G8wBE
You're an unbelievable coward. You can't defend your moronic beliefs nor the morally bankrupt source of them so you pretend that was never your goal in the first place. Spare me. You are transparent and empty.
All anyone could possibly learn from you is immorality and cowardice. I don't give a damn about your bible. I care about how your refusal to use your brain affects people's lives. You don't care about people. You and your ilk disgust me.
Short enough for you?
-
Mr Johnson........
z-z-z-z-z-z-z
Long enuff for you?
-
Mr Johnson,its 10PM.....
Do you know where your thank you post is to Falconer?
-
You avoiding the issues I've brought up is all the thanks I need. It's like a boxer not getting off his stool... you just can't answer the bell ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_coping
Avoidance coping
In psychology, avoidance coping, or escape coping, is a maladaptive coping mechanism[1] characterized by the effort to avoid dealing with a stressor.[2] Coping refers to behaviors that attempt to protect oneself from psychological damage.[3] Variations of avoidance coping include modifying or eliminating the conditions that gave rise to the problem and changing the perception of an experience in a way that neutralizes the problem.[3]
-
You avoiding the issues I've brought up is all the thanks I need. It's like a boxer not getting off his stool... you just can't answer the bell ;D
This is what Jehovah's Witnesses are fairly well known for. They're actually trained to do stuff like this- if they can't answer the question, they completely avoid the issue and start quoting their various sources in an attempt to change the subject. I've seen it in real life and I've seen it with Hitch, so I'm honestly glad it's posted for all to see.
I don't have much faith in marriage to begin with. It is a stupid custom. I think if gay people want to get married let them. At least they really want it. The Christian faith has done nothing but cause problems for everyone. >:( >:( >:(
I wouldn't go that far. I mean it causes a lot of problems, but some good does come out of it. I got a kick out of The Onion's recent article- http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/
The major problem with religion at the moment is it's just seeing a lot of irrelevance in current-day society. This thread is proof enough. Why do you think the current Pope is such a star? Why do you think he said it's not for him or anyone to judge homosexuals? He's a great guy and all, but the state of the Catholic church is awful and people are leaving in droves due to it's mafia-style corruption and wicked past. Catholicism must be in some dire trouble. People are slowly wising up to this type of stuff and realizing it's just not for them.
-
You avoiding the issues I've brought up is all the thanks I need. It's like a boxer not getting off his stool... you just can't answer the bell ;D
This is what Jehovah's Witnesses are fairly well known for. They're actually trained to do stuff like this- if they can't answer the question, they completely avoid the issue and start quoting their various sources in an attempt to change the subject. I've seen it in real life and I've seen it with Hitch, so I'm honestly glad it's posted for all to see.(
Haha.. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses ask to leave my house. They ask to come in, so I let them, but for some reason, they always have some place they really need to go not too long after we start talking hahaha. This happened with a couple of nuns too. Maybe it's something I said. :dontknow:
-
Mr Johnson,dont you think if I can see where YOU ARE AT,dont you think someone in person can see that as well???So I don't blame them for NOT being comfortable with you.I see it here....in person I am sure they see it even more so.
Also,what can I say.Both you and Falconer don't agree with what Bible says as I use it to answer questions and points.
So what is the sense in trying?You call me a coward?I think that's hilarious!!!You and Falconer are relentless and obsessed to prove whoever wrong...xtians etc.So as I say I enjoy putting the posts up even if 1 person gets something out of it.The benefit I get out of it with you and Falconer is most of the time some clean humor comes out of it.
You enjoy the bickering back and forth which leads to name calling etc.I don't get mad at either of you if don't support bible.I accept your ignorance.
-
And yet again, you duck your head, tuck your tail between your legs, and run. That sounds like a coward to me.
You still have yet to address the points made. Passages on slavery are in the same book as passages on homosexuality, yet you zero in on one and not the other. You must stand against homosexuality, but you don't stone disobedient children to death. Again, I don't give a damn about your bible. You believing this nonsense affect the lives of real people. That's all I'm concerned about.
You distract, duck, tuck, and run (I call this "The Hitch"), you're a coward.
-
... My replys to you are for others to learn....NOT to debate or convince you!!
All anyone could possibly learn from you is immorality and cowardice.
If that's all you want to see (maybe because that's all you're comfortable with ::) ), then that's exactly what you're going to find.
The major problem with religion at the moment is it's just seeing a lot of irrelevance in current-day society. This thread is proof enough. Why do you think the current Pope is such a star? Why do you think he said it's not for him or anyone to judge homosexuals? He's a great guy and all, but the state of the Catholic church is awful and people are leaving in droves due to it's mafia-style corruption and wicked past. Catholicism must be in some dire trouble. People are slowly wising up to this type of stuff and realizing it's just not for them.
Okay, let's get back on topic. 'Homosexuality' is one of those things that people should keep strictly to the privacy of their 'secret places' (yes, the same place they should be when they pray ... God's smart enough to know when He can look again, right?).
People 'whipping it out in public' is bad when 'it' is heterosexuality (where the phrase 'get a room' comes into play); maybe we ought to add '... and keep it there' to the 'get a room'-phrase, especially regarding HOMOsexuality!
-
Well Mr Johnson or others,if you could pick out a scripture i will do my best in discussing it with you...you bring up stonings,slavery etc...can you be specific to a scripture or 2?
-
Well Mr Johnson or others,if you could pick out a scripture i will do my best in discussing it with you...you bring up stonings,slavery etc...can you be specific to a scripture or 2?
Well since you're offering, I'm curious-
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Without diving into the whole convenient and naive "Slavery was a lot different back then!" fallacies, how is owning people and justifying the beating of them a moral law?
And two others-
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Leviticus 20:15-16
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
How can one justify a harsher punishment for beest-eeality (filter override) over the rape of a woman?
-
Well Mr Johnson or others,if you could pick out a scripture i will do my best in discussing it with you...you bring up stonings,slavery etc...can you be specific to a scripture or 2?
Well since you're offering, I'm curious-
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Without diving into the whole convenient and naive "Slavery was a lot different back then!" fallacies, how is owning people and justifying the beating of them a moral law?
And two others-
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Leviticus 20:15-16
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
How can one justify a harsher punishment for beest-eeality (filter override) over the rape of a woman?
Wouldn't all this be better as a separate discussion?
-
I've answered the first one before.Put simply,it's to protect someone from being wrongly sentenced to death.If the victim dies two weeks after getting beaten,it's probably not the beating he died from.
The other is a popular one."God makes women marry their rapist"It's actually there to protect the woman,to see that she and any potential children are cared for.In those days if a woman wasn't a virgin,she wouldn't be allowed to marry.(No "respectable" man would,and she would be in danger of being condemned for prostitution.)
The "other" sin falls under "perversion" which also (you guessed it) includes homosexuality.
Not that I expect our resident atheists to except or understand any of that.
-
I've answered the first one before.Put simply,it's to protect someone from being wrongly sentenced to death.If the victim dies two weeks after getting beaten,it's probably not the beating he died from.
You have steered around the problem though--
The other is a popular one."God makes women marry their rapist"It's actually there to protect the woman,to see that she and any potential children are cared for.In those days if a woman wasn't a virgin,she wouldn't be allowed to marry.(No "respectable" man would,and she would be in danger of being condemned for prostitution.)
And this is acceptable moral behavior? Christians take their beliefs from people who thought this was the moral way to go about things? You really don't see the giant gap in logic here?
The "other" sin falls under "perversion" which also (you guessed it) includes homosexuality.
And unfortunately for this belief system and due to nature (the thing that you believe your god created), homosexuality cannot be a perversion as it's seen throughout the animal kingdom. The contradiction here is very obvious.
Not that I expect our resident atheists to except or understand any of that.
I'm sure you'll gather that we get the context of these passages-- when and why they were written (ancient laws that worked back in the day, etc.). The major issue being highlighted here is why believers of this book will pick-and-choose what they want. "Slavery? Yeah it's wrong, but this is old and this what they used to do. Rape? Wrong, but they had weird laws in place back in the day. Homosexuality? Despite this law being old and everything, it's still a perversion! The book commands it to be taboo! I'M AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE OF THIS OLD LAW!". It's a shining example of very faulty scapegoat logic.
I'm sure if slavery were still around in this country and if it was in the same turmoil that gay marriage is in right now, the many passages in Exodus with laws on slavery would be tossed around as 'proof' that owning people is the way to go about things. It's an interesting thought.
-
The "other" sin falls under "perversion" which also (you guessed it) includes homosexuality.
And unfortunately for this belief system and due to nature (the thing that you believe your god created), homosexuality cannot be a perversion as it's seen throughout the animal kingdom. The contradiction here is very obvious.
Although I often hold that "Scriptures" written after the Gospels & Acts are mostly just 'speculation,' I'll echo St. Paul who says that--in following Jesus Christ--we put off our "old man" and become a new creation ... God informing us that the old creation was such a sin-doomed failure that he needed to see 'rainbows' to remind Himself not to EX-TER-MI-NATE all of it!
Not that I expect our resident atheists to except or understand any of that.
I'm sure you'll gather that we get the context of these passages-- when and why they were written (ancient laws that worked back in the day, etc.). The major issue being highlighted here is why believers of this book will pick-and-choose what they want. "Slavery? Yeah it's wrong, but this is old and this what they used to do. Rape? Wrong, but they had weird laws in place back in the day. Homosexuality? Despite this law being old and everything, it's still a perversion! The book commands it to be taboo! I'M AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE BECAUSE OF THIS OLD LAW!". It's a shining example of very faulty scapegoat logic.
I'm sure if slavery were still around in this country and if it was in the same turmoil that gay marriage is in right now, the many passages in Exodus with laws on slavery would be tossed around as 'proof' that owning people is the way to go about things. It's an interesting thought.
Jesus said, "To everything (Carpenters in the background: 'Turn-turn-turn') there is a season ('turn-turn-turn')." I sure hope 'being straight' doesn't become a "sin" like slavery, rape, pedocide etc. But I think the message there was that 'the context is part of the cause of the action.' Sort of the way that Buddhists believe we are all in all-ten-worlds all the time (that 'the world you are MOSTLY in' is decided by how you focus & interact with your environ).
-
I live in the United States of America. I believe that our Constitution protects equal rights for EVERYONE in our country. That means that if a gay person cannot marry the person they love, but a straight person can, they are not equals. Therefore it is in direct violation of the constitution not to allow gays to marry.
Personally, I believe that each person should choose their path and that others do not have the right to decide what is right for anyone but themselves.
-
If the Bible did not exist? What would you say about this?
-
I've answered the first one before.Put simply,it's to protect someone from being wrongly sentenced to death.If the victim dies two weeks after getting beaten,it's probably not the beating he died from.
It has absolutely nothing to do with justice as you're trying to portray it. Even if it did, it's clearly not for the slave. All it takes is for the slave to die on the 3rd day, when it would be very clear that they died from injuries received from their beating, but that's all it would take for their assailant to face no punishment at all.
And it's not "someone" it's specifically slave owners. We're not talking about someone being wrongly accused and sentenced, we're talking about slavers known for beating their slaves. There would be no guidelines for this common practice otherwise.
What you're dancing around though is that you have to accept slavery as being ok, you have to accept the ownership of human beings as property, you have to accept beating another human being severely enough that they could die within a day or two from their injuries, and you accept someone beating another human being essentially to death and getting away with it, as long as they hold out for 3 days.
The other is a popular one."God makes women marry their rapist"It's actually there to protect the woman,to see that she and any potential children are cared for.In those days if a woman wasn't a virgin,she wouldn't be allowed to marry.(No "respectable" man would,and she would be in danger of being condemned for prostitution.)
It's beyond disturbing that you can write this at all, be ok with it, and not see the glaring issues it has. Women were treated as property. This had nothing to do with protecting the woman. It had to do with her being damaged goods the father now had to get off of his hands.
Really? Being forced to marry someone that has zero respect for your personhood, so much so that they feel they can violate you and take what they want from you without your consent, is considered "protection" to you? That's in the best interest of the woman though she has no say in the matter? She has to live with this savage for the rest of her life and that makes sense to you? (I say the rest of her life, because if rape is a reason to get married, I don't see what could possibly be a reason for divorce). What, he's going to settle down, have a few kids and change his ways?
What is wrong with you? If this was your mother, daughter, or sister, would you accept this?
The "other" sin falls under "perversion" which also (you guessed it) includes homosexuality.
In typical fashion, you avoided the question here. He asked how you could condone harsher punishment for laying with a beast over the rape of a woman. Rape an animal, you die, rape a woman, you get a new family.
Not that I expect our resident atheists to except or understand any of that.
Wow, you're actually being smug about accepting the fact that your god and your bible condone slavery, rape, and treating women as property and less than animals?
You are clueless beyond belief. We're not asking you to explain these passages to us. Trust me, we've already read them and understand them. We're asking why you accept them. None of this is ok. Do you not get that?
You mention a woman marrying her rapist to avoid being accused of being a prostitute. We understand that this is the case, what we don't understand is why you accept blaming the victim as ok. This society that your god laid down the rules for and presided over has women living amongst savages and they (the women) are punished for the savagery carried out against them.
None of this is right. It never has been and it never will be, and you know this. Acknowledging this would force you to question your beliefs, so instead it's the evil immoral atheist that has the problem. This must be the case in order for you to continue to avoid the thought that your bible and your god are not what you want to believe they are.
-
I will try to get to them all eventually.....Exodus 21:20
This Scripture talks about a Hebrew slave owner was permitted to strike his slave whether male or female with a stick if the slave was disobedient or rebellious. But if the slave died under the beating, the slave owner was to be punished. If the slave lived "for a day or two days" after the beating this would be evidence indicating that the slave owner did not murder his slave. The slave owner did have the right to disciplinary punishment, the slave was "his money."
It would be unlikely for a man to want to destroy something of his own valuable property, therefore suffering a loss. Also if the slave died a day or more, it might not be certain whether death was from the beating or from some other cause. So if the slave lived a day or two, the master wouldn't be punished.
-
(http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg)
-
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If an unscrupulous man felt at liberty to have sex relations with a virgin, she would be the primary loser. Besides the possibility that she might have an illegitimate child, her value as a bride was diminished, for many Israelites might not want to marry her once she was no longer a virgin. What, though, would discourage a man from taking liberties with a virgin? God’s “holy and righteous and good” Law would.—Romans 7:12.
-
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922215054/creepypasta/images/a/ab/Jesus_facepalm.jpg)
The only "righteous, holy, and good law" would be one that abolishes slavery, doesn't condone owning people as property, and punishes rapists, and only the rapist, for their crime and not the victim.
It's unbelievable that you would think anything short of that is "righteous and good". I have no use for the word "holy". Given what your god and you think is "good", it should be easy to see why.
-
Leviticus 20......
23 Statutes on blood and other matters (17:1–20:27). This section sets out many statutes for the people. Once again blood is prohibited in one of the most explicit statements on blood to be found anywhere in the Scriptures. (17:10-14) Blood may properly be used on the altar, but not for eating. Detestable practices, such as incest, sodomy, and bestiality, are forbidden. There are regulations for the protection of the afflicted, the lowly, and the alien, and the command is given, “You must love your fellow as yourself. I am Jehovah.” (19:18) The social and economic well-being of the nation is guarded, and spiritual dangers, such as the worship of Molech and spiritism, are outlawed, with death as the penalty. Again God emphasizes separateness for his people: “And you must prove yourselves holy to me, because I Jehovah am holy; and I am proceeding to divide you off from the peoples to become mine.”—20:26.
-
Congrats,PP,your childishness finally earned you a spot among the ignored!B'bye! ;D
-
You side with slavery and rape, but so called "childishness" is what you absolutely can't stand for. Yeah, you're really taking a stand there ::)
-
The amount of ignorant, delusional, and immoral behavior by the christian side here is easy to see. I'm not trying to be offensive here either- nobody seems to want to explain how these scriptures (when put on the same table with homosexuality) are logical and moral ways to go about things. Instead all I see is blind faith put in barbaric teachings.
Congrats,PP,your childishness finally earned you a spot among the ignored!B'bye!
I should really write to the moderators here and ask that whenever JJ posts, it automatically deletes the text and puts this link- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4dVEVCJ__A
It would be unlikely for a man to want to destroy something of his own valuable property, therefore suffering a loss. Also if the slave died a day or more, it might not be certain whether death was from the beating or from some other cause. So if the slave lived a day or two, the master wouldn't be punished.
HITCH- I didn't originally ask for a lesson in context, though I do appreciate the research done. My questions about those scriptures are these-
Without diving into the whole convenient and naive "Slavery was a lot different back then!" fallacies, how is owning people and justifying the beating of them a moral law?
How can one justify a harsher punishment for beest-eeality (filter override) over the rape of a woman?
I recommend reading mine and Johnson's posts before you answer since I think we brought up some more issues within them.
-
Mr Johnson and Falconer i wanna ask you 2 something before continuing this discussion.....
Both your views about God.Does he exist OR do you just dis-agree with his rules,counsel,laws etc?
BTW Falconer thanx for thanking me for my research...LOL!!
-
O-M-FSM! This thread IS NOT 'The Existence of a Totally Logical God: Where Do You Stand?' it's "Gay Marriage: Where do you stand?" Now, some of you may regard 'the latest translation of the inspired word of God' as the ground you stand on; but the Constitution of the United States (and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, based on 19th century French intellect) is written for "We the People," not 'We the Specially Chosen by God/Allah/Flying-Spaghetti-Monster!'
Now, should I 'report to moderator' any further church-V-state blabber?
-
And i will answer that last post what the apostles said at Act 5:29....
Obeying God as ruler NOT men!!
-
Both your views about God.Does he exist OR do you just dis-agree with his rules,counsel,laws etc?
I do not believe in any defined god, so I do not believe in your god in the same sense I would not believe Zeus exists. Therefore I don't believe in any of the rules these gods supposedly set. I'm not saying they're all wrong, but the fact that these rules were made in barbaric ancient times and seem to apply to those times only, it's pretty clear that they were created (and condoned) by man and not a god.
An omniscient all-knowing loving god would know that homosexuality is a natural occurrence, and a universal law on the issue would be a law of equality between straight/bi/gay couples. Instead it is not. It shows flaws in basic logic, so I don't see how one can think a god would allow this.
the Constitution of the United States (and the U.S. Declaration of Independence, based on 19th century French intellect) is written for "We the People," not 'We the Specially Chosen by God/Allah/Flying-Spaghetti-Monster!'
Exactly. No religion should have a final say in this cultural topic. The talk of religion in this thread is just to show how absurd the idea is for religion to have a say in this.
-
Mr Johnson and Falconer i wanna ask you 2 something before continuing this discussion.....
Both your views about God.Does he exist OR do you just dis-agree with his rules,counsel,laws etc?
I don't believe god/gods exist and have zero reason to believe. Whether a god exists or not, his laws are utterly repugnant.
And i will answer that last post what the apostles said at Act 5:29....
Obeying God as ruler NOT men!!
Your god lays out rules for slavery instead of just outright abolishing it, and, in the case of rape, he condones blaming and punishing the victim instead of just the rapist and the rapist alone. Mans laws are far superior to your god's. We get it wrong, but we can see that and change for the better and not stay stuck in some time warp. This is absolutely not the case for your god.
All sorts of tyrants say "obey me and no one else!!!" So what? You have to evaluate whether what you're obeying makes sense or not, is just or not. The fact that you are so readily willing to defend slavery and rape tells me, no, this does not make sense and is not just. What is wrong with you that you cannot see this? I'm not asking this to be antagonistic. I'm really not. I just seriously want to know what you're not getting.
-
I am not going to clutter the forum with explanations from The WatchTower online library.The scripture in Eccl 8:9 that man has dominated himself to his own injury should be enuff for honest hearted individuals to read the truth on the many issues in the world.
Briefly you bring up God condones slavery but didn't he hear the cries of Israel?
The gay issue is just 1 of many things in this world where people will decide for themselves whats good or bad and NOT care what God feels about it....that's if they even think he exists.
Again to those that need answers I suggest going to the Watchtower online library and punch in what you need to know about and get bibles view...if you are so inclinded to do so.I don't feel like shoveling crap against the tide with some here and again to those that want truth its there for you to seek and find as Jesus said.
-
I love the charge "God condones slavery". The whole book of Philemon is Paul begging his friend to treat his slave,not like a slave,but as a brother in Christ.lol And we Christians don't read the Bible!
-
JJ...you actually helped me write less by bring that up.....Remember the scripture that Jesus says to remove the straw from your eye first....well its obvious theres a few scarecrows here!!
They only wanna see what they wanna see.The command in Genesis to decide for yourself whats good and bad is quite prevalent in todays society!!
-
I love the charge "God condones slavery". The whole book of Philemon is Paul begging his friend to treat his slave,not like a slave,but as a brother in Christ.lol And we Christians don't read the Bible
I am aware of this, but the foundational argument is still glaring- slavery existed and was allowed to exist even though there are much more civil routes to take. Instead of challenging the moral condundrums of slavery, they just sprinkled slavery with some sugar. And this god condoned that behavior, which is despicable and can rationally be seen as malevolent/uncaring decisions by the writers.
The whole point that seems to constantly be ignored here is why the religious think they can say offensive things like "Homosexuality is a perversion" when, in the same area of the bible, it says slavery is all right along with a bunch of other questionable things. It's a cherry-picking fallacy.
They only wanna see what they wanna see.The command in Genesis to decide for yourself whats good and bad is quite prevalent in todays society!!
Isn't it strange that cultures that evolved without Judaism, Christianity, or Islam somehow had very similar basic moral laws in place? It's as if these people used common sense! Who would have thought?
-
Falconer....its the same thing...God allows gays to go on as he did slavery.....again doesn't the scripture "man dominating man to his own injury"mean anything.
Much wickedness prevails in this world.God allows wars etc......The bibles view of his allowance of this means nothing to you...He gets the blame for allowing it when mankind and Satans influence caused it.
He gives us rules and guides to avoid it but when man disobeys then u blame him.Read on in OT and see how Israel was punished for dis-obeying etc as well as other parts of bible.
You only wanna see what you wanna see.The world ISNT a mess today cos of the CREATOR!!
-
I am not going to clutter the forum with explanations from The WatchTower online library.The scripture in Eccl 8:9 that man has dominated himself to his own injury should be enuff for honest hearted individuals to read the truth on the many issues in the world.
All there is is man and all we can do is attempt to get it right. Your gods prescriptions are in no way shape or form "right".
Briefly you bring up God condones slavery but didn't he hear the cries of Israel?
This is really your example? The time he killed crops, animals, and a bunch of kids that had nothing to do with this, to free, not all slaves, but just a particular group of slaves in a particular area? Really? He lays out how Israel can treat their foreign slaves and their Hebrew slaves, and this is your example of him not condoning slavery? Seriously? You're not joking?
The gay issue is just 1 of many things in this world where people will decide for themselves whats good or bad and NOT care what God feels about it....that's if they even think he exists.
They "gay issue" is in the same place as the slavery issue. Your god condemns one and supports the other. If you're going to condemn homosexuality because the bible says so, why don't you support slavery because the bible says so?
You're dodging this question for a reason and you know exactly what that reason is.
Again to those that need answers I suggest going to the Watchtower online library and punch in what you need to know about and get bibles view...if you are so inclinded to do so.I don't feel like shoveling crap against the tide with some here and again to those that want truth its there for you to seek and find as Jesus said.
We've read it already. Do you not understand this? We know the truth about it and it's disturbing. You're ducking and running because you absolutely know you can't reconcile what you want to believe with what's actually there. Not the rape, not the slavery, not the infanticide, none of it.
You're best example involves infanticide and JJ's example is about one slave. In neither of these examples does it say slavery should be abolished. Jesus goes on to tell slaves to obey their masters. You clearly only "wanna see what you wanna see".
-
Falconer doesn't want to admit it,(he begged that this not be brought up as I recall) but Slavery was treated as a necessary evil in those days.There was no welfare system.If you were in debt to your eyeballs,you were sold as an indentured servant until you could pay back your creditors.
I should point out,this was a far cry from the kind of slavery seen in America,which was based on race.The slavery of ancient times was based solely on economics.You couldn't pay,you worked it off (in most cases.)
-
Falconer doesn't want to admit it,(he begged that this not be brought up as I recall) but Slavery was treated as a necessary evil in those days.There was no welfare system.If you were in debt to your eyeballs,you were sold as an indentured servant until you could pay back your creditors.
When did I beg that this not be brought up? I said it was fallacious reasoning as I will explain-
The selling of humans is an immoral act. I agree with the necessary evil here since the ancient times were the epitome of barbaric behavior and there's nothing we can do about it now, but, again, you keep hopping around the point I'm trying to make- you take your wisdom from a book that talks about how to own slaves. Moreover, it talks about how far you can beat them down. Did no red flags come up in your mind when you read the 2 previous sentences? The moral way would be to speak of the abolishment of slavery, but (as far as I'm aware), it simply condones the act of slavery.
You can attempt to soften the concept of slavery all you want (whether it be race or economy-based), but it's still an immoral act from the start.
You only wanna see what you wanna see.The world ISNT a mess today cos of the CREATOR!!
Really? Tectonic plate shifts, asteroid strikes, natural desertification, airborne diseases, etc. those are all man-made messes? Please broaden your viewpoint.
-
You have read bible...LOL....my my what short memories.
Cursed is the ground on your account seems to slip your minds!!
So do you guys blame God for dropping bomb on Hiroshima and killing countless woman and children too??
You might as well if you blame him for slavery!!
Or if children get molested cos so called teachers of bible rape them...does God get blamed for that too?
Just remember Jesus said many would love the darkness and he also said "Get away from me you workers of lawlessness"...ones who claimed to teach truth but didnt teach nothing but mans doctrines!
-
Just remember Jesus said many would love the darkness and he also said "Get away from me you workers of lawlessness"...ones who claimed to teach truth but didnt teach nothing but mans doctrines
Don't you think it's ironic how the bible is a doctrine written by men?
So do you guys blame God for dropping bomb on Hiroshima and killing countless woman and children too?? You might as well if you blame him for slavery!!
If this god was real, I would. A good parental figure wouldn't stand by and allow such evils to happen. It's common sense. But we cannot share common ground on that notion because you have more fictional stories to back up and justify such immoral and uncaring behavior.
Until you can step into the realm of reality and have a rational debate on the morality of slavery, rape, and homosexuality, (I'm sorry to point out that the bible has so far been proven to be extremely irrational with these subjects) there's really no reason in going any further. And it's also a good thing that our society has evolved to a point where we can point out atrocious and unfair behavior caused by people who have opinions like your own.
-
For me I am in Neutral because I mind my own business lol....I know that was there feeling to get married same sex. So, that's there problem to God. Because they're Old enough and they know what is right what is wrong. :star:
-
So do you guys blame God for dropping bomb on Hiroshima and killing countless woman and children too??
You might as well if you blame him for slavery!!
Or if children get molested cos so called teachers of bible rape them...does God get blamed for that too?
Just remember Jesus said many would love the darkness and he also said "Get away from me you workers of lawlessness"...ones who claimed to teach truth but didnt teach nothing but mans doctrines!
That reminds me of the movie (from the comic-book) THE WATCHMEN, where a couple of 'superheroes' (SPOILER ALERT) ... stop all the nations from fighting each other by 'going rogue' & setting off some nuclear explosions to make the nations think they need to join forces against an enemy---killing millions to save billions more.
I guess that's why 'gay marriage' is an option for the individual (and the government is only considering it to maintain 'peace' between gays & straights): because they're going to 'get together' anyway ... we can either support them in their getting together or 'reject them from society' for their getting together.
-
I live in the United States of America. I believe that our Constitution protects equal rights for EVERYONE in our country. That means that if a gay person cannot marry the person they love, but a straight person can, they are not equals. Therefore it is in direct violation of the constitution not to allow gays to marry.
Personally, I believe that each person should choose their path and that others do not have the right to decide what is right for anyone but themselves.
Although I agree with the sentiment behind this post, I disagree with saying that this is a violation of the constitution since technically it is treating homosexuals the same under the law as the law is written. If a homosexual male tried to get a marriage license with a female and was turned down because he was gay, then that would be a case of unequal protection under the law.
The issue is that you're talking about equality under the law (which is true), but then you term "marriage" as being between people in love instead of using its term under a more strict, legal definition. Under a more legal term, marriage is just a contract set up under the government for purposes of further clarifying other laws that use the term "marriage" in the legal sense. As such, the government can define what constitutes a legal marriage... And because this is just a legal definition, people don't have it as a "right"; rights are allowances that people innately have even without the constructs of a government. So you have a right to travel wherever you want on the public roads, but you do not have a right to a driver's license as the driver's license is just a government construct. Similarly, you have a right to the pursuit of happiness including the right to associate with whomever you want; however you do not have a right to a marriage license.
To put this in a different way, if the question was whether homosexuals should be allowed to date, be in love with each other, make love, co-habitate, etc. then this would definitely be an issue of equal protection under the law. This is why the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as they felt that how people chose to engage in sex (esp. in a private setting) is outside the purview of the government.
Now because most people use your definition of marriage as being some special union between people in love, it is very easy to see why so many people are talking about their right to marriage.... What they (and I suspect you) are actually saying is that they feel that homosexuals have a right to love whomever they want. And in this respect, that is true. That is why I feel that some of the marriage laws should be broadened to define marriage more along the lines of who a person wishes to live with regardless of sexual orientation.
-
Shove your constitution!!
Mark 10:6-12
New International Version (NIV)
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
-
Shove your constitution!!
This is almost on par with those crazy Westboro guys. "I'll disrespect the constitution, even though it's the primary reason why I can say such a thing!". The naivety of this is astonishing and it's a major reason why this particular small religion is eroding away in 1st world countries. Keep up the good work, Hitch.
6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
And this is just one belief of many. This law you follow here is being made better by our own culture- allowing others to join and share the same rights you and I do.
-
Eroding away...LOL...Falconer you must have a crystal ball that needs a battery.
Go look up the attendance for Lords evening meal last year <Memorial>
-
Well quite frankly it isn't anyone elses business how others want to live and I personally think it should be allowed because its their right to choose with who or what they prefer and I don't see where it is hurting you or anyone else..... My fiancé and I feel it should be their choice and that is saying something for my fiancé because he is a homophobe so if he can look past his own somewhat ignorance then I feel anyone can because he is the most opinionated person I know.
-
Eroding away...LOL...Falconer you must have a crystal ball that needs a battery.
Go look up the attendance for Lords evening meal last year <Memorial>
Cherry picking. Why only highlight the one major event in this church and not the actual statistics? Why not retention rates or growth rates in 1st-world countries? http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statistics.php
And besides- one who looks down upon their society's gov't and refuses to participate shouldn't have a say in gov't...so I honestly have no idea why you're even in this thread because the thread is about present-day gay rights.
Well quite frankly it isn't anyone elses business how others want to live and I personally think it should be allowed because its their right to choose with who or what they prefer and I don't see where it is hurting you or anyone else..... My fiancé and I feel it should be their choice and that is saying something for my fiancé because he is a homophobe so if he can look past his own somewhat ignorance then I feel anyone can because he is the most opinionated person I know.
Unless he's some crazy religious person, the best way to make him think about his standpoint is to ask him what if he was unable to love you due to the law? Would he consider that fair? Ultimately he has the right to be homophobic, but if it's trampling on other people's rights, that's where the problem is.
-
Well quite frankly it isn't anyone elses business how others want to live and I personally think it should be allowed because its their right to choose with who or what they prefer and I don't see where it is hurting you or anyone else..... My fiancé and I feel it should be their choice and that is saying something for my fiancé because he is a homophobe so if he can look past his own somewhat ignorance then I feel anyone can because he is the most opinionated person I know.
What if I don't want 'my witness' and/or 'the power vested in (the judge or minister saying the marriage)' to stand for "fruitless copulation"? Which is what it would do if I lived in a state that unites same-gendered partners as such.