Gay Marriage: Where do you stand?

[BJohnsonPP]

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?

[hitch0403]

Mr Johnson........

z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Long enuff for you?

[hitch0403]

Mr Johnson,its 10PM.....

Do you know where your thank you post is to Falconer?

[BJohnsonPP]

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 

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]

[Falconer02]

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 

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.

[BJohnsonPP]

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 

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. 

[hitch0403]

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.

[BJohnsonPP]

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.

[mythociate]

... 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!

[hitch0403]

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?

[Falconer02]

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?

[mythociate]

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?

[JediJohnnie]

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.

[Falconer02]

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.

[mythociate]

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).