Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My religion belongs to me, and I prefer to keep it that way.
I try to live by the golden rule. You should try it some time.
Well said. I openly admit to my atheism and rarely engage others in religious debate (forums like this aside) as long as my beliefs are respected too. However, I do get angry when a Christian (or a member of another religion) fundamentalist tells me I can't be moral because I don't believe in god. I've a strong sense of ethics, I'm very empathetic and I think I'm more moral than most Christians to be quite honest. And I don't think a lot of Christians are moral at all; if you act in the way you think is moral because you don't want to burn in hell for eternity then you aren't moral, you're an opportunist.
No. The fact that something is tradition doesn't make it right or moral. It used to be tradition to believe slavery and segragtion were moral and correct. We now know these things were immoral and wrong. Also, making marriage a heterosexual privilege only creates inequality. I wonder what anti gays would think if the situation were flipped around and they were the ones being prohibited from getting marriage. I find it interesting that anti gays consider it okay for a heterosexual axe murderer to get married, but not a homosexual.
Well said. I openly admit to my atheism and rarely engage others in religious debate (forums like this aside) as long as my beliefs are respected too. However, I do get angry when a Christian (or a member of another religion) fundamentalist tells me I can't be moral because I don't believe in god. I've a strong sense of ethics, I'm very empathetic and I think I'm more moral than most Christians to be quite honest. And I don't think a lot of Christians are moral at all; if you act in the way you think is moral because you don't want to burn in hell for eternity then you aren't moral, you're an opportunist.
Exactly! I don't donate, my time, money, and talents because some big sky daddy is keeping score. I do it because if I want to make a difference for just one person. If I can make one persons day better, it is all worth it.
It makes me smile when I'm reading to Ms. Greer in the nursing home, and listening to her tell me about her childhood on her good days. Or taking Mr. Ball out for a walk in the garden.
I'm happy teaching children to dance. And watching them improve over the year.
I love seeing an animal that may have been put down because of behavioral problems become a happy, well adjusted family member for someone.
No book, or mythological figure had to tell me to be good to others.
OK - what does your god say about gay marriage? And who is your god?
I'm a Jenova's Witness. My god is perfectly fine with gay marriage. She even brought forth her son, Sephiroth knowing that he would be in an everlasting and vacillating Redrom/blackrom relationship with The Disciple, Cloud.
Who is my god? She is Mother. Jenova.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
The people in the Bible did not get it right all of the time.
All you need to know is one man, one woman, cleaved together for life - Genesis 2. This is not difficult or burdensome.
Ah, but there were other forms of relationships were not smitten or destroyed. People in these relationships that were not OneMan/OneWoman were not only safe, but they were celebrated. The Bible even tells that these types of relationships are perfect and normal. If they weren't, the Bible would explicitly say so. It doesn't.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 07-09-2012 at 02:53 PM..
Implying causality between human behavior and natural disasters...I'm sorry, but that's delusional.
I dunno. Did the axis of evil republicans bring hurricane Katrina, tornadoes, and the gulf disaster upon us all? How about global fiscal catastrophe as a result of their golden calf worshiping? All those red states with droughts, freakish storms, and hetero men gone stark raving mad assassinating their families? The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse came from red states! Spooooookkkyyyy! I don't know why you can't see it. After all, everyone knows red= communism, AND the blood lusty color of the devil himself. Concrete irrefutable evidence that republicanism is intrinsically evil.
What I'm saying might seem irrelevant to the thread header, but it is quite relevant in the context of a larger cultural theme for centuries that atheists have poorly articulated but Christians ought to know better by now. The commandment not to take the Lords name in vain means what to those convinced of their own omnipotence and aspire dominion/ control over the freewill of all others for personal gain? The commandment to not take the lords name in vain means what to prosperity preachers and their fleeced flock? It means what to clergy who promise a politician to deliver X number of voter blocks for cash? It means what to male dominated cultures who demand all worship them as if they were God? All of the above claim to be Christians but their behavior speaks otherwise in plain sight. Framing a statement God said not to eat poison berries and God killed someone for eating them introduces 3rd party narrative thinking but for some who are less capable of abstract thought it mentally disconnects their own hands as architects of their own doom.
Take a step beyond the heap of superstitions & literalism, and the lesson people refused to learn that destroyed Sodom & Gommorrah, Rome, and a whole raft of former civilizations can be found in the Bible if only people didn't warp the parable into what they wanted to read. Seen from an allegorical lens, the seeds of doom start internally with a diminished reverence for the sanctity of life that becomes a race to the bottom (hell on earth) where reverence for all life goes extinct. Most Christians have been taught to believe the cities were irredeemably wicked because of their wanton abuse of sexuality- as if homosexuals were 99% of the population in 2 obscure cities in the middle east. That's statistically impossible even in San Francisco on international gay pride day or the Island of Lesbos. The nature of their arguments reveal that their working definition of homosexuality= heterosexual men who abandoned all discipline over themselves and derived pleasure from sexual violence dominating an entire city so severely that nothing decent could exist. There is not a dispute that the behavior is horrific & unwelcome in any community throughout human civilization, but the whodunnit, and most importantly, their motives for doing it, is very much debatable.
To which I ask of homosexuals--- is participating in a reenactment of "Deliverance" a sexual fantasy for y'all? I see zero evidence that any one of you do or ever did, but I think it important gays publicly debunk this illusion running like a program between the lines themselves. Equal time-- To which I ask of self described Christians-- if sexual violence were the anathema you claim it is that justifies vehement homophobia, why has Judeo-Christian law & culture been so reliably limp wristed about 1. women actively defending themselves, 2. stringent legal enforcement & 3. harsh consequence for rapists, pedophiles, and incestuous acts , YET reserve a death penalty in their minds for what 2 consenting males do where no one has been victimized and a bizarre double standard of applause for what 2 consenting women do where no one has been victimized save for the crime of voyeurism by a drooling uninvited audience (also insisting out of the sides of their mouths they are Christian)? Curious indeed! Lets see how they scapegoat gays for all of the above phenomena. Then they'll vacillate wildly and claim women made them do it the very same way Adam reflexively blamed Eve from the get go.
The Herodias demanding a gay head on a plate by proxy is not womankind hating on gays or anything Jesus taught. It's social conservatives and what self identifies as 'orthodox' reinstating the old covenant. In other words, not Christianity, but the very social and judicial power mongering phenomenas perverting religion that Christianity was birthed for the purposes of rejecting.
Quote:
Titus 1:15-16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
And the reason why practicing Christians often have the appearance of tacit approval because they never run Phelps et al out of town on a rail for blasphemy...
Quote:
Luke 21:8-9 And he (Jesus) said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.
When seemingly good people go silent, it is not approval or agreement they are offering. It is shunning.
...Your definition of marriage provided above doesn't come close to resembling the modern institution of marriage... the implications of your views are rather terrifying.
Indeed they are. So says this Christian heterosexual lady. I guess that wedding I attended for 2 MS patients who would never be physically able to consumate their marriage makes their commitment to one another null and void from the peanut gallery that will never have any consequence applied to themselves? If a husbands plumbing fails to work, is that legitimate grounds for dissolving a marriage? Dana Reeves should have dumped Christopher Reeves? She didn't. Apparently she knew more than a thing or two about love.
Marriage, it would appear for some, is for the sole purpose of legally sanctioned pay one price sexual relations. Don't lease a prostitute, buy one and turn marriage into legalized prostitution. Any wonder why divorce rates are what they are? I pity the woman who marries a juvenile delinquent. Truly.
There can be, and is "gay" marriage already in the US. It is called marriage. You go get a MARRIAGE license, go to the JP, or a church that allows same sex ceremonies, or a park, or the beach, or your own back yard and have any (or no) ceremony and than you get a MARRIAGE certificate.
No church is required for ANY marriage to be legal.
True. I have no clue what Leis is getting at. He talked in circles. It's like that same argument people use that gays can't get married because they're hedonistic and unstable. How is banning marriage/ prohibiting partnerships for centuries not considered the cause of the effect? They've created a self fulfilling prophecy only to turn around blaming gays for rules they never authored applicable to themselves. How would gays ever be able to prove they've been a couple for how long if not for the threats to their lives for revealing their identities?
As for the public validation-- it should be honored as any other legal contractual agreement for the sake of business. How many show up for the wedding, anniversary parties, or holiday gatherings is all about the people they call friends. The rest is none of anyone's business unless someone is getting harmed by abuse. No one determines the quality, character or the endurance potential of any relationship but the individuals themselves. Marriages are as unique as the individuals entering into the agreements. That's true of heteros, and I have no doubt it will also be true of homosexuals. Maurice Sendak lived with his partner for 50yrs until death did part them. How is that not a committed marriage? How can hospital and insurance policies put themselves in the business of discriminating against gays for no legitimate reason? Are they a business or a pretext for sharia law institution?
Furthermore, it's not the job of the planet to carry on their backs a hetero marriage anymore than it would be a homosexual marriage. I make no decisions for them, I don't want to, I have no right to, nor am I willing to accept one tablespoon of liability for what people do in their marriages. No ifs ands or buts about it. Sweep your own porches, folks. Simple as that.
If heteros and churches keep carrying on like this, I think it best we remove every financial incentive born on the backs of single folks to financially prop up legalized prostitution claiming itself to be marriage. I have religious objections to supporting these kinds of marriages and do not care to have my tax dollars subsidizing them anymore than atheists care to see their tax dollars feeding religion. It just might pan out to be the best defense of marriage removing the wrong motives for getting married from the equation.
Let me get gay married and I'll get back with you and let know if it works or not.
Deal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
