Quote:
Originally Posted by youngabe
1. All true. You're free to call homosexuals sinners or even use derogatory language to describe homosexuals. That is your freedom of speech and that's your freedom to have a region. This won't change. What WILL change is something that doesn't effect you. Gay people will be able to marry just as you can.
|
Abe, it's obvious that there's no convincing you. So let's just allow it to play out, shall we? After all, what choice do we have? The well-financed and ignorance-supported liberal propaganda machine has managed to brainwash most people - even those who weren't initially ignorant - and the tide is in favor of the gay agenda. Nothing I, or any other conservative, could say would change that. Therefore, if you don't think that those who oppose gay marriage are going to lose any rights (such as the right to oppose it and manifest such in a non-governmental role without fear of legal recourse being taken against them), we'll just have to see, won't we?
However, the evidence shows that we will. Why else would there be such a big deal about a bakery in Oregon? Why else would churches be rushing to change their by-laws so that it is explicitly stated that they will not solemnize homosexual marriages?
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngabe
2.  WHAT? You "lose" something? You're still allowed to marry a 400 pound woman if you wanted, you can divorce said woman, you can do whatever you desire. Shall I translate what you said? "In the eyes of the law, I'd then be equal to homosexuals and that rattles my superiority complex. So, I am essentially losing, because I'd be equal to 'those people.'" |
We lose the right to freely manifest opposition to gay marriage. 20 years ago, if a baker said that he was not going to bake a cake for a "gay marriage" (or whatever it would have been called in 1993), .
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngabe
History lesson? Let's go back and tell women that. Then, we'll fast forward and tell African Americans that.
|
This is why people with brains will never take y'all seriously. (Gee, I sound like a scratched record...)
There is scientific proof that people are born with their gender and their race. You cannot become a female if you were born a male, and you cannot become a male if you were born a female. You cannot become white if you were born black, you cannot become Native American if you were born Hispanic, etc, etc, etc.
Such scientific proof does not exist, to show beyond doubt that we are born with our sexuality. All we have are studies that lean one way or the other. That's not good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by youngabe
You do realize how hypocritical this sounds, right? "Ignore that old stuff, THIS is what you want to focus on." Man is basically making his own set of rules as to what should be followed and what shouldn't. Someone came along, looked at the Bible and said, "Eh, this stuff isn't necessary anymore, that's too hard to live by...take all that out, and roll with this." |
The Bible says it. I'm just the messenger. Read the verses I cited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Should people who marry hetrosexuals, also support marrying ducks? afterall, its only love. If you will f' a woman, most likely you will f a duck? Why - because I said so
|
Um... no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Look - the above has nothing to do with gay marriage. Why ask about unrelated things and ask for a stance? having sex with a sister, brother, or cousin is a seperate event from two consenting unrelated adults. They aren't equal. Apples and oranges. Your stance on this and its allowability isn't even close to your stance on couples
|
They're related insofar as they're also choices which, thus far, have been illegal in American but have been practiced by small fringe groups. This is what homosexuality was, until recently. Therefore, if homosexuality is fully legalized through the "right to marry" all over the place and what not, then what stops those other fringe groups from seeking full legalization of their lifestyles? Why should they be discriminated against?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
for instance: christian organizations have for a long time allowed marriage between sisters and brothers. We have had quite a few of those in our past, including queens and kings. These people would of been against gay marriage.
|
Name one truly Bible-believing Christian organization that does this... or even "did" this. (I'm not talking about the whack-job "Christian" organizations like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
So we are now comparing two consenting adults with a adult (or two kids) not old enough to consent? Seriously? You do know these are VERY different things ? adults consenting and kids (who aren't old enough to consent). There is a reason we say age of consent, and when a kid is old enough to separate authority from non-authority actions.
|
And what exactly is that reason? Why is a 16-year-old more able to consent than a person who is 15 years and 364 days old? (here we go again...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
and many very religious areas have under 16 brides to husbands. . .and they would KILL a gay person on site.
|
Back in the day, teenage marriages were common, acceptable, and successful. You know what's changed, such that it ain't so easy anymore? We've become a much more liberal and permissive society, far more diverse in ideology than we ever were... and as such, our divorce rate (as well as our long-term cohabiting couple rate) has skyrocketed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago
Animals? Seriously? ha ha ha. How can an animal consent? What mind does it take to even equate these things as similar?
|
If the consent of the animal is so important, why can we castrate our pets or get hysterectomies for them without consent? I sure as heck wouldn't want anyone castrating me without consent and I'd bet most men would say the same thing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Oh so you read a version of the Bible that has nice big colored fonts and lovely colored pictures of Jesus cuddling some little lambies.... and baby dinosaurs?
Got it.
|
You know what they say about "if you don't have anything nice to say to someone, don't say anything at all"?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (silence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Well, then she would be forced to marry her rapist. I marry off my daughter and she will no longer be considered "used goods". The father will get 50 pieces of silver. Win-win.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:38
|
Let's try the King James version, because I have absolutely no idea what you just quoted. Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
"
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
Who says this is rape? "Lay hold on her"... grab her... yeah. I'm not convinced. Especially since the "rape" situation outlined in verse 25 uses the term "force her". Evidently even the original languages used different terminology here because it was translated differently.
But even if we figure that it is rape, fifty shekels of silver was quite a bit of money in those days. If he couldn't pay, death for violation of the law. Also, he must marry her and he MAY NOT put her away all his days. (If he did, death for violating the law!) Frankly, I think that's quite a bit of punishment for the man. I can totally envision the woman making his life a living hell... causing the man to wish he'd never touched her, rather quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Don't say it's in the Old Testament so it doesn't count.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” ( Matthew 5:17-18).
Either the bible is black and white and infallible, or it isn't. |
For someone who claims not to be a Christian, you sure do enjoy reading the Bible. Maybe this is a good thing after all.
"Fulfill" means "complete". It's sort of like the father who pays his son's speeding ticket. The law is still there but the penalty was handled for him. As for the Bible, anything that was not changed by Jesus Christ for the New Covenant remains the same as it was in Mosaic times. For an example, see Matthew 19:7-9...
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The same argument was used to defend slavery. Your refusal to admit that marginalizing homosexuals in society, as you wish to, is analogous to slavery, just smaller in gravity, is a reflection of your unwillingness to view anything other than in the manner that will serve you own personal preference. You want respect for what you claim is what you "lose" from society's recognition of same-sex marriage. You don't deserve such respect because you refuse to grant same to homosexuals.
|
I don't have to respect sin. Actually, if I did respect sin, I would be violating the word of God and confusing the message of Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
You claimed it had a greater context than that. You were wrong. Now you're dancing to try to rationalize, yet again, your immoral insinuation that your values should govern how society treats other people.
|
Biblical context, my friend. (Not like my saying that will make much of a difference...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Good advice. You like your Bible. Good! It applies to the inside parts of your skin, the inside parts of your family, and the inside parts of your worship. When you interact with other people, treat everyone equally, judging them based on the principles you share with them rather than your own principles.
Simple.
|
What's simple is that I am to judge them as I am commanded by God to judge. That is, I am to judge actions as "sin" or "not sin", and treat people according to their actions so as to avoid corrupting myself and confusing the message of Christ. All people are worthwhile and valuable... it's actions that are to be judged.
John 7:24 "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Well according to him, the Bible is 'eternally valid'.... except when it's not.
He can explain it all away by telling you your post is just "blahblahblah" and that you are a stupid poopyhead.
See how simple and childlike that is?  |
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (silence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Matthew 7, Matthew 23, Romans 2. If you're going to claim Romans 1 is condemning gays, Romans 2 says you will not escape judgement from God for judging gays, because you yourself do the exact same things you're condemning them for. Therefore, Paul says you're gay.
|
I see you're practicing your comedy routine. It's looking good, buddy.
The passages from Romans that you quoted speak toward people judging other people, not specific actions. Paul couldn't have known what actions were being taken. But let's say that God did, such that Paul could write under inspiration from God exactly what he wrote. Maybe the Romans were doing the same things they judged others for. It happens all over the place. What's the most religious and conservative state? Utah. What's the state with the most online pornography subscriptions per capita? Utah. Classic example of judging others when you're not exactly lily-white yourself.
I, personally, do not judge others for doing the exact same things that I myself do, unless I also recognize that I shouldn't be doing those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
It actually has existed before. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, both of which had a form of government that inspired ours, were very much accepting of gay relationships.
|
And both empires fell. America is next, you know. If upholding gay relationships a strong society made, you'd think those empires wouldn't have fallen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
The irony here is that neither of them had a document claiming everyone is equal, yet we do and an enormous amount of elected officials believe their actions are sinful.
|
All people are indeed created equal. But we are treated differently because of our choices. A perfect example is how some of us are incarcerated and some of us are totally free, based upon our choices in life. That doesn't mean we're unequal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Absolute standard? Standard's change all the time, and generally for the better. For example, the Bible has been used to justify war and murder throughout history. The Crusades are a fine example of a was based on a lie. Today, we can't do that. Bush kind of declared holy war, but ignoring that, you can't kill me for not worshiping your God, yet it happened all the time back in the day. Standards clearly change.
|
Not quite. In many other countries, failure to worship a particular god can result in a death sentence. Apparently our standards are not even uniform, much less absolute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I'd rather just do a better job of educating people. Why take away their vote because the schools were inadequate. Although, I don't necessarily equate education with intelligence. Rational thinkers don't just come from ivy league colleges; they can come from high school drop outs. Education isn't always a sign of intelligence. Case and point, Bush.
|
I do agree that Bush 43 was not the greatest, nor the smartest President we've ever had. He made more than a couple of huge mistakes along the way... which could have been avoided by using his brain. Nobody is perfect. But the only way that we can educate people better is by taking the government out of education, such that TEACHERS (not politicians) can determine how best to educate. The people calling the shots for education should be people who have taught in a classroom... not people who rode their connections and their big-money family names all the way to a seat in the federal (or even state) government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Equal doesn't have to mean exactly equal.
|
I agree, but again here's the problem - this invites relativity. What I would call reasonable inequality is not necessarily what someone else would call reasonable inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
For example, women's rights. A girl can't go to an all boy's school (and vice versa of course). One could make an argument that it's unequal for that to be true, but logically, it really isn't. I mean, just as a girl can't go to an all boy's school, a boy can't go to an all girl's school. Same restriction, slightly different setting.
|
But how do we define a boy and a girl? These days there's a big uproar over transgendered "boys" and "girls", and how they're being treated in school (such as what bathroom they'll use). Just because some kid got his genitals chopped off or mutilated, and has been on hormone treatment, that doesn't mean he/she changed gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
My point being that equality doesn't mean literally the same. It means an Iranian immigrant can still practice his own customs and not be judged or discriminated here. As to why minorities tend to 'group together'... well, that's a different sociological study.
|
Again, I agree. But when we invite relativism into the discussion, that's an opening that can be wedged further open by fringe groups. Honestly, I don't even think that human beings were meant to live in a large society. People being as different as they are, they'd be better off if they were able to live in a smaller society wherein everyone was like them. Case in point - your average nude beach. I've never been to one but I have read about them. There's a fringe group of people who feel most "at home" and most "like themselves" when they're able to be completely naked around others. It's not a sexual thing - it's a liberation thing. Whatever. So let there be nudist colonies. And let there be gay colonies, and white supremacist colonies, and polygamous colonies, and Amish colonies, and black supremacist colonies, and Native American tribal colonies, and gun-lovers' colonies, and pacifist colonies, and on and on and on. If people want to live the way they choose to live without anyone else complaining, the only real solution is to give them a place where they can live as they wish, without anyone else getting on their case. Trying to apply these laws universally to all Americans no longer works as pleasantly as it once did because we are no longer as homogeneous a society. So why not break it up? Do we really gain more than we lose, by remaining one undivided country? There are small countries out there that are smaller than most American states, and they're doing just fine. Would it be so terrible for us to break America up into multiple smaller countries... or at least change the laws of America so that the Federal government was TOTALLY out of the picture when it came to states' rights (such that each individual state could make its own laws and run its society as it saw fit, without federal intrusion)?
Seriously, think about this. Vermont could be the land of organics and conservation, where genetically modified food was strictly verboten and every house was required to have solar panels. Utah could be where polygamous marriage could be practiced openly and legally. Texas could be where everyone can carry a gun openly and legally, and if you blow someone away while watching that person commit a crime (and there'd be any evidence backing that assertion), you're totally legally immune. California could be where marijuana and any other drug they choose would be legal and readily available. Nevada - legalized gambling of all kinds, as well as legalized prostitution of all kinds. Pennsylvania - no restrictions on hunting, on your own property... and 4-wheelers are street legal.
I could go on and on and on. Of course these are just hypotheticals, but at the very least, it'd solve the problem I mentioned in my first post. Maybe there could be a state where bestiality was totally legal. Anyone who wanted to marry an animal could go there. Maybe there could be a state where the age of consent was lowered to 13 (or replaced with a test of intellectual capacity to consent). Anyone who wanted to marry someone young could go there. There could be a state where what is currently called "incestuous marriage" would be totally legal.
The kicker would be that there'd be no federal benefits of any kind for anyone beyond the individual level. Any federal benefits would be for the individual person only and would not be related to marital status. It'd be even better if we replaced the current Internal Revenue Code with something like the FairTax... then we wouldn't have to talk about tax benefits or penalties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
I think it's common knowledge by now that Adam and Eve almost certinaly didn't exists, that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, the dinosaurs weren't killed in a flood, and there wasn't a world wide flood to begin with. I'd say much of the Bible is exaggerated truth. More recent example, when Kind Herod heard of the 'Kind of the Jews' being born, he ordered that all the male infants be killed within the vicinity of Bethlehem. Something like this would surely have been documented both within and outside of the Bible, yet the only account of this was in the Bible.
|
Could it be that we just haven't located other accounts yet? I've read articles about Bible-era towns, artifacts, etc. being found all the time. Maybe it's just around the corner. As for it being common knowledge that all of that stuff you said above is true, I think that at least 1 billion of the 2 billion people who claim to be Christian would disagree with you... and the only reason why it wouldn't be all 2 billion is because too many people don't understand what it really means to be Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
We already protect choices. You benefit from one greatly: religion. This right is protected under the constitution, and it is a choice as no one is born Christian or Muslim.
|
Freedom of religion was the one reason why the United States of America was founded anyway. People escaped England so they could worship God as they pleased, without having to belong to the Anglican church. I agree that this one choice has always been protected but given that it was the cornerstone of this country, I don't think it can be equated with the gay agenda. America wasn't founded so that homosexuals could have a haven.
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.
