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.
It would seem that you believe that only people that act the way YOU tell them to act are allowed to participate in society.
which one of us is seeking more freedom for all, and which of us is behaving as a totalitarian dictator?
by YOUR standard, you support discrimination against people of faith in the same way (according to you) I seek discrimination against gay people.
So lets balance these standards.
Both of us discriminate (according to you NOT ME)
Only 1 of us seek greater freedom for every person. (Me)
my position is morally and socially superior in a free society.
Your assertion that the right to discriminate is an expansion of freedom is ludicrous. At least have the guts to call it what it is. You want the right to denigrate and punish gay people, calling it freedom doesn't change that fact.
Your assertion that the right to discriminate is an expansion of freedom is ludicrous. At least have the guts to call it what it is. You want the right to denigrate and punish gay people, calling it freedom doesn't change that fact.
wrong. YOU argued that my position is discrimination.
I DID NOT.
I pointed out that if we use YOUR LOGIC then we are both discriminating.
IF that is the case we MUST use some other tool to determine whose position is morally superior (by moral, I am not pointing to religious moralism. Rather, I am pointing to SOCIAL moralism by which we can determine in any given society what those within the society hold to be superior values)..
IF we must move to a second level beyond who is discriminatory where are we?
I seek to free people.
YOU seek to force people to act in a way that is personally objectionable.
I seek freedom. YOU seek totalitarian compliance.
I want every gay person to live their life by the dictates of their own hearts in exactly the same manner I wish to live my own.
because then they'd be forced to smite their neighbors for not observing the Sabbath
You do realize that to most Christians the old testament is an historical document and they follow the new testament, right? We no longer live under the law. We live under Christ. So, even if I followed the letter of the bible, I would not smite my neighbor for forsaking the Sabbath. The law had its time but now we live under grace.
IMHO, the bible has to be read considering the context of the time when it was written so I do not follow it to the letter. I ask if what I'm reading applies today. For example the bible talks about slaves obeying their masters. This is not condoning slavery. It is good advice for anyone who finds themselves a slave. You're going to be treated better and have a much better chance of getting out of this situation if you comply. Ditto with women submitting to their husbands. This was written in a time when women were considered property and the only profession open to them was prostitution if they didn't have a husband to support them. Seriously, when you have zero other options I think you really need to keep the person feeding you happy. Today women are not property, can own property, have jobs, support themselves and have a voice without being punished.
I offer what is above just to show one person's reasoning for not following the letter of the bible. I believe the larger message still applies today but the details on how to live have changed because society has changed. Today I can turn on my TV on Sunday morning and attend church.
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.