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.
That is not fair. You misunderstand me. I did not call anyone a "Nazi" on this thread, but pointed out that there are some so-called "Christian" leaders and organizations that advocate criminalizing and persecuting members of the LGBT community ... and even traveling to places like Uganda to agitate for laws to oppress gay people.
Would I gas anyone? My father was a soldier in the US Army under Gen. Omar Bradley and was one of those who helped liberate concentration camps in Germany. He saw the horrors of the Holocaust first hand. We must never forget that not only were Jews singled out for mass murder, but others like Gypsies (Roma) and gay people (who were forced to wear a pink triangle on their striped camp uniforms) as well. If you visit the US Holocaust Museum you will see artifacts exhibited on the annihilation of gay people in the Third Reich. Just this month an outdoor monument was unveiled in Tel Aviv, Israel, memorializing gay people who perished in the Holocaust.
If you go back and read my very first post I made it clear that I was not opposed to the concept of hating sin and loving sinners, but it was the outward accusation towards those people I find hypocritical and patronizing in the extreme.
Bottom line: whether or not gay people offend your religious sensibilities, they deserve the equal rights, equal opportunities and respect that all citizens so richly deserve.
As far as you not calling anyone a nazi, please see your quote below. You compared the "religious right" to Hitler and the nazis. Pretty reprehensible stuff.
I've been to the Yad Vashem museum in Jerusalem. It's a pretty sobering place. In one part they are calling out the names and ages of all the victims 24/7. To compare us to that is quite the statement.
As I said before, I have no problem with gay people marrying or serving in the military. Frankly, it's none of my business. However, I believe in the bible and according to God, it's a sin. So are many things that Christians do. But I refuse to back down from my beliefs. If people don't like that, tough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
My answers:You are the victim of the kind of ignorant, prejudiced propaganda that bigots on the so-called "religious right" are waging against the LGBT community. They are taking their talking points directly from Hitler and the Nazi's playbook in their propaganda against the Jews.
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't listen to the morality of men? That society can change morality on a whim? That maybe we ought to seek a higher morality?
I'm sorry, but Hitler is just an argument against your notion that morality is simply relative.
Oh no, we DO listen to the morality of men. If we listened to the morality of God, our streets would be soaked with the blood of heretics and apostates and non-believers.
Plus, I really don't think you understand WHY certain things in the Bible were considered sin. A lot of sexual sin existed only as a means of increasing the population of the Israelites. It was a tribal decree and homosexuality would diminish the population potential of a relatively small tribe.
It has NOTHING to do with morality. It was a pragmatic law under the guise of morality to ensure people obeyed it.
Now, with 320 million people in America, the fourth most populated "tribe" in the world, I think we can let go of those ancient laws designed to keep the Israelites growing in number.
Now, while I'm writing, I want to make something perfectly clear just so we don't have to hash this out again.
I do not hate Christians.
I don't think I could make it any clearer than that. Considering 3/4ths of the population are Christian, hating them would certainly limit the number of friends I could make, don't you think? It's an absurd notion to think I hate Christians for being Christians.
No ... I DO hate what Christians do sometimes in the name of their religion. I really couldn't care less if they believe homosexuality is a sin, but their constant nagging about it, the constant push to legislate Christianity, is destroying lives. I know because I've seen it happen right in front of me. I wouldn't even be arguing this point if it was just a belief, but it's not. It's law in 32 states. That changes the game.
I also wouldn't be writing long posts to you if I hated YOU. I don't waste time with people I hate. Not that I really hate anyone. Why would I bother with someone I hated? Why give up something else I could be doing to go 'round the merry-go-round with someone I hate?
Granted, this is one of the more contentious topics these forums debate, but the next rude or attacking post directed towards another member will be infracted for.
Why hello, Vizio. I see from your post that you are up to your theocratic Moderator cut: deleted ways once again. If you were Muslim, you'd be the kind of guy who would force every woman to wear a burka - even the ones who aren't Muslim. Yep, I got your number, and your ideology is the sort that makes true freedom a disappearing ideal. What's next? Jackboots and armbands with Christian crosses on them? Oh, you'll see what I mean momentarily.
...snipped for brevity....
It is SUCH a pleasure to see Vizio's "arguments" eviscerated so thoroughly and with such panache. Most of us have had a go at him over the past year or so and it simply gets tiring watching logic and common sense roll off his back.
I'm not the one that is advocating censorship, as your side recently did with the Duck Dynasty folks.
Why don't you go to the website of a group called "One Million Moms," an ultra-Christian group that literally has pages and pages of television shows, music lyrics, advertisements, and movies they're actively trying to ban. Once you do that, you can come back here and TRY to make a case of censorship regarding this one incident with Phil Robertson who - incidentally - got his job back. So you really don't have a leg to stand on with this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
More likely, it'll be wearing a feather boa and marching in a Pride parade. Just sayin....
Give me one example of a fascistic law that gays have forced you to obey. I'll wait right here while you try to come up with an answer to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I never said they were equal. But they are both immoral.
Homosexuality is only immoral to those who believe it is. But there is NO demonstrable way to PROVE that it is immoral. None whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The Nazis also looked to society to determine morality.
LOL! And we don't? If you want to know what happens in a theocratic society, just look at Saudi Arabia where women aren't even allowed to drive. That's what you get, because there has NEVER, not in the entire history of humanity, has there been a theocratic society that wasn't oppressive, brutal, tyranical, and discriminatory. Not ONE single civilization. Ever. Period.
Besides, just how many of our laws and rights come directly from the Bible that didn't exist BEFORE the Bible? What, a handful? One or two? Any at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Complete irrelevant. Skin color <> sexual behavior.
It's not merely "sexual behavior," even though I'm fairly certain you've convinced yourself that people actually CHOOSE to be persecuted, harassed, bullied, murdered, and other horrible things because they're gay. I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you with your mind befuddled by ancient superstitions, but again, with my window into the gay community, I know that just isn't true. So yes, it IS the same as skin color because neither can control who they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
You're the one telling me I don't have a right to disagree with you.
Oh no ... YOU'RE the one telling gays they don't have the right to disagree with YOU, hence all of the coy "definition of marriage" laws around the country. Nice try, but you don't even get a cheap filterless cigarette that you have to roll yourself ... much less a cigar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Marriage has never been about simply being with the one you find sexual appealing. I'm not guaranteed the right to marry the person I find sexy.
Is that a fact? Well, aside from the fact that you're speaking for everyone what marriage is all about even though I'm pretty sure no one elected you as their spokesman, once again, the government cannot tell you who to marry (well, unless you're gay) so you do have the right to marry someone you find sexually appealing. Now, whether you can actually achieve that goal is another thing altogether, but there are no laws or restrictions that prevent it. I don't think anyone has ever been convicted of a crime and sentenced to marry someone ugly, so without that, choosing who you want to marry is a de facto right.
Gays, however, are strictly prevented from marrying who they are sexually attracted to, so I really don't know why you keep comparing your rights to the gay's lack of rights. It's just not working out. Time to change channels, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yet...you have reasonable response to it. The best you can do is whine about not being accepted by society and having me tell you that your relationship is equal to mine.
Well, for one thing, I'm not gay. As I said before, I'm an advocate. And wow, you really think your relationship is "superior" to gay relationships. REALLY!? Holy crap, the arrogance, the conceit, the hubris! This is what I love about debates like these. If you can keep them going long enough, you really begin to see the true colors of some of these people. It gives me the willies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Marriage REQUIRES A HUSBAND AND A WIFE. It's what marriage is. If you don't have a man and a woman, you don't have marriage. It's fascist to try to force a new definition on me.
NO IT DOESN'T! Wow again. I'm really tired of arguing with an echo chamber. I call you fascist so I'm fascist. I call you intolerant so I'm intolerant. If I get up and do a chicken dance around the room, will you do that too? I feel like I'm arguing with a 7 year-old who thinks it's cute to repeat and immitate everything I say.
No, it would be fascist if I was forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. It would be fascist if I banned heterosexual relationships. And it would be both fascist AND unconstitutional if I did either of those things because I want to impose my superstitions onto you. Gay marriage doesn't affect you. But your opinions (because that's all they are) affect MILLIONS of Americans who would like to enjoy MARRIAGE. Yeah, MARRIAGE, because your relationships are NOT "superior" to gay relationships. Just ask everyone from Brittney Spears and her 24 hour marriage to all the kids living with a single parent to the spouses who get the snot kicked out of them every night. Gimme a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
If the woman I wanted to marry didn't want to marry me....well, I guess I'm not guaranteed it, am I?
For crying out loud, now you're reaching. I never said you have the right to marry any one specific woman, but you DO have the right to marry the person you want to marry. Because no one is going to force you into a marriage you DON'T want. Unlike your laws, which do exactly that to gays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The concept of "gay marriage" has never existed. It can't be banned because by definition, it's not a marriage.
Ah, now you've been reduced to semantic games, I see. Some states, especially the usual suspects in Dixieland who are notorious for slavery, discrimination, and resistance to equality, tried to head gay marriage off at the pass. They knew what was coming, KNEW that gays all over the nation would be wanting their rights, so they effecitvely BANNED gay marriage before gays had a chance to fight.
But the entire reason why these states felt this sudden and urgent need to define marriage after having a constitution for 200+ years was to prevent gays from even having the CHANCE of winning their rights. Of course, none of that is going to last, just like persecution and discrimination never lasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But if you do want to marry, you have the exact same rights to do so that I have.
Sure, and just because you say it again doesn't make it any more true.
The bird who tells the fish that he has the same right to fly as the bird does ... is a flat-out, no-holds-barred dumb argument because you know full well that if the shoe was on the other foot, YOU would be crying about persecution. Hell, you do that NOW. Imagine if you were banned from marrying your wife. Whoo-whee!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But it's not fascism to tell me what marriage is and require a change of definition?
And how, exactly, does changing the definiton of marriage actually affect your own marriage? Ooh, that's the third question I'm going to be hounding you about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Actually, same-gender "marriage" has never existed. It doesn't need to be banned.
Then why is it banned in 32 states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Seriously...the rest of it is so full of stupid comments, I'm done. You're over the top.
Why don't you go to the website of a group called "One Million Moms," an ultra-Christian group that literally has pages and pages of television shows, music lyrics, advertisements, and movies they're actively trying to ban. Once you do that, you can come back here and TRY to make a case of censorship regarding this one incident with Phil Robertson who - incidentally - got his job back. So you really don't have a leg to stand on with this case.
I don't advocate censorship. Please don't lump me into that group.
As for censorship, we have seen that the anti-Christian movement is alive and well. The folks at A & E found out that Phil does have fans and we don't want to be bullied by a very vocal minority.
Quote:
Give me one example of a fascistic law that gays have forced you to obey. I'll wait right here while you try to come up with an answer to that.
The redefining of marriage is a big one.
Quote:
Homosexuality is only immoral to those who believe it is. But there is NO demonstrable way to PROVE that it is immoral. None whatsoever.
Define morality, please. How do you determine it?
Quote:
LOL! And we don't? If you want to know what happens in a theocratic society, just look at Saudi Arabia where women aren't even allowed to drive. That's what you get, because there has NEVER, not in the entire history of humanity, has there been a theocratic society that wasn't oppressive, brutal, tyranical, and discriminatory. Not ONE single civilization. Ever. Period.
Besides, just how many of our laws and rights come directly from the Bible that didn't exist BEFORE the Bible? What, a handful? One or two? Any at all?
If your standard for morality is society, that's what happens. Nazi Germany showed it, and Saudi Arabia also proves it.
Quote:
It's not merely "sexual behavior," even though I'm fairly certain you've convinced yourself that people actually CHOOSE to be persecuted, harassed, bullied, murdered, and other horrible things because they're gay.
That's called a strawman argument. I've never suggested that anyone likes to be bullied harassed, etc. I am suggesting, though, that you do have a choice to have sex or not.
Quote:
I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you with your mind befuddled by ancient superstitions, but again, with my window into the gay community, I know that just isn't true. So yes, it IS the same as skin color because neither can control who they are.
So gay people are simply UNABLE TO stop having sex with someone of the same gender? If you see someone of the same gender, you immediately are forced to engage in it? No choice in the matter?
Quote:
Oh no ... YOU'RE the one telling gays they don't have the right to disagree with YOU, hence all of the coy "definition of marriage" laws around the country. Nice try, but you don't even get a cheap filterless cigarette that you have to roll yourself ... much less a cigar.
And you're the one telling me that if I don't agree with you, then I'm a bigot.
As for the "definition of marriage" laws....marriage has ALWAYS been a man and a woman...it's NEVER been same-gender. To try to change that means changing the entire definition of what marriage is.
Quote:
Is that a fact? Well, aside from the fact that you're speaking for everyone what marriage is all about even though I'm pretty sure no one elected you as their spokesman, once again, the government cannot tell you who to marry (well, unless you're gay) so you do have the right to marry someone you find sexually appealing. Now, whether you can actually achieve that goal is another thing altogether, but there are no laws or restrictions that prevent it. I don't think anyone has ever been convicted of a crime and sentenced to marry someone ugly, so without that, choosing who you want to marry is a de facto right.
It's called English. Words do have meaning, and you and your side don't get to decide what those meanings are.
Quote:
Gays, however, are strictly prevented from marrying who they are sexually attracted to, so I really don't know why you keep comparing your rights to the gay's lack of rights. It's just not working out. Time to change channels, I think.
No....it's that impossible to "marry" someone of the same gender. I don't have that "right" either. Whether or not I'm attracted to them. The law is blind to the idea of sexual attraction. Marriage has never been about that.
Quote:
Well, for one thing, I'm not gay. As I said before, I'm an advocate. And wow, you really think your relationship is "superior" to gay relationships. REALLY!? Holy crap, the arrogance, the conceit, the hubris! This is what I love about debates like these. If you can keep them going long enough, you really begin to see the true colors of some of these people. It gives me the willies.
Are you offended at me assuming you were? I'm sorry.
Quote:
For crying out loud, now you're reaching. I never said you have the right to marry any one specific woman, but you DO have the right to marry the person you want to marry. Because no one is going to force you into a marriage you DON'T want. Unlike your laws, which do exactly that to gays.
You suggested it was horrible that a person doesn't have the right to marry for love. Using YOUR logic, if I only loved one person, I should be allowed to marry her.
Quote:
Ah, now you've been reduced to semantic games, I see. Some states, especially the usual suspects in Dixieland who are notorious for slavery, discrimination, and resistance to equality, tried to head gay marriage off at the pass. They knew what was coming, KNEW that gays all over the nation would be wanting their rights, so they effecitvely BANNED gay marriage before gays had a chance to fight.
But the entire reason why these states felt this sudden and urgent need to define marriage after having a constitution for 200+ years was to prevent gays from even having the CHANCE of winning their rights. Of course, none of that is going to last, just like persecution and discrimination never lasts.
You're right. If a very small minority had not bullied their way through a corrupt court system to impose their will on the majority we wouldn't be needing to protect the institution of marriage.
Quote:
Sure, and just because you say it again doesn't make it any more true.
It's correct whether or not I say it again. The fact remains--gay people have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS I do. There was no question of sexual attraction on my marriage application. The topic just never came up. It was assumed that there was a "husband" (Male) and a "wife" (Female). It's what marriage is. And as I said...words have meaning. If you don't like it, it doesn't really matter.
Quote:
The bird who tells the fish that he has the same right to fly as the bird does ... is a flat-out, no-holds-barred dumb argument because you know full well that if the shoe was on the other foot, YOU would be crying about persecution. Hell, you do that NOW. Imagine if you were banned from marrying your wife. Whoo-whee!
It's not the bird's fault that the fish doesn't have wings. But redefining the word "fly" doesn't change a thing.
Quote:
And how, exactly, does changing the definiton of marriage actually affect your own marriage? Ooh, that's the third question I'm going to be hounding you about.
It changes the word "marriage"? How is that not clear to you?
Quote:
Then why is it banned in 32 states?
I honestly haven't seen the language in all 32 state laws, but I don't believe that any of them specifically say that gay people can't get married.
In addition, I always think that someone who says they "love the sinner, hate the sin" actually hate the so-called sinner at least as much as they hate the sin, but don't want to admit it.
This i entirely agree with and why i hate the statement.
D
For me it's a toss up between this expression (love the sinner, hate the sin) and the oft claimed-for-self expression of
"Forgive them father, they know not what they do".
Arrogance and self righteousness is so evident in those who parrot themselves behind such expression and posturing, that I can't help but wonder how the hellthat person can fool themselves into believing others can't see right through their sham... after putting their poverty ridden consciousness on display for all to see? Like, really, seriously???
It would be insulting, if they truly thought their audience was so stupid. Except the real truth of the matter is not that they think others so stupid, they instead believe themselves to be so clever.
What purpose can 'morality' possibly serve.....when one demonstrates such a clear lack of capacity for emotional self-honesty, such that denial, rationalization and justification makes one blind to their own self imposed condition? Talk about putting the cart ahead of the ox, or what.
well, the OP is pretty confusing. If you have a brother or sister who over eats, and over eats and just keeps on going, and goING and GOING, it wouldn't be such a great thing, doesn't mean there's a loss of feelings for the brother or sister. ( from OP example )
Last edited by alexcanter; 01-04-2014 at 11:45 PM..
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.
