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.
Even with gay marriage, the definition of marriage is still restricted. Marriage is still restricted to two people. Does that mean we are denying rights to polygamists? If so, why is there not a social movement afoot for polygamist rights? Polygamy existed throughout human history, every bit as much as homosexuality.
Why are "traditional marriage" supporters called bigots, when almost everyone is still against polygamy? Why do we get a pass on our instinctive conservatism and they don't? It just seems inconsistent to me.
Personally, I don't really care who gets married.
It is a matter of small changes. If the options are change nothing, or rework everything so that all marriage law is perfectly equitable, then nothing will ever change. We will never finish designing the perfect system. In the past there was the political will to make interracial marriage legal, so we did. At this point, society has come along to the point that we can make gay marriage legal, so we should. Maybe in time, we will solve the issue of how to make a system of plural marriage workable, and when we have a group that is demanding their rights, and public opinion has shifted, we can do that to.
Our system of government is reactive, until there is enough of a push for change, we stay with the status quo. Just like we saw in Alabama, the courts cannot rule until someone sues. I do anticipate that not too long after gay marriage becomes normalized, there will be a push to restructure to handle poly relationships. I would love for us as a society to be able to go ahead and handle those issues now, but that just isn't the way it works. For better or worse, we do these things one hard fought step at a time...
Ok.... so-o-o-o-o... what you're saying here is that it isn't fair to criticize christianity because there are other religions out there that are hateful, bigoted, intolerant, and oppressive, too, and also want to take away our rights and freedoms, so christianity isn't really worse than them?
Isn't that a rather weak argument? Personally, I'd be embarrassed if that was all I had to fall back on.
No, the argument that you are making is the weak one because it is loaded with presumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
Every time you people pass a law forcing me to live my life in accordance with your religious beliefs, you are taking away my right to live my life the way I see fit. Every time you pass a law mandating that public policy be based on your religious beliefs, you are taking away another one of my freedoms. So, yes, christians are systematically attempting to take away my rights.
So we should just based on public policies on what you believe is right? If there were more people that agreed with you, it would be so. If you don't like it, I'm sure there are other countries that fit your taste.
I think the wording of your original post is loaded. You did not ask how we felt about people we know bringing up religion and for that you would have gotten a batch of totally different answers. If a co-worker, neighbour or friend brought up the subject I would gladly have that conversation unless it appeared to me it would cause ill will between us, such as he or she thought all athesists or Jews were evil. But you asked how Christians should approach people which I read as some one I do not know or barely know approaching me with the goal of discussing their religion.
Given that this is the internet and the land of misunderstanding, maybe I should have qualified my original post, but then again I never expected anyone to presume that I was talking about street evangelism. I thought maybe some people have been approached by friends or family members. I'm not sure what to tell you. I made the question general because I was expecting more open ended responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I see these two scenarios totally different and have a totally different take on them.
To answer this latest question: with respect and open mindness. Do not expect everyone to be willing to discuss relgion or their beleifs with you and back up immediately it becomes clear that they do not wish to do so. I have no clue who is or is not a believer at work or amoung my friends nor do I care to know. If they want me to know that is fine. One person has stacked chairs after work at his church and in three years the only thing about his religion I know is they have stackable chairs. The rest I know less about their beliefs. No I am wrong one said they did not believe in God but loved Christmas.
Politcs are also important to me and I do not discuss them with many, more so than about relgion though.
The flip side is why do you think people are wanting to discuss religion anywhere and anytime?
Everyone doesn't want to have these discussions and I think that is fair, but I think it's disingenuous to say that, but then participate in internet discussions. I mean, if you don't like to talk those topics, then why talk about them at all? If you come on the internet to discuss them then clearly you like talking about it.
Because we have choice to engage or not. We can come and go. Speak or listen.
When I am working. I do not wish to engaged in religious discussions.
I certainly respect your need to bring a prayer rug,and pray at certain times. I do not have to participate. My friends, of many faiths, do not evangelize to me.
They pray at meals, and I take that time to center myself, and seek balance. It is a matter of mutual respect.
You can choose to walk away from the conversation in most cases in real life as well. Unless you are tied to a chair, what is stopping you from objecting to the conversation, closing the door, walking away or requesting the person to stop having the conversation. Has someone physically coerced you to continue those conversations?
Maybe, if you genuinely care about being respectful of how non-christians feel about this, it would be more fruitful if you and other Christians simply shared what you believe is an appropriate way to approach people to share your beliefs. Then people can tell you how they would feel about being approached in that way. If you genuinely care.
Given that this is the internet and the land of misunderstanding, maybe I should have qualified my original post, but then again I never expected anyone to presume that I was talking about street evangelism. I thought maybe some people have been approached by friends or family members. I'm not sure what to tell you. I made the question general because I was expecting more open ended responses.
Everyone doesn't want to have these discussions and I think that is fair, but I think it's disingenuous to say that, but then participate in internet discussions. I mean, if you don't like to talk those topics, then why talk about them at all? If you come on the internet to discuss them then clearly you like talking about it.
You asked the question but in a fit of pique decry the answers. You do not decide for others how they wish to discuss yourreligion no matter how much you wish to.
I hope you are using what you are being told to hone your skills. The skills that accept rejection with good humor. The skills that make someone want to speak to you.
What is the MAJORITY religion in the US? Christians
How do theses laws get passed? Either pandering to the voters (predominately christians in the US) or by voters voting (again Christian majority)
That still doesn't answer. How do you know these individuals are voting based on their Christian beliefs? You say you don't vote based on your belief, so how do you know that they do? Do you have some kind of evidence to prove your point?
You can choose to walk away from the conversation in most cases in real life as well. Unless you are tied to a chair, what is stopping you from objecting to the conversation, closing the door, walking away or requesting the person to stop having the conversation. Has someone physically coerced you to continue those conversations?
On the other hand why do you think it is okay to approach me with your religious agenda?
It would never dawn on me to tell you what to believe. I would not engage you on the street or knock on your door, either. Internet engagement is a good choice.
Stop and listen, Grasshopper. Hone your skills, and work on improving them. You want to attract people not alienate them.
You asked the question but in a fit of pique decry the answers. You do not decide for others how they wish to discuss yourreligion no matter how much you wish to.
I hope you are using what you are being told to hone your skills. The skills that accept rejection with good humor. The skills that make someone want to speak to you.
On the other hand why do you think it is okay to approach me with your religious agenda? It would never dawn on me to tell you what to believe. I would not engage you on the street or knock on your door, either. Internet engagement is a good choice.
Stop and listen, Grasshopper. Hone your skills, and work on improving them. You want to attract people not alienate them.
Read, comprehend and then answer. Thank you.
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.
