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.
This thread confirms my beliefs about religious people.
If you are religious, you are delusional and mental. You are sick in the head and you need help right away. I feel sorry for people like this. I hope they are cured of their mental illnesses soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
That's not really fair--many people who profess a faith are kind and loving--for many Christians, it means that they try to be Christ like--to live a life of caring and concern for others, modeled on the life of Jesus.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but this seems appropriate here in light of many of the posts on this issue. There is a huge debate among some theologians over whether or not various forms of Christianity are even the same religion, except in name. The philosophy of division is described by some as the difference between "rule of law" and "rule of love". It's more complex than this, but basically some Christian groups believe the bible is a book of laws written by God and followed strictly by believers. Other Christians focus more on Christ's message of love for God, each other, forgiveness and salvation. I think what you're seeing here is a split not just on political grounds, but on basic issues of faith for many people. There's a really interesting site created by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance--it basically outlines in matter of fact and unbiased terms what people of many different faith groups believe. Some of you might find it interesting. They also have a section on the religious arguments pro and against gay rights. Here's the essay there on the differences between Christian faith groups:
By saying this, you're just doing the same thing the individuals you are complaining about do. It's easy to fall into generalizations but we should remember not all members of any group, whether religious or based on sexual orientation or something else, are uniform in their thoughts and beliefs.
To mb1547 and nimchimpsky: Thank you. You both said what I was too angry to say.
Generally speaking, HIV is highest among people actively "doing" something to get it--be it drug use or homosexuality. From what I understand, there was a recent study released maybe a month ago that showed the highest per capita rate (must be US only) of HIV is among homosexuals.
In any event, the issue is somewhat secondary to the topic.
I agree. You brought it up as a reason why people shouldn't engage in homosexuality. But more people get HIV from heterosexual sex than anything else on the global level.
Quote:
I can agree with you there. I don't think there is any call to mistreat someone.
Glad to know someone on the "other side of the fence" agrees with me that civility is more important than political stance.
Quote:
Of course, you and I disagree on the "rights" issue because I think we should all be equal. You seem to think we need to redefine marriage to include same-gender marriage if you're gay.
Yes, but within this debate, I'm just saying that marriage is about love for many people, so by opposing same-sex marriage and polygamy, that is using one's personal morality to step all over someone else's rights.
Quote:
I'm not.
Okay.
Quote:
Then it's not really just based on love, is it?
Of course, non-consensual relationships cannot be based on love. If there is love, it's one-sided.
Quote:
So it's not really consensual, is it? You want some rules--the question is which ones?
I just said the important thing is consent. So yes, consent would be the defining factor for what's moral in my book.
Quote:
It already is.
Marrying someone is a possibility for everyone already. Marrying someone you love or everyone you love isn't a possibility for everyone. That's what's unequal about not allowing same-sex marriage and polygamy for those who do believe marriage is about love and are also homosexual (or bisexual) or polyamorous.
Quote:
Huh? You've kind of wandered off the track here. As I've been stating repeatedly...it's about the same rights. We all have the exact same rights regardless of whom or how we love.
No we don't cause some of us have the right to marry the person we love and someone of us only have the right to marry someone, but not the person or all the people we love. It's not the same rights. It's like saying you can marry someone--your roommate, your friend, the stranger on the metro--oh, but you can't marry the love of your life--sorry! How is that fair? It's not.
To bring the focus back to the original topic, the above post was just about how I am opposed to mistreating people just because you disagree with them. In reference to the original topic, I don't think it's okay to mock or harass someone or attempt to ban rights for some people but not others because you disagree with them on a moral basis. Disagreeing with someone morally is distinct from taking action or otherwise interfering with their lives.
To bring the focus back to the original topic, the above post was just about how I am opposed to mistreating people just because you disagree with them.
And I agree with you.
Quote:
In reference to the original topic, I don't think it's okay to mock or harass someone or attempt to ban rights for some people but not others because you disagree with them on a moral basis. Disagreeing with someone morally is distinct from taking action or otherwise interfering with their lives.
I agree. I don't think it's right, though, for a very small minority of people to complain that the established laws don't match their fringe lifestyle, so they demand an alternative legal precedent to suit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl
So you are proposing what is tantamount to Jim Crow laws for gay people? Really?
Are you proposing segregation? Separate but equal?
Except, of course, that you are born black or white. You can choose whom you choose to sleep with. Are you suggesting that gay people are animals who can't control their lusts?
First, sexual orientation is not about who one 'chooses' to sleep with. It is about who one is naturally sexually attracted to. And it is something that one is born with. And you are the one who brought 'lusts' into the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
A special form of marriage defined for gay people. Currently, there are no restrictions whatsoever based solely on sexual preferences. You're arguing that we should allow a new form of marriage simply because gay people don't want to observe the same restrictions on marriage that heteros do.
Same sex marriage would no more be restricted to gays than opposite sex marriage is currently restricted to straights. Or did you not know that many gays and lesbians are currently in opposite sex marriages, where they are leading miserable lives.
First, sexual orientation is not about who one 'chooses' to sleep with. It is about who one is naturally sexually attracted to. And it is something that one is born with. And you are the one who brought 'lusts' into the conversation.
And marriage laws are blind to that whether you're gay or straight.
Quote:
Same sex marriage would no more be restricted to gays than opposite sex marriage is currently restricted to straights. Or did you not know that many gays and lesbians are currently in opposite sex marriages, where they are leading miserable lives.
How is that relevant? I'm the one advocating equal rights here. I think the issue is that equal rights doesn't benefit the darling group you're arguing for.
Are you proposing segregation? Separate but equal?
Of course not! Thats what YOUR prior post suggests.
"A special form of marriage defined for gay people."
You wrote that, Jim Crow is what it smells like.
You never did answer my query from yesterday why a gay person has to be relegated to 2nd class status when they pay the same taxes, etc as the rest of the population.
And marriage laws are blind to that whether you're gay or straight.
How is that relevant? I'm the one advocating equal rights here. I think the issue is that equal rights doesn't benefit the darling group you're arguing for.
That has got to be the funniest thing I have seen from you since I started reading you posts!
Of course not! Thats what YOUR prior post suggests.
"A special form of marriage defined for gay people."
You wrote that, Jim Crow is what it smells like.
You're the one arguing for a new definition of marriage to suit gay people. I'm the one arguing they should live with the same one straight people have.
I'm the one arguing for equality here...you're advocating segregation.
Quote:
You never did answer my query from yesterday why a gay person has to be relegated to 2nd class status when they pay the same taxes, etc as the rest of the population.
Did I say they do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV
That has got to be the funniest thing I have seen from you since I started reading you posts!
But I noticed you didn't dispute it.
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.
