Questions for people who support gay marriage (officials, Bush, racial)

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

I never said I wasn't a sinner. But at least I admit my sins and seek forgiveness for my sins. Can you say the same?

Of course I can, but you're sinning in your very attitude towards gays, so I don't see you admitting your sins, I see you embracing them.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

The Bible is either eternally valid or it's a complete crock of hooey.

Do you ever think in anything other than an extreme, absolute, black and white manner?

We know, for instance, that The Bible contains some history.

But there is no way, and no reason, for a rational person to extrapolate from this that The Bible is therefore 100% historically accurate and valid. That's baseless, infantile nonsense. It does not, however, diminish the worth of The Bible itself, and I believe The Bible does contain great worth.

You can't prove that people were born gay...

The first thing this statement brings to mind is "Who freakin' cares?"

IF gay people have chosen to be gay, so what? That doesn't mean they should be the victims of discrimination and bigotry. The fact a person is homosexual harms nobody and is nobody else's business.

I have to ask (and I believe I've asked you this before) : Do you also believe heterosexuals "choose" to be hetero? Does everyone choose their sexual orientation?

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Actually, 'twas I who was hoping YOU would take the bait. Liberals can be so predictable. If only I could catch fish the way I catch liberals... I'd never have to go to the grocery store again.

You responded exactly as predicted. See, I spoke of Biblical context. You are coming at it with "cultural and historical context". Keep it simple, my dear Jaymax. Biblical context... as in, the previous verses and the following verse.

One cannot take things in the Bible to be within "historical context" the way you wish we all would, because in so doing we would inherently declare the Bible to be archaic and outdated (which most people on your side of the fence would LOVE to see). The Bible is either eternally valid or it's a complete crock of hooey. It was not "valid at one time and then rendered invalid by societal 'progress' ", though that's another popular liberal lunacy.

Are you actually serious?

So slavery is 'eternally valid' for you? Including selling your own daughters?

Kidnapping and raping young virgin girls after massacring the rest of their tribe is 'eternally valid' for you?

Stoning children for disobeying their parents is 'eternally valid' for you?

Stoning to death anyone who doesn't follow your god is 'eternally valid' for you?

Forcing a virgin girl who was raped to marry her rapist is 'eternally valid' for you?

Giants and people living to 900 years plus, are 'eternally valid' for you?

I could go on and on... but it only takes one example to show that the Bible is not 'eternally valid'.

Therefore, by your own words, the Bible is "archaic and outdated and a complete crock of hooey".

For me, The Bible is a collection of ancient myths and stories interspersed with a little history, philosophy and politics as well as the various religious beliefs and cultural customs of the men who wrote the texts. Many of those ancient customs are barbaric and illegal in 21st century USA. Many of the beliefs are ignorant, naieve and often ridiculous. The translations and interpretations of the texts (and which texts were included or excluded) have changed over time depending on the prevailing culture and the dogma of the churches overseeing the publishing of the numerous versions of the Bible. To claim it is 'eternally valid', is truly truly bizarre.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Griffis

Yes. It was well done. But if you read through this thread, it's happened at least a dozen other times.

Religious zealots can always be relied upon to trip themselves up with their own ignorance, irrational and illogical thinking, lies, hypocrisy and delusions. They will never admit it though, as it's part of their delusion that they are always right. How can they be wrong when they have created their own god in their own image and their god agrees with them?

[bUU]

I'm happy that RomaniGypsy finally admitted that the Bible is not a historical context. Accepting the Bible as mythology is the first step toward fully acknowledging the truth.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Religious zealots can always be relied upon to trip themselves up with their own ignorance, irrational and illogical thinking, lies, hypocrisy and delusions. They will never admit it though, as it's part of their delusion that they are always right. How can they be wrong when they have created their own god in their own image and their god agrees with them?

Quite right. See the post just above yours for yet another example of a self-trip-up.

It's funny to me (and a major reason why we can know gods are created in the image of humans) that while deities are often said to be mysterious and omnipotent, omniscient and surpassing human understanding, believers will, time and again, shove their gods in a box and explain exactly what their personality traits are, how they feel about this or that issue, who they reward and who they punish, and how, and why, etc., etc.

And of course, the characteristics of the god(s) they believe in never fail to comport with their own personal beliefs and feelings about what is personally (to them) acceptable and unacceptable behavior and so on.

[RomaniGypsy]

Originally Posted by TheDusty

Yes, I've heard. You find it insane that people finding speaking out against homosexuals wrong. I get that, I just don't accept that as fair. You still can be religious, you still can get married, your life is the same. If you get what you want, gay people don't get married and can't be openly gay. They lose a lot if you win. If they win, you lose one thing; the right to call them sinners. And really, considering this is what drive many gay teens (and adults I'm sure) to suicide, I feel it's completely reasonable trade off.

Depends upon your point of view. Thus far, people have had the right to call homosexuals sinners, and homosexuals have not had the right to marry nor the unrestricted right to be openly gay. What homosexuals "lose" by "me getting what I want" is nebulous anyway because it hasn't existed. What I "lose" by "them winning" is something that I, and millions of other people, have always had. So we lose something that has existed... they lose something that hasn't existed. We lose something concrete... they lose something that might best be described as "a dream". I don't devalue dreams, but I don't put them on the same par with reality.

Originally Posted by TheDusty

Murder is a very violent crime. Physiological studies have been done on children who hear about murders in their surrounding areas and it shows that these children often times let their grades drop and have noticeable changes in behavior. This is of course a side effect of murder. As far as the actual act of murder, everyone should have the right to live. One man should not be able to end a man's life without a truly justified reason (as in saving someone else's life in the process).

Personally, I do agree with you.

But here's the problem. What constitutes a "truly justified reason"? You might think that it includes saving someone else's life in the process. What if a man raped your daughter? Maybe you don't find that justified. Other men just might. The problem is that this is all relative. Evidently, those 16,000 or so people who commit the various forms of homicide every year believe they have "truly justified reasons"... whether or not people such as you or I would agree. This is yet another example of how, absent an ABSOLUTE STANDARD, chaos will reign to various extents.

Originally Posted by TheDusty

A constitutional republic is far better than just straight democracy. Putting everything up to a vote and going off that would cause world of trouble unless only educated reasonable people can vote. If 'true democracy' was in America, we'd probably still have slaves, Christianity would be a mandated religion, and just a host of other nonsense. The system we have is not perfect, but it's better than every other alternative. The thing with 'true deomcracy' is that it's only as smart as it's voters, and this can be good or bad. With America, I'd say it leans towards bad.

Truthfully, I do believe that only educated reasonable people should vote. This could be put up to a very easy test at each election, with multiple choice questions that can be answered by computer, about each candidate and his/her platform. If you don't know anything about the people you're voting for, you should not be able to vote for them. (This would ensnare me sometimes too. I am also guilty of walking into certain elections without the first clue about the candidates and merely voting for the Republican guy because his party affiliation makes him more likely than the others to be a conservative.)

Originally Posted by TheDusty

The constitution we have sets up a standard of living for everyone. We've really only loosely followed it. Native Americans, Black people, Catholics, and a host of minorities would attest to this. As far as I'm concerned, the problems we face are not the system we use but the people within it.

This may very well be, and if it is, I suggest that it's because of the "relativistic" and often hypocritical society we have set up. Minority people generally seek equality with the "white majority" but then in the same breath they seek to be different through what they call "diversity". It's like... which one do you want?! Do you want to be equal, or do you want to be different? If you want to be equal, celebrate your similarities with the majority, and keep your differences to yourselves... or at least don't celebrate them in public. People self-select their own discriminations, I think. All you have to do is look at racial demographic maps for various regions of the USA and you'll see what I mean. Birds of a feather flock together.

Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer

The most intolerant and judgemental people that I have met in my life are Christians such as you. They feel they must tell others what they think of their lives and that they will pray for them that they will find god and repent their sins.

Of course, because in a relativistic society where nothing is absolutely "wrong", there is no basis upon which to refuse tolerance of something, and there is also no basis upon which to judge any action as "wrong" because what's right for you is right and nobody can say otherwise. I do agree with you here... but I'd say that there are other religious adherents who are less tolerant than Christians. I've heard quite a bit about Middle Eastern Muslims.

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Of course I can, but you're sinning in your very attitude towards gays, so I don't see you admitting your sins, I see you embracing them.

Quote the passage in the Bible which classifies my attitude toward homosexuals as "sin", please... otherwise this will be demonstrably a lie.

Originally Posted by Griffis

Do you ever think in anything other than an extreme, absolute, black and white manner?

When you think in shades of gray, again it opens up the discussion to relativistic points of view which have no concrete basis. Without a concrete basis, the point of view lacks credence and strength. So, this is why I think in black and white. I've said it before and I'll say it again... there MUST be an absolute standard upon which a society must be based, otherwise the society will crumble at some point just as a building without a solid foundation will crumble at some point.

Originally Posted by Griffis

We know, for instance, that The Bible contains some history.

But there is no way, and no reason, for a rational person to extrapolate from this that The Bible is therefore 100% historically accurate and valid. That's baseless, infantile nonsense. It does not, however, diminish the worth of The Bible itself, and I believe The Bible does contain great worth.

Can you disprove the historical accuracy of the Bible? Many a historian has examined it and the worst number I've ever seen is "99.5% accurate"... and who's to say that that 0.5% wasn't some hiccup in the historian's own study?

Originally Posted by Griffis

The first thing this statement brings to mind is "Who freakin' cares?"

IF gay people have chosen to be gay, so what? That doesn't mean they should be the victims of discrimination and bigotry. The fact a person is homosexual harms nobody and is nobody else's business.

I have to ask (and I believe I've asked you this before) : Do you also believe heterosexuals "choose" to be hetero? Does everyone choose their sexual orientation?

Yeah, I do believe that, but again it's not one of those fully conscious decisions. Like the decision to be gay, it is largely influenced by subliminal messaging... or, should I say, the conscientious parents' protection of their children from such.

And to address "if people have chosen to be gay, so what?"... again, if we legalize and protect one small group's choice, we have to legalize and protect all such choices... when you legalize and protect all choices, pandemonium ensues.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

blahblahblahblahblahblahblah as usual

Dude... NEW TESTAMENT. Read it, learn it, love it. The Word of God is allowed to countermand itself. When that happens, you take the most recent decree as the valid one.

Originally Posted by bUU

I'm happy that RomaniGypsy finally admitted that the Bible is not a historical context. Accepting the Bible as mythology is the first step toward fully acknowledging the truth.

I never said it wasn't a historical context. I said that you can't interpret it within its historical context; you just have to read it. After all, Jesus said "Let the little children come to me, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these". Also, "Whoever doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a little child shall not enter it".

What Does the Bible Say About Let The Children Come?

What does this mean? KEEP IT SIMPLE like a child would. All of this mumbo-jumbo about historical context and any other fancy-shmancy term that people like to apply to their chosen interpretation of the Bible is just so much garbage when you have to consider that acceptance of the Word of God must be on a simple level. Read what it says, and follow it. Easy. Simple.

[youngabe]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Depends upon your point of view. (1) Thus far, people have had the right to call homosexuals sinners, and homosexuals have not had the right to marry nor the unrestricted right to be openly gay. What homosexuals "lose" by "me getting what I want" is nebulous anyway because it hasn't existed. (2) What I "lose" by "them winning" is something that I, and millions of other people, have always had. So we lose something that has existed... they lose something that hasn't existed. We lose something concrete... they lose something that might best be described as "a dream". I don't devalue dreams, but I don't put them on the same par with reality.

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.

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.'"

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

And to address "if people have chosen to be gay, so what?"... again, if we legalize and protect one small group's choice, we have to legalize and protect all such choices... when you legalize and protect all choices, pandemonium ensues.

History lesson? Let's go back and tell women that. Then, we'll fast forward and tell African Americans that.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Dude... NEW TESTAMENT. Read it, learn it, love it. The Word of God is allowed to countermand itself. When that happens, you take the most recent decree as the valid one.

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."

[ChrisFromChicago]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!

What does this have to do with gay marriage? why is the stance on polygamy important for gay marriage. Once again, this has been a common practice until recently regardless of your support for (or against) homosexuality. A person (think Mormon, Islam, or even Christian) could be very against gay marriage but open to multiple wives.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

3) Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?

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 many very religious areas have under 16 brides to husbands. . .and they would KILL a gay person on site.

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?

Animals? Seriously? ha ha ha. How can an animal consent? What mind does it take to even equate these things as similar?

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.

you equate two consenting adults to f'n a kid and a goat, and you ask us to be civil? My God.

its like a Nazi telling a jewish person in the Warsaw ghetto , that they really should be kinder to people and share their bread.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy

I never said it wasn't a historical context. I said that you can't interpret it within its historical context; you just have to read it. After all, Jesus said "Let the little children come to me, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these". Also, "Whoever doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a little child shall not enter it".

What Does the Bible Say About Let The Children Come?

What does this mean? KEEP IT SIMPLE like a child would. All of this mumbo-jumbo about historical context and any other fancy-shmancy term that people like to apply to their chosen interpretation of the Bible is just so much garbage when you have to consider that acceptance of the Word of God must be on a simple level. Read what it says, and follow it. Easy. Simple.

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.