"Love The Sinner, But Hate The Sin" - why I hate that expression. (Muslims, quote)

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by Shirina

I do not hate Christians.

LOL.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I don't advocate censorship. Please don't lump me into that group.

I'm not lumping YOU into any group. But you're coming at me with accusations that my side are the fascists using only the Phil Robertson example, so I decided to clue you in on just how fervently a significant number of Christians advocate for massive censorship across the board - and not just ONE guy who offended a lot of people.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

First of all, you assume it is only a "vocal minority." Have you actually conducted a scientific poll to determine how many Americans agree or disagree with A&E's decision? Or how many Americans agree with what Robertson said? I doubt it.

Secondly, as for being bullied, why don't you take that into consideration when you bully the gay community with your fascistic laws and ... Kentucky's anti-bullying laws that actually allows kids to bully in the name of their religion. LOL! I mean, seriously, you complain about being bullied while Christians are out there passing laws that allow and encourage bullying. Teehee! The irony is thicker than a block of lead.

Originally Posted by Vizio

The redefining of marriage is a big one.

Who cares what it's called? I thought marriage was a personal decision between two people in love. What you call it doesn't matter one whit as long as all the different words are referring to the same thing.

But I'm pretty sure I know why you can't stand the idea of gays sharing the word "marriage" with you and it only strengthens my argument. More on that later.

Originally Posted by Vizio

Define morality, please. How do you determine it?

I've done this already but here we go again.

Morality, in my opinion, comes in three types. The first is what I call "universal" morality. These are the morals that are a constant throughout all societies and cultures. Acts that directly harm another person are in this category - murder, rape, theft, coersion, extortion, assault, and things of that nature. I can't think of any culture where murder is legal (even if some cultures look the other way when certain types of people are murdered) or a society that has no concept of personal property and thus theft does not exist.

The second type is "legal" morality. That's the morality of obeying the law but does not necessarily harm anyone directly or seriously. Obeying parking ordinances, for instance. Some might consider it "immoral" to park illegally, but it is a very minor instance of immorality.

The third type is "religious" morality. These morals come from gods and holy books. Rarely (if ever) does not following these morals result in any downside to society. Instead, they exist due to "beliefs" and "traditions." The big difference between this type of morality and the other two types is that no one is obligated by force of law to obey them. Yeah ... we don't have to obey the Bible, so it doesn't matter if someone else thinks homosexuality is a sin.

Originally Posted by Vizio

If your standard for morality is society, that's what happens. Nazi Germany showed it, and Saudi Arabia also proves it.

LOL! I can't believe you're actually using Saudi Arabia as an example - one of the most conservative Islamic nations in the world. No, Saudi Arabia proves what happens when morality comes from religion. Also, crusades, inquisitions, the burning and execution of heretics and apostates, the hunting down and murdering of homosexuals, witch trials, scapegoating of minority groups, dictatorial and autocratic governments, and very harsh sentences for minor crimes - all of these things exist within societies that look to religion for their morality.

Can you give me even one example of a benevolent theocracy? I think I'll be waiting a long time for an answer.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

Now you're making the strawman argument. Either that or you missed my point entirely. What I was saying is that gays do not pick a life of being harrassed, threatened, ostracized, assaulted, bullied, being driven to suicide and, in some cases, even murdered just so they can have fun sex. I'm pretty certain that you think homosexuality is a choice. Am I right? My point is that gays would never choose to be the whipping boys of society if they didn't have to be.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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?

You really don't get it, do you. In your mind, homosexuality is all about the sex and nothing else. That's all you really see. Homosexuality is also about LOVING the same gender. It's not just physical attraction. Have you ever felt romantically attracted to another man, Vizio? Not physically attracted, by romantically attracted. No? Well, that's what it's like for gays - they aren't romantically attracted to the opposite sex either.

You really need to get off the sex thing and realize that it's far more than that. Unfortunately, many Christians who feel as you do have to invent things in order to justify their intolerance. One such invention is that it's all about the sex and nothing but the sex - as if it's just a fetish without any emotional components at all. Perhaps if you weren't so obviously disgusted by homosexuality, you would actually learn more about it so you wouldn't be using the same tired arguments that have been refuted thousands of times.

Originally Posted by Vizio

And you're the one telling me that if I don't agree with you, then I'm a bigot.

Here's the Webster definition of the word "bigot."

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

It's not a matter of simply disagreeing with me. It's whether or not your beliefs meet the defintion - which I think they do. Before you go saying that I'm just as bad, keep in mind the bolded word. There's no such thing as being bigoted against bigots because that would be a person who "strongly and FAIRLY dislikes other people, ideas, etc."

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

So what? Not only is this the same old "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy that I've heard hundreds of times, this argument is also predicated on the false belief that things don't change. They do. A person 200 years ago would say, "We have always had arranged marriages. No one EVER married for love." Around 50 years ago, people would say, "But people have ALWAYS married the same race. People NEVER marry a different race than themselves." Oh we could go on and on.

The point is that things change - even things that have been around a long time. One cannot use "tradition" as a valid reason why someone's rights should be curtailed or violated. After all, slavery was the tradition around the globe for 6,000 years. Should we still enslave people to keep the tradition alive?

Originally Posted by Vizio

It's called English. Words do have meaning, and you and your side don't get to decide what those meanings are.

Who decides then? YOUR side? Does society? Because unless your side begins clamping down with fascism, there is no way your side is going to win this fight. This is the very reason why all of those states amended their constitutions instead of just ratifying a law. Amendments are MUCH harder to appeal. These right-wing Christian conservative politicians knew that the tidal wave of history would eventually destroy their cause, so they tried to hold out just a little while longer before the wave hits. And it will - sooner or later. More and more people are either accepting or tolerating same-sex marriage. Children and teens are more accepting of it, and they are our future. Not you, not the party of angry old men, not the pulpit pounders and Bible thumpers.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

Oh? Is there some immutable law of physics that makes same-sex marriage impossible? Or is it "impossible" only because people like you say it is?

And there you go again with your "sexual attraction" nonsense. First of all, there was a poll done last year by NBC that asked participants what they thought was the most important component for a successful marriage. Do you want to take a guess what the most popular answer was? Want to take a wild stab?

The most important component, they said, for a successful marriage was good sex. Oooh, so you might be in error when you claim marriage isn't about sexual attraction. Sorry, but you lose. However, more importantly, you also lose because you're hanging on to the notion that homosexuality is ONLY about sex. It isn't. That's why I asked if you ever felt romantically attracted to another man.

Ever want to buy flowers for any of your male co-workers? Ever feel like a nice night of cuddling with the cable guy? Ever have an urge to take the mailman out for a candlelit dinner? Yeah, I didn't think so. Therefore, what makes you think gays are romantically attracted to the opposite sex?

Originally Posted by Vizio

Are you offended at me assuming you were? I'm sorry.

I'm offended by your blatant admission that you think your relationships are superior to gay relationships when that is so demonstrably false. Neither side can claim they are better husbands and wives.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

I really wish I didn't have to explain this so many times. There are no restrictions or laws that prohibit you from marrying the woman you love - if she's willing to marry you. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

You're in dire need of a reality check, so here it is:

Gallup Gay Marriage Poll Finds Majority of U.S. Citizens Would Support Nationwide Marriage Equality Law

And you were saying about a "small vocal minority"?

Originally Posted by Vizio

It's correct whether or not I say it again. The fact remains--gay people have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS I do.

Wrong. That would only be true if you were prohibited from marrying women. At least then, neither side is allowed to marry who they actually WANT to marry. Would you like such a law? Because THEN it would be fair.

Originally Posted by Vizio

There was no question of sexual attraction on my marriage application.

And this is relevant, how exactly? Are you suggesting that, because of the lack of a "sexual attraction" question on a marriage application, "sexual attraction" is never a consideration when getting married?

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

And now you're using a variation of the "etymological fallacy," the fallacy that the meaning of words never changes. Have you ever said something like, "That's a cool car!" I'm betting you weren't talking about it's temperature. Case in point.

Originally Posted by Vizio

It's not the bird's fault that the fish doesn't have wings. But redefining the word "fly" doesn't change a thing.

No, but it IS the bird's fault for why the fish is prohibited from swimming. Of course, the REAL question here is: Why do fish swim to begin with?

Originally Posted by Vizio

It changes the word "marriage"? How is that not clear to you?

Oh yes, it is quite clear. I once wondered why people like you loathed to share the word "marriage" with homosexuals and then it dawned on me. People like you don't want to share the word because you DO think you're superior. It is akin to not wanting to share a seat on the bus with a homosexual, or not wanting to stand in line next to a homosexual, or not wanting to live next door to a homosexual. And then you wonder why so many people are perceiving your actions as bigotry. And trust me, we aren't a "small vocal minority."

I've also heard it said by MANY people like yourself that allowing gays to marry somehow "cheapens" their own marriages - as if marriage is some sort of stock investment that goes up and down depending on world events. What I've told these people is this:

If they really feel that sharing "marriage" with gays cheapens straight marriage, then I dare you to go tell your wife, "Hey, honey, I love you a little less because gays can marry. Our marriage has a little less value to me, so if I seem less loving and less compassionate and less of a husband - well, you can blame the gays."

Yeah, go be honest with your spouse if that's how you feel - and see what happens.

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

Sure, none of the amendments I've seen even mentions homosexuality - or religion, for that matter. That's because those amendments would have been instantly struck down by the Supreme Court if those things had been mentioned. It's just a legal loophole and does NOT change, in any way, the motive behind those discriminatory laws. Eventually, they will be struck down as a violation of the US Constitution - or society will demand a vote to repeal them. One way or the other, you may as well get used to sharing marriage with those "evil abominations" because reason ALWAYS wins out over superstition in the end.

Questions that have yet to be answered

1) What fascist laws are gays forcing you to obey?
2) How are you being controlled by gays?
3) How does same-sex marriage affect your marriage personally and straight marriage in general?
4) What makes you think that Christianity has the right to impose itself onto everyone regardless of religious belief - or lack of it?

[alexcanter]

You know fellow member answer's to your questions are very easy and not only derail the thread subject but beg the one who answer's properly to get either kicked out or a warning. Seem's aggressive right there.

Second Christianity reach's out to everyone in a gentle way. Above is coming after what people believe in their heart let's say in an accusatory way. For example how can the bigot ever be transferred on to a belief in general that understands romance to be something with a fundamental magic, out of and rooted in premise from the outset in the construction of the world to begin with. There is no 'mating connection' mirrored in anything in the setting between two of the same gender. No motor in creation compelling a connection in keeping with the given . The alleged romance is feelings , no intrinsic foundation . Non acceptance and the bigot word doesn't seem all together fair.

Anyway people need to live out their lives and this call from the gay community for a celebration of feelings is just that. Feelings. Marriage as it's understood throughout all history is not about feelings swinging in the breeze. Its about a bond which has an immanent connection with contrast seen , within and allows the world to work in every way. The politics and controversies area is a way better area I find to read about all the opinions in this. Its not a religion's argument, its only connected to religion by guidance in supposed guide-lines. No boundaries, no idea, no religion for guidance through the spiritual journey. Not saying there should not be a division between state and rel, a whole new topic.

I think you guy's are using religion people and trying to take advantage of a supposed understood idea of expecting mild and meek and ever so humble people TO NOT be able to answer questions. And if they do, nail them to the wall for being uncharitable or other virtue.

Also, what does this mean. If a person gives an opinion, they are being cruel and aggressive from this side of it, because it can never not , even if a general answer also behave as a pointed answer individually. So that's not fair, everyone is different and the subject can only go sour with people having feelings hurt. Yet they want to dictate what life is all about. Also, there are huge psychological issues differentiating male gay and female gay and I think the movements argument takes advantage of that in the issues of the argument. So in all for the issue of getting a point made its pretty much just a mess. Of course a lay view for now, which I think is different then a view or approach from an individual with the good calling, a vocation.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by alexcanter

You know fellow member answer's to your questions are very easy and not only derail the thread subject but beg the one who answer's properly to get either kicked out or a warning. Seem's aggressive right there.

Oh no, it's not aggressive. I don't think anyone should be making bare assertions that are left unchallenged. If Vizio is going to say that gays control Christians with fascistic laws (which he did) then I want to know WHAT laws. He doesn't get a free pass to lie about what's going on simply because you think asking pertinent questions is "aggressive."

Originally Posted by alexcanter

There is no 'mating connection' mirrored in anything in the setting between two of the same gender. No motor in creation compelling a connection in keeping with the given . The alleged romance is feelings , no intrinsic foundation . Non acceptance and the bigot word doesn't seem all together fair.

Speaking of bare assertions, there's one right there. How do YOU know that there's no 'mating connection' between two gay people? You seem to have a lot of "inside information" - are you gay? Have gays told you there is no "intrinsic foundation" to their relationship? From where are you getting your information? Because knowing what I know, it sounds to me like you're making stuff up.

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Anyway people need to live out their lives and this call from the gay community for a celebration of feelings is just that. Feelings. Marriage as it's understood throughout all history is not about feelings swinging in the breeze.

Oh? Does your spouse know that you don't have any feelings for her? You better keep that a secret since marriage isn't about feelings - she might be upset to know that your marriage is more of a sterile business partnership than a romantic relationship. Don't worry, I won't tell.

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Its about a bond which has an immanent connection with contrast seen , within and allows the world to work in every way.

Now we're back to bare assertions since you apparently have this "knowledge" that gays cannot have the same bond as straight couples. What on earth makes you think this is true?

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Its not a religion's argument, its only connected to religion by guidance in supposed guide-lines. No boundaries, no idea, no religion for guidance through the spiritual journey. Not saying there should not be a division between state and rel, a whole new topic.

You better believe it is a religious argument. This wouldn't even be an issue if not for the meddling of religion into secular affairs. Yes, marriages are secular in nature as it is the government that issues the license. The church only performs the ceremony. Two people can be legally married with nothing but the secular license, but a couple cannot be legally married with just the ceremony. So yes, marriages are very much secular - where religion need not go.

But I have seen the speeches, the crusades, the rallies, and the debates of those who are against same-sex marriage, and they can't go 60 seconds without mentioning God, the Bible, "our Creator," or some other reference to religion. God this, the Bible that, our Creater thinks blah and blah. Religion has its fingerprints all over this issue.

Originally Posted by alexcanter

I think you guy's are using religion people and trying to take advantage of a supposed understood idea of expecting mild and meek and ever so humble people TO NOT be able to answer questions. And if they do, nail them to the wall for being uncharitable or other virtue.

No, it's the other way around. The bigots are the ones using religion - using Old Testament laws like the ones in Leviticus to justify a hatred and disgust of homosexuals that would exist with or without religion. But hey, why not cherry pick a few irrelevant verses from the Old Testament to justify why I don't like gays! Yeah! And so the bigots hide behind religion, using it as a shield against people like me who call them to the carpet for their dishonesty.

As for answering questions - sorry, but like I said, no bare assertions here. If someone is going to make accusations, then, as an advocate for gay rights, I have the duty to demand the source of those accusations as well as the information behind them. People just don't get to disparage gays and not have to answer for it.

Originally Posted by alexcanter

Also, what does this mean. If a person gives an opinion, they are being cruel and aggressive from this side of it, because it can never not , even if a general answer also behave as a pointed answer individually.

Are you suggesting that opinions cannot be "cruel and aggressive"? Because they can, you know.

Originally Posted by alexcanter

So that's not fair, everyone is different and the subject can only go sour with people having feelings hurt.

Yep, that is true. Just think of the millions of gays who are deeply hurt by their state's refusal to recognize their marriages - even legal marriages issued by another state. It means that, were I gay and I got into a car accident in a gay-unfriendly state, I would have NO visitation rights to see my spouse in the hospital, nor could I make any medical decisions on her behalf should she be incapable of making them herself. It means any child that biologically belongs to my spouse but who I was raising as a parent, would end up in foster care instead of with me. And the list goes on and on. All because of a bunch of ridiculous Bronze Age superstitions.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Oh no, it's not aggressive. I don't think anyone should be making bare assertions that are left unchallenged. If Vizio is going to say that gays control Christians with fascistic laws (which he did) then I want to know WHAT laws. He doesn't get a free pass to lie about what's going on simply because you think asking pertinent questions is "aggressive."

For starters, if you want me to redefine what marriage is in order to suit a very small minority of people, that is fascism.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

For starters, if you want me to redefine what marriage is in order to suit a very small minority of people, that is fascism.

No it's not. You cannot even demostrate how allowing gays to marry would even affect you.

Well, you COULD explain it, but not without proving my original point concerning bigotry. You're in a corner, Vizio, whether you realize it or not.

[Somewhereinthemiddle]

I grew up with fire and brimstone. It eventually turned me into a Buddhist =) I just follow simple wisdom. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. It's not my place to judge or say anything. Look for something nice to say about them =) Make them smile. There's enough hate and meanness in the world without you adding to it. No matter what faith you are.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

No it's not. You cannot even demostrate how allowing gays to marry would even affect you.
Well, you COULD explain it, but not without proving my original point concerning bigotry. You're in a corner, Vizio, whether you realize it or not.

What did I say? I said that it would change the definition of marriage. Do you not get that? Words have meanings. Please stop trying to force your will on the rest of us.

In any event, whether or not it personally affects me is not the reason to pass a law or not. Maybe that's all you care about....and that kind of an attitude is bad for our country. It's not about you. It's not about me.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Vizio

What did I say? I said that it would change the definition of marriage. Do you not get that? Words have meanings. Please stop trying to force your will on the rest of us.

And why don't you want to share the word "marriage" with homosexuals? Hmmm? I think we both know why. Are you too ashamed to put your thoughts online for all to read?

Originally Posted by Vizio

In any event, whether or not it personally affects me is not the reason to pass a law or not. Maybe that's all you care about....and that kind of an attitude is bad for our country. It's not about you. It's not about me.

This is what I call "pretzel logic." It's when someone completely twists a point of contention to such an extent that it resembles a pretzel. Just like you did here.

But if it doesn't personally affect you, then why is there such a passionate resistance to gays sharing the word "marriage" with you?

This should be a very easy question to answer given how direct it is.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

And why don't you want to share the word "marriage" with homosexuals? Hmmm? I think we both know why. Are you too ashamed to put your thoughts online for all to read?

Because I don't get to define the word, and neither do you. Words have meanings. I guess I'd question why you think you do?

This is what I call "pretzel logic." It's when someone completely twists a point of contention to such an extent that it resembles a pretzel. Just like you did here.

But if it doesn't personally affect you, then why is there such a passionate resistance to gays sharing the word "marriage" with you?

This should be a very easy question to answer given how direct it is.

It's affect on me directly is irrelevant. It's not an issue when it comes to me deciding I want or don't want a law.

Why do you think we need to change marriage to include 2 people of the same gender? Why is it needed?