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.
For those like Zelpha, if you have a 'true relationship with God,' do you think it's the same desert tribal god of the Old Testament that slaughtered and murdered and rampaged across the Middle East?
Because there is where some HUGE cognitive dissonance takes place - this belief that the god of the Old Testament is still this perfect, just, fair, loving God that, I dunno, just happens to enjoy burnt offerings and genocide.
Yes, it is mind boggling that people can rationalize this. But so many do. However I am always reminded of Robert Heinlein's quote.
Heh, it's impossible for anyone to force a definition onto you. You're perfectly free to call a "tree" an "awning" and call a "knife" a "self-sealing stem bolt" if you really want to. Thus you can personally definie marriage any way you see fit. As I said, lifting the ban doesn't interfere with your life at all. AT ALL. The problem is on your end.
Yet...you and others continue to argue that we should redefine marriage.
Quote:
So what. Would you meekly accept a ban on Christianity if the people voted for it? Be honest now.
Considering my religious freedom is explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights...not likely.
Quote:
Fortunately, this nation recognizes that tyranny of the majority can and does, in fact, exist - and that is regulated by the judicial branch of the government. You know, one of three checks and balances the Founders put in place so people couldn't vote other people into servitude, persecution, or into the status of a 2nd class citizen.
Slavery was ended with the 13th Amendment, and you better believe that the court's fingerprints were all over it. But what's REALLY funny is how the Bible Belt states refused to ratify the 13th Amendment until they were practically forced to - yeah, they also refused to ratify the gender equality amendment, too, and so on, and so forth. Not really sure how you can really claim to be Christian when the Bible Belt has consistently voted against anything having to do with equality and help for the poor.
So if we ended slavery with a vote of the people....why must the homosexual lobby resort to sneaking it in via liberal courts?
Quote:
Because the non-religious arguments are just plain stupid - mainly because they deal with children, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage. Either that, or they can equally apply to hetero marriages which invalidates the argument (unless you think heteros ought not to get married either)
But I really don't care WHY you oppose it - I only care that you think you get to impose your opinions onto society as a whole. Religious fascism is very unbecoming - especially knowing that allowing gays to marry does not affect your right to practice your religion not one iota ... no, not one.
Really? You say you don't care why I oppose it, but you say ALL non-religious arguments are "stupid".
Quote:
See above. The "why" is irrelevant.
Because...as you say.....it's "stupid" anyway. That's rather bigoted to say that it's impossible to have reasonable objection to your opinion.
Quote:
Firstly, I'm not gay so forcing me to marry someone of the opposite gender is somewhat of a moot point.
But that's neither here nor there. What IS important is: Is anyone forcing YOU to marry someone of the same gender?
Of course not. Nor am I forcing anyone to marry anyone of the opposite gender.
Quote:
What I would like is for people of either sex to marry the person they love regardless of gender. That way EVERYONE has the choice and the freedom to do as their own lives dictate - and not what YOU dictate on their behalves. Your way is to give everyone one and only one choice: marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no freedom in that (which is why it's fascism.)
I don't believe for a second you REALLY want that. Marriage for love has NEVER BEEN a guaranteed right in this country.
Do you think it should be permissible for a brother and sister to marry? Or a mother and son? Or 2 brothers? Or 2 sisters? If not...why not? Do you have a "stupid" reason to object to such a thing?
All the horrible destructions supposedly caused by God in the Bible,
The Godly acts done by God are horrible depending on which side of the fence you sit. A materialist is like a man passing four people. The first man has a broken nose, so the materialist punches him in the nose. The second man has a broken rib, so the materialist kicks him in the ribs. The third man has a broken leg, so the materialist stomps on his leg. The fourth man, however, has torn clothes, which are so in order for his father to administer to his wounds. The materialist watches the torn clothes with sadness, and in a fit of teary rage, he decries the horrible atrocities being dealt to this man.
Yet...you and others continue to argue that we should redefine marriage.
Considering the number of times you have said this, and the number of times your posts about "redefining marriage" have been answered, I'd have thought you would have given up posting the same thing over and over.
Quote:
Considering my religious freedom is explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights...not likely.
And so is every other American's religious freedom, even those who choose to exercise it as freedom FROM religion.
Quote:
So if we ended slavery with a vote of the people....why must the homosexual lobby resort to sneaking it in via liberal courts?
This is the second time today you have referred to the courts as "liberal." How would it work out if we just refer to them as "courts" and leave the liberal/conservative stuff for the Politics forum? Slavery wasn't ended with a vote of the people. The 13th Amendment came along well after the Emancipation Proclamation. In other words, it was done by a President's Executive Order.
Quote:
Really? You say you don't care why I oppose it, but you say ALL non-religious arguments are "stupid".
The first mention of opposition to SSM on a non-religious basis was in your own post, #26.
Quote:
Because...as you say.....it's "stupid" anyway. That's rather bigoted to say that it's impossible to have reasonable objection to your opinion.
You MAY have a point there, but it would be impossible for anyone to know unless you choose to post what your non-religious objections are to SSM.
Quote:
Of course not. Nor am I forcing anyone to marry anyone of the opposite gender.
I'm guessing that Sharina was saying that nobody is forcing you to marry (in your pastoral role) any couple, of any combination of genders.
Quote:
I don't believe for a second you REALLY want that. Marriage for love has NEVER BEEN a guaranteed right in this country.
While that may literally be true, the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence. Courts often refer to the Preamble of the Constitution as support for this right.
Quote:
Do you think it should be permissible for a brother and sister to marry? Or a mother and son? Or 2 brothers? Or 2 sisters? If not...why not? Do you have a "stupid" reason to object to such a thing?
In other threads this has been thoroughly discussed. I won't be repeating any of that.
Unfortunately, the squeakiest wheels in our society are the ones with the greatest levels of cognitive dissonance.
They just can't STAND it when people decide to walk a different path, so they try to litter that path with as many obstacles as possible.
I tend to feel that the more a person has a problem with their own beliefs the more they will try to spread it. If a person is satisfied their beliefs are true, there is no need to proselytize it. Truth eventually becomes evident to those who seek truth.
What another person believes or does not believe poses no threat, unless they insist on putting it in your yard.
Robert Frost said "Good Fences make for Good Neighbors" The problem is bad neighbors will try to toss litter over the fence.
I love dandelions. I find them to be one of the most diverse plants and quite good eating. But I think my neighbors would be upset if I raised them and allowed the seeds to blow into their yards.
There seems to be a generalization that all people following a religious belief have some sort of conflict between the physical world and their religious teachings/beliefs.
That need not be true for all people who follow a religion.
I was not thinking about a physical world aspect when I made my comment earlier. The dissonance I was talking about happens when an opposing thought which is contrary to a person's long held religious belief takes hold, and creates uncomfortable feelings or conflicts within the individual. As with the OP, when they are strong enough, these thoughts can begin to bring to question the basis of their religion. Most I would say, when confronted with this situation, are willing to drop all arguments, whether they make sense or not, and seek refuge from the dissonance in belief and faith.
I was not thinking about a physical world aspect when I made my comment earlier. The dissonance I was talking about happens when an opposing thought which is contrary to a person's long held religious belief takes hold, and creates uncomfortable feelings or conflicts within the individual. As with the OP, when they are strong enough, these thoughts can begin to bring to question the basis of their religion. Most I would say, when confronted with this situation, are willing to drop all arguments, whether they make sense or not, and seek refuge from the dissonance in belief and faith.
~nez
I guess that is something I have not had to face yet.
I was not thinking about a physical world aspect when I made my comment earlier. The dissonance I was talking about happens when an opposing thought which is contrary to a person's long held religious belief takes hold, and creates uncomfortable feelings or conflicts within the individual. As with the OP, when they are strong enough, these thoughts can begin to bring to question the basis of their religion. Most I would say, when confronted with this situation, are willing to drop all arguments, whether they make sense or not, and seek refuge from the dissonance in belief and faith.
~nez
If an opposing thought is able to take hold on a long held religious belief, and is contrary to the belief as above considered for speculative thinking, - and then the issue is dropped and refuge is taken in the belief ( as suggested)...so what ? Iow what we know is the understandings in the belief out measure the supposed in the suggestion. So ...lets face it, there is no value in this proposed idea.
Last edited by Drew K; 05-23-2014 at 11:15 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.
