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.
You probably feel it's not up to me to "save you", don't you?
Likewise, it's not up to you to educate all us idiots that actually believe in God...ok? So when you post about us not wanting to come out of the dark ages, or we're 500 years in the past....it just makes people dig in deeper against you. You're not accomplishing anything.
Let me just preface this post with an important diplomatic announcement: Any supposed peace treaties we may have had are hereby rendered null and void. Any obligation I may once have had to, uhm, be "nice" to you is no longer in force.
Just so you know. Ergo, don't bother whining to me about how mean I am because, frankly, I don't care.
Now ... for those Christians who still worship a perpetually angry God who seems to spend all of his time thinking up new ways to torment innocent people, they still worship the Divine Monster from the Old Testament -- just as they did some 500 years ago.
Everything to those people was God's wrath because they didn't know any better. WE, on the other hand, do. So anyone who still sees these disasters as divine punishment are practicing their religion as if this were 500 A.D.
You can sniffle and cry and stomp your feet all you want to. Nothing I've said is untrue -- and you can't prove otherwise. (I know history is on my side anyway or I never would have written what I did in the first place).
The rest of Christendom has essentially moved on -- they worship God in a more modern way and no longer see signs and portents in tornadoes and hurricanes the way far too many Americans do.
In fact, religion's penchant for scapegoating non-Christians every time there's a plague, disaster, or war is one of the reasons why I don't like organized religion -- and I will continue criticizing it whether you like it or not.
By the way -- if you're going to bother responding to my posts, I would advise you to beef up your reading comprehension skills. I really don't like having to defend against strawman arguments like the one you made above.
I never said "believing in God" means you're living in the Dark Ages. Nope. I didn't say that anywhere. What was it that you said at the end of your post? Oh right, this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
How about you stop being disengenuous and you actually represent our side fairly?
The hypocrisy is just ... astounding.
I said that believing God is directly responsible for natural disasters, acts of terror, and school shootings is living in the Dark Ages. That's what I think. If you don't like it, well, who's the snowflake now?
I've said a thousand times that I'm not against believing in a god -- but I am against the doctrine and dogma that goes along with religion because they have caused nothing but atrocity, oppression, warfare, and death the world over. It's still happening in the Middle East, and it *would* be happening here, as well, were it not for our secular laws and secular Constitution.
And scapegoating Jews, women, liberals, gays, Muslims -- essentially anyone who isn't a Christian -- is a big reason why. "God is angry so ... it must be those people over there with different skin, different clothes, and different ways of thinking that angered God. Let's get 'em!"
Are you going to deny that this happens? Or perhaps you would rather attack me and my posting style a bit more since you obviously have absolutely no rebuttal -- and, quite frankly, never have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Actually, that's the exact opposite message of Christianity. Not that I expect you to actually pay attention to what we've been saying. I believe this conversation tends to be entirely 1-sided.
So what. I don't care if the actual message of Christianity is having free ice cream on Tuesdays.
I'm only concerned with what ideas and messages are actually being promulgated -- and it certainly isn't love, peace, acceptance, and the Golden Rule.
After all, never before in modern times has Christianity mobilized for any reason the way it mobilized against gay marriage. That, to me, says something about the nature of Christianity, especially Christianity here in America, a nation where freedom of religion and freedom from religion is paramount.
(Your ridiculous argument that the states are not bound by the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding.)
I am curious what YOU think the "actual message of Christianity" actually is. Of course, there will be a dozen Christians who will probably disagree in a dozen different ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Maybe he is. Maybe he is judging our nation for murders. Maybe he's judging our nation for other things. Maybe the natural disaster has no correlation to guns, homosexuality, or anything else you can think of.
First off, again, I don't care about what "maybe" God is doing. I only care about the fact that there are powerful Christians with their own cable shows that constantly blame gays, liberals, feminists, and atheists for every problem America faces, from the 2008 recession to the slaughter at Sandy Hook. It was all someone *else's* fault, yet these same Christians never bother to ponder whether or not God might be angry with *them* instead.
No, they always have to scapegoat -- and this scapegoating has cost the lives of tens of millions of innocent people over the centuries. And it is *still* going on, but almost exclusively in America.
Secondly, if you still believe that these disasters and acts of terror are the result of an angry God, then you're living in the Dark Ages. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I don't care how you feel about it.
After all, one must then assume that places like Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway -- the most secular and liberal nations on the planet -- must live virtually sin-free lives. Consider when was the last time you heard of a "Cat-5" hurricane slamming Amsterdam? Or how about a volcano erupting near Brussels? A major earthquake in Oslo? Even a school shooting in Geneva?
Yeah, something to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
It's a sin. Just like adultery. Just like murder. Just like every other sin. No better, no worse. It's a sin. But that's not why I'm against gay marriage, and I'm not the one that is standing up and chiding you or anyone else, claiming we need to legislate religion.
No ... it's not "just another sin." You might think so. It's obvious that a large number of Christians disagree. Otherwise, adulterers wouldn't be allowed to re-marry. Non-virgin brides would be banned from marrying. Suspected witches would be banned, as well.
But, hmm, for some inexplicable reason, conservative Christianity only mobilized to keep gays from marrying. I wonder why that was ... perhaps because homosexuality is "just another sin" like, uhm, adultery?
Gimme a break. In addition, the mere fact that 95% of the bigotry is directed at gay men proves to me that this is mostly about the "yuck factor" and more scapegoating ("Gay marriage will destroy the country!" "It will unravel our moral fabric" ... and all the rest of that hyperbolic garbage).
No one seems to be all that concerned about the moral fabric of supporting and electing a congressman who preys upon young teenage girls, though. Just think of the millions of Moore supporters there are in the great Christian state of Alabama?
You can go on being naive if you want. It's really not my problem if you can't see what is so plainly visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I don't hate anyone. That is something you continue to harp on.
Wow, you really *are* a narcissistic little git, aren't you ...
I never said *you* hated homosexuals. In fact, my post had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. I wasn't responding to you. I didn't quote you. I certainly never used your name. No, not once.
Yet here you are, accusing me of accusing you of hating homosexuals. Even then, you had the audacity and the temerity to write:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
How about you stop being disengenuous and you actually represent our side fairly? You might find that maybe we're not quite what you have made us out to be in your mind.
If only you played by the same rules you expect me to respect, there would be far fewer misunderstandings and I wouldn't have to type so much in the (vain) effort of clarifying them.
Bottom line is that you need to get over yourself, Mr. Snowflake. If my post doesn't apply to you, then it wasn't *meant* for you.
Whether you like it or not, there are boatloads of Christians out there who do, in fact, hate gays. If you're not one of them, then you need to stop playing Knight in Shining Armor for those who *do* hate gays. They can speak for themselves and they certainly don't need *you* lying for them, thanks.
And this is, what, the 10th? 12th? post that had absolutely nothing to do with you in which you barged in, acted hurt and indignant, and pretended it was all about you? Yeah, the tally count is rising quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Nonstop nagging and accusing. Despite us continuing to tell you otherwise, you continue to harp on that. You're a noisy cymbal. All you do is nag nag nag on this crap and it's tiring. Get over it. We do not hate gay people.
Just how many clones of yourself are there, I wonder? Because you seem awfully confused between the first person singular and the third person plural. You apparently switch between them at will -- or whenever switching suits your ineffective arguments.
In one sentence you're talking about how *you* don't hate gays and in the next you're speaking for *all* Christians by using words like "us" and "we." Do you have a colony of gerbils in your pocket?
Because unless you're going to stupidly claim that no Christians hate gays, you really don't have the right to speak for anyone but yourself. Do you need allies so desperately that you're making them up on the fly?
As for being a "noisy cymbal," well, that's rather hysterical since you haven't actually refuted or rebutted anything I've ever said.
Instead, you turn the argument into an ad hominem attack about how I'm not nice enough (then you turn around and call me a "noisy cymbal" without any provocation -- because I said there is bigotry and hatred against gays in Christendom -- and *cackle* then expect me to play nicey-nice with you. Well, that ain't happenin').
Oh, and *you're* the one who decided to start a sarcastic anti-gay thread. If you're going to post trite garbage like that, you don't have the right to become all sanctimonious and self-righteous if a person like me posts a criticism of your religion. Yeah, there's that "playing by the same rules" issue again.
You claim your reason for being anti-gay-marriage isn't religious -- but it's still probably ridiculous. I say that because a) I've yet to hear an anti-gay-marriage argument that *wasn't* ridiculous and b) your reluctance to actually say what that reason is tells me that you probably know it's a ridiculous argument and don't want it shredded on the forum so you're keeping it a secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
That's really what this is about, isn't it? We've reached the point in our snowflake society where if we dare to say that something OTHER than the things your side denounces are bad.....then we're intolerant bigots. It's impossible to have a conviction based on reason that goes against your opinion, isn't it?
I knew I smelled something wretched -- and now I discovered what it is. More hypocrisy!
It sometimes astounds me that a person such as yourself, a person who flys into orbit whenever their religion is criticized -- with a "conviction based on reason" (your words) -- can actually write something so hypocritical and not be begging forgiveness from your god. After all, if you don't, he might send an F5 tornado to Oklahoma as punishment. Unless you actually live in Oklahoma in which case he'll send it to Nebraska -- it's always innocent people who pay the price for someone else's sin, after all. Just ask Jesus ALL about that *snicker*
Sorry, but you simply do not have the right to criticize me -- or anyone else -- for being intolerant of dissenting opinions when I can't even criticize the most despicable kind of scapegoating, well-poisoning, propagandizing, and lying Christians without you taking major offense.
Practicing what you preach doesn't even *begin* to cover it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
How about you stop being disengenuous and you actually represent our side fairly? You might find that maybe we're not quite what you have made us out to be in your mind.
You're the one who still claims that the states don't have to adhere to the U.S. Constitution -- just so you can erroneously loophole the First Amendment in favor of the pro-fascist, pro-theocracy side of fundamentalism. Couple that with your anger whenever we (atheists) exercise our rights to express our negative opinions about your religion ... I think how I made *you* out is pretty accurate. There is no "us" in this conversation since you chose to make it all about you.
Let me just preface this post with an important diplomatic announcement: Any supposed peace treaties we may have had are hereby rendered null and void. Any obligation I may once have had to, uhm, be "nice" to you is no longer in force.
Just so you know. Ergo, don't bother whining to me about how mean I am because, frankly, I don't care.
Honey, you've never really cared to be nice. You are as snarky as anyone on this board, and you have made a habit of attacking others.
Quote:
Now ... for those Christians who still worship a perpetually angry God who seems to spend all of his time thinking up new ways to torment innocent people, they still worship the Divine Monster from the Old Testament -- just as they did some 500 years ago.
Everything to those people was God's wrath because they didn't know any better. WE, on the other hand, do. So anyone who still sees these disasters as divine punishment are practicing their religion as if this were 500 A.D.
That's a lovely opinion you have there. Should anyone take it with anything other than a grain of salt? Because that's all it is--an opinion. It is not based in fact.
Quote:
You can sniffle and cry and stomp your feet all you want to. Nothing I've said is untrue -- and you can't prove otherwise. (I know history is on my side anyway or I never would have written what I did in the first place).
No sniffling and crying, or stomping going on here. You don't like me? I can't say I really care. Maybe you're accustomed to people wearing kid gloves around you. If you can't handle what I have to say, I'm sorry. I'm not going to attack you personally, but nor will I just sit back and be scared of your threats.
Quote:
The rest of Christendom has essentially moved on -- they worship God in a more modern way and no longer see signs and portents in tornadoes and hurricanes the way far too many Americans do.
And they have shown a lack of integrity. The claim to believe in a god that they don't actually worship. If you respect that, ok. Great.
Quote:
In fact, religion's penchant for scapegoating non-Christians every time there's a plague, disaster, or war is one of the reasons why I don't like organized religion -- and I will continue criticizing it whether you like it or not.
I've not done that. I don't believe that you are the reason that there is an earthquake.
Quote:
By the way -- if you're going to bother responding to my posts, I would advise you to beef up your reading comprehension skills. I really don't like having to defend against strawman arguments like the one you made above.
I never said "believing in God" means you're living in the Dark Ages. Nope. I didn't say that anywhere. What was it that you said at the end of your post? Oh right, this:
The hypocrisy is just ... astounding.
I will stand by my statement. You have a habit of using strawman arguments. You just made one above. I don't believe God is judging the world because of what a bunch of atheists do.
I'm sorry that you have a bone to pick with religion. I don't hate you. But I do wish you would be honest in the discussions we have.
Quote:
I said that believing God is directly responsible for natural disasters, acts of terror, and school shootings is living in the Dark Ages. That's what I think. If you don't like it, well, who's the snowflake now?
And you suggested that is what Christians believe and teach. There may be some that do, but I do not. You need to recognize that we are not all the same.
Quote:
I've said a thousand times that I'm not against believing in a god -- but I am against the doctrine and dogma that goes along with religion because they have caused nothing but atrocity, oppression, warfare, and death the world over. It's still happening in the Middle East, and it *would* be happening here, as well, were it not for our secular laws and secular Constitution.
And I believe you're way off base here.
Quote:
And scapegoating Jews, women, liberals, gays, Muslims -- essentially anyone who isn't a Christian -- is a big reason why. "God is angry so ... it must be those people over there with different skin, different clothes, and different ways of thinking that angered God. Let's get 'em!"
I haven't done that. But that hasn't stopped you from using that strawman to cast the blame. This is what I mean by you being dishonest and using strawman arguments.
Quote:
Are you going to deny that this happens? Or perhaps you would rather attack me and my posting style a bit more since you obviously have absolutely no rebuttal -- and, quite frankly, never have.
Some do, yes. Just like some atheist are hatemongers and attack anything religious. I offered a truce--I won't assume you're one of those if you don't act like it.
Quote:
So what. I don't care if the actual message of Christianity is having free ice cream on Tuesdays.
I'm only concerned with what ideas and messages are actually being promulgated -- and it certainly isn't love, peace, acceptance, and the Golden Rule.
And again....you completely ignore what the religion ACTUALLY teaches, and you assume that all that claim to be Christians are of that particular mindset.
So yes--you are being dishonest. You are using a strawman argument. You are stating what Christianity teaches, and you are lumping us all into that stereotype. Yay for you.
Quote:
After all, never before in modern times has Christianity mobilized for any reason the way it mobilized against gay marriage. That, to me, says something about the nature of Christianity, especially Christianity here in America, a nation where freedom of religion and freedom from religion is paramount.
That's really what is the issue, isn't it? You seem to have this strange notion that because we are religious, and we disagree with you, that we should not be able to exercise our constitutional rights, and vote, and such. Is that it?
Quote:
(Your ridiculous argument that the states are not bound by the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding.)
I am curious what YOU think the "actual message of Christianity" actually is. Of course, there will be a dozen Christians who will probably disagree in a dozen different ways.
Of course the states are bound by it. But the point remains that you seem to think that only SOME aspects of the Constitution are required to be honored by all states. The Constitution does not mention marriage, and you think that all states should honor what one state does, while it DOES specifically mention other rights, but you gloss over that fact and think the states shouldn't have to honor those.
Quote:
First off, again, I don't care about what "maybe" God is doing. I only care about the fact that there are powerful Christians with their own cable shows that constantly blame gays, liberals, feminists, and atheists for every problem America faces, from the 2008 recession to the slaughter at Sandy Hook. It was all someone *else's* fault, yet these same Christians never bother to ponder whether or not God might be angry with *them* instead.
And there are atheists that have tv shows that denounce Christianity every chance they get. So what? I don't believe Bill Maher speaks for you, so why should you assume that a senile old man on the 700 club speaks for me?
Quote:
No, they always have to scapegoat -- and this scapegoating has cost the lives of tens of millions of innocent people over the centuries. And it is *still* going on, but almost exclusively in America.
Secondly, if you still believe that these disasters and acts of terror are the result of an angry God, then you're living in the Dark Ages. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I don't care how you feel about it.
After all, one must then assume that places like Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway -- the most secular and liberal nations on the planet -- must live virtually sin-free lives. Consider when was the last time you heard of a "Cat-5" hurricane slamming Amsterdam? Or how about a volcano erupting near Brussels? A major earthquake in Oslo? Even a school shooting in Geneva?
Yeah, something to think about.
Did you actually read my post? I've not suggested that anyone is a scapegoat for those disasters. I have not said that God is angry and wants to punish us because 2 guys play house.
Quote:
No ... it's not "just another sin." You might think so. It's obvious that a large number of Christians disagree. Otherwise, adulterers wouldn't be allowed to re-marry. Non-virgin brides would be banned from marrying. Suspected witches would be banned, as well.
Actually, it is. The Bible says it is. The fact that some that claim to be Christians ignore what Scripture clearly says is irrelevant. But you will notice that I've not suggested that people that commit that sin are any better or worse than I am. I'm sorry if calling things sinful offends you.
Quote:
But, hmm, for some inexplicable reason, conservative Christianity only mobilized to keep gays from marrying. I wonder why that was ... perhaps because homosexuality is "just another sin" like, uhm, adultery?
Gimme a break. In addition, the mere fact that 95% of the bigotry is directed at gay men proves to me that this is mostly about the "yuck factor" and more scapegoating ("Gay marriage will destroy the country!" "It will unravel our moral fabric" ... and all the rest of that hyperbolic garbage).
No one seems to be all that concerned about the moral fabric of supporting and electing a congressman who preys upon young teenage girls, though. Just think of the millions of Moore supporters there are in the great Christian state of Alabama?
You can go on being naive if you want. It's really not my problem if you can't see what is so plainly visible.
I don't know of any Christian that advocates for adultery. Maybe if there was a pro-adultery movement that wanted to change the definition of marriage, we'd see more pushback.
Quote:
Wow, you really *are* a narcissistic little git, aren't you ...
I never said *you* hated homosexuals. In fact, my post had absolutely nothing to do with you at all. I wasn't responding to you. I didn't quote you. I certainly never used your name. No, not once.
Yet here you are, accusing me of accusing you of hating homosexuals. Even then, you had the audacity and the temerity to write:
I'm sorry...when you start lumping all Christians into one group and badmouthing us, that tends to make me assume you mean that I'm part of it.
Quote:
If only you played by the same rules you expect me to respect, there would be far fewer misunderstandings and I wouldn't have to type so much in the (vain) effort of clarifying them.
Bottom line is that you need to get over yourself, Mr. Snowflake. If my post doesn't apply to you, then it wasn't *meant* for you.
Whether you like it or not, there are boatloads of Christians out there who do, in fact, hate gays. If you're not one of them, then you need to stop playing Knight in Shining Armor for those who *do* hate gays. They can speak for themselves and they certainly don't need *you* lying for them, thanks.
And this is, what, the 10th? 12th? post that had absolutely nothing to do with you in which you barged in, acted hurt and indignant, and pretended it was all about you? Yeah, the tally count is rising quickly.
This is a discussion forum. Do you mean to suggest that I'm not welcome to discuss things that are publicly posted? When you attack my religion, am I not allowed to respond? Should I ask your permission next time? Maybe send you a PM first?
Quote:
Just how many clones of yourself are there, I wonder? Because you seem awfully confused between the first person singular and the third person plural. You apparently switch between them at will -- or whenever switching suits your ineffective arguments.
In one sentence you're talking about how *you* don't hate gays and in the next you're speaking for *all* Christians by using words like "us" and "we." Do you have a colony of gerbils in your pocket?
Because unless you're going to stupidly claim that no Christians hate gays, you really don't have the right to speak for anyone but yourself. Do you need allies so desperately that you're making them up on the fly?
As for being a "noisy cymbal," well, that's rather hysterical since you haven't actually refuted or rebutted anything I've ever said.
Instead, you turn the argument into an ad hominem attack about how I'm not nice enough (then you turn around and call me a "noisy cymbal" without any provocation -- because I said there is bigotry and hatred against gays in Christendom -- and *cackle* then expect me to play nicey-nice with you. Well, that ain't happenin').
Oh, and *you're* the one who decided to start a sarcastic anti-gay thread. If you're going to post trite garbage like that, you don't have the right to become all sanctimonious and self-righteous if a person like me posts a criticism of your religion. Yeah, there's that "playing by the same rules" issue again.
You claim your reason for being anti-gay-marriage isn't religious -- but it's still probably ridiculous. I say that because a) I've yet to hear an anti-gay-marriage argument that *wasn't* ridiculous and b) your reluctance to actually say what that reason is tells me that you probably know it's a ridiculous argument and don't want it shredded on the forum so you're keeping it a secret.
I knew I smelled something wretched -- and now I discovered what it is. More hypocrisy!
It sometimes astounds me that a person such as yourself, a person who flys into orbit whenever their religion is criticized -- with a "conviction based on reason" (your words) -- can actually write something so hypocritical and not be begging forgiveness from your god. After all, if you don't, he might send an F5 tornado to Oklahoma as punishment. Unless you actually live in Oklahoma in which case he'll send it to Nebraska -- it's always innocent people who pay the price for someone else's sin, after all. Just ask Jesus ALL about that *snicker*
Sorry, but you simply do not have the right to criticize me -- or anyone else -- for being intolerant of dissenting opinions when I can't even criticize the most despicable kind of scapegoating, well-poisoning, propagandizing, and lying Christians without you taking major offense.
Practicing what you preach doesn't even *begin* to cover it.
You have made a habit of attacking religion. I'll stand by that. Others have noted it, as well. It's no secret you hate religion. You think highly of yourself, and if anyone disagrees with you, you have demonstrated a hatred for that opinion.
Again....you play nice, I'll play nice.
Quote:
You're the one who still claims that the states don't have to adhere to the U.S. Constitution -- just so you can erroneously loophole the First Amendment in favor of the pro-fascist, pro-theocracy side of fundamentalism. Couple that with your anger whenever we (atheists) exercise our rights to express our negative opinions about your religion ... I think how I made *you* out is pretty accurate. There is no "us" in this conversation since you chose to make it all about you.
[/quote]
I've never said that. But again, there is another strawman argument you're making.
Quite a rant you've made here. Did I touch a nerve? I'll stop responding to you, since it apparently gets you pretty fired up.
Why would anyone want to have government FORCE us to either buy from or sell to anyone, when there are plenty other valid and equally good alternatives?
“Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin.”
So essentially- only race and RELIGION are protected. This is why many businesses have signs like, “We reserve the right to refuse service” or “No shirt, no service.” And this is why there are so many businesses to choose from because government hasn’t yet been trying to micromanage them.
It's not about the specific individuals - it's about the supreme right to religious freedom is being infringed on in trying to force some to help celebrate homosexuality when it goes against their religious beliefs. Their right is based on the highest law of the land - and doesn't even compare to any little state laws or state constitutions - not even federal laws.
The ONLY reasons a business cannot refuse service is based on "race, color, religion, or national origin.” That leaves many many legally valid reasons businesses CAN refuse service (and btw many reasons customers refuse to shop at places). One of the reasons is non-paying customers, another is people who don't have proper clothing... and a list of other reasons. Of all of the reasons - why is it that some are making a fuss about 1 specific valid reason (goes against religious beliefs), while ignoring all of the others? Of course, it's because homosexual bullies do not care about anybody but themselves - and want to force everyone to be made to bow to them.
And when they bully - and try to demand others cater to them despite it infringing on their right to freedom of religion - they are going against the higher law of the land - the US Constitutional 1st amendment.
"The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution declares that federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land." Hence, state court laws are inferior so long as the federal law is valid (constitutional)."
Why would anyone want to have government FORCE us to either buy from or sell to anyone, when there are plenty other valid and equally good alternatives?
There are not always other valid and equally good alternatives. The little town where I spend summers has only one bakery and only one grocery store and only one gas station. For those products and services, there are no alternatives.
<snip>
Quote:
It's not about the specific individuals - it's about the supreme right to religious freedom is being infringed on in trying to force some to help celebrate homosexuality when it goes against their religious beliefs. Their right is based on the highest law of the land - and doesn't even compare to any little state laws or state constitutions - not even federal laws.
How does one go about celebrating homosexuality? I've never heard of such a thing.
There are not always other valid and equally good alternatives. The little town where I spend summers has only one bakery and only one grocery store and only one gas station. For those products and services, there are no alternatives.
<snip>
So drive to another town. I don't believe for a second that there is not a bakery within a reasonable distance. People in small towns routinely drive an hour or more to grocery shop.
Quote:
How does one go about celebrating homosexuality? I've never heard of such a thing.
<snip>
It starts with the mistaken notion that we must show our approval of the "wedding" by participating in it when requested.
So drive to another town. I don't believe for a second that there is not a bakery within a reasonable distance. People in small towns routinely drive an hour or more to grocery shop.
It starts with the mistaken notion that we must show our approval of the "wedding" by participating in it when requested.
When I got married, the participants included the bride, the groom, the matron of honor, the best man, the minister, and the organist. Nobody else. Maybe yours was different.
Maybe somebody else can answer the question that you didn't answer. How does one celebrate homosexuality?
Honey, you've never really cared to be nice. You are as snarky as anyone on this board, and you have made a habit of attacking others.
That's a lovely opinion you have there. Should anyone take it with anything other than a grain of salt? Because that's all it is--an opinion. It is not based in fact.
No sniffling and crying, or stomping going on here. You don't like me? I can't say I really care. Maybe you're accustomed to people wearing kid gloves around you. If you can't handle what I have to say, I'm sorry. I'm not going to attack you personally, but nor will I just sit back and be scared of your threats.
And they have shown a lack of integrity. The claim to believe in a god that they don't actually worship. If you respect that, ok. Great.
I've not done that. I don't believe that you are the reason that there is an earthquake.
I will stand by my statement. You have a habit of using strawman arguments. You just made one above. I don't believe God is judging the world because of what a bunch of atheists do.
I'm sorry that you have a bone to pick with religion. I don't hate you. But I do wish you would be honest in the discussions we have.
And you suggested that is what Christians believe and teach. There may be some that do, but I do not. You need to recognize that we are not all the same.
And I believe you're way off base here.
I haven't done that. But that hasn't stopped you from using that strawman to cast the blame. This is what I mean by you being dishonest and using strawman arguments.
Some do, yes. Just like some atheist are hatemongers and attack anything religious. I offered a truce--I won't assume you're one of those if you don't act like it.
And again....you completely ignore what the religion ACTUALLY teaches, and you assume that all that claim to be Christians are of that particular mindset.
So yes--you are being dishonest. You are using a strawman argument. You are stating what Christianity teaches, and you are lumping us all into that stereotype. Yay for you.
That's really what is the issue, isn't it? You seem to have this strange notion that because we are religious, and we disagree with you, that we should not be able to exercise our constitutional rights, and vote, and such. Is that it?
Of course the states are bound by it. But the point remains that you seem to think that only SOME aspects of the Constitution are required to be honored by all states. The Constitution does not mention marriage, and you think that all states should honor what one state does, while it DOES specifically mention other rights, but you gloss over that fact and think the states shouldn't have to honor those.
And there are atheists that have tv shows that denounce Christianity every chance they get. So what? I don't believe Bill Maher speaks for you, so why should you assume that a senile old man on the 700 club speaks for me?
Did you actually read my post? I've not suggested that anyone is a scapegoat for those disasters. I have not said that God is angry and wants to punish us because 2 guys play house.
Actually, it is. The Bible says it is. The fact that some that claim to be Christians ignore what Scripture clearly says is irrelevant. But you will notice that I've not suggested that people that commit that sin are any better or worse than I am. I'm sorry if calling things sinful offends you.
I don't know of any Christian that advocates for adultery. Maybe if there was a pro-adultery movement that wanted to change the definition of marriage, we'd see more pushback.
I'm sorry...when you start lumping all Christians into one group and badmouthing us, that tends to make me assume you mean that I'm part of it.
This is a discussion forum. Do you mean to suggest that I'm not welcome to discuss things that are publicly posted? When you attack my religion, am I not allowed to respond? Should I ask your permission next time? Maybe send you a PM first?
You have made a habit of attacking religion. I'll stand by that. Others have noted it, as well. It's no secret you hate religion. You think highly of yourself, and if anyone disagrees with you, you have demonstrated a hatred for that opinion.
Again....you play nice, I'll play nice.
I've never said that. But again, there is another strawman argument you're making.
Quite a rant you've made here. Did I touch a nerve? I'll stop responding to you, since it apparently gets you pretty fired up.
With a Shirina classic I won't need a Christmas present.
I will leave it to others to go into detail, but what you say here is nothing but denial, accusation and playing the hurt martyr. Apart from some stuff about interpreting the constitution (and wasn't it you who suggested that only those who were actually involved in the business were entitled to pronounce on it?) there was not a scrap of serious argument.
I won't say more, as anyone with more than a Shirina going after them can say that they are being mobbed.
....
Oh, but I missed that you ended with a low blow and running off. Or so it seems.
How do you think the friends and families of the all the people who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah felt after God destroyed the 2 cities, all due to their sexual sins? Im sure they had friends and family that were not in either city when it was destroyed. If that happened today, it would be the largest hate crime ever and Id bet majority of people would be mourning the loss of life...but the act of mourning would be a slap in the face to God, he would be the terrorist responsible.
Hint hint.
Sexual sins were not the reason for its destruction...
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.
