Tolerance-What a joke.
- Thread starter Chris-St Louis
- Start date
Remember Jen, All the girls loved me because "I was safe, and they knew I wouldnt hit on them!" 
)
)
The problem with quoting all of these biblical passages to justify the passage of Prop 8 is the Bible is not infallible (or at least whose interpretation do you go by). The Bible could also be used to regulate human slavery, require some hookers to be burned alive, advocate genocide, require victims of rape to marry their rapist, recognize the torture of prisoners, and require the execution of non-virgin brides. There are verses in the Bible to justify all of these. Who gets to decide which verses we continue to use and which ones we can ignore because we have become more "progressive"?
Ronnie said:
I only quoted the Bible here in regard to those who call themselves Christians (Westboro lunatics). If both parties are talking about Biblcial scripture, then the Bible applies 100%.
Antichrist also made an incorrect implication of Biblical scripture that could be addressed with the Bible (what the Bible itself says was the topic).
As far as P8 goes, quoting the Bible is relevant to those who do believe in the Bible's truth, not so much for those who don't. There are many people who voted for P8 based on morals derived from their faith, many of which are Christians and get that moral guidance from the Bible. That's why it's relevant. If it's not relevant to you due to believing that the Bible is fallible, that's fine - nobody said otherwise. Of course there is no use quoting the Bible if who you're talking to believes that the Bible is fallible. However, just because you don't find it relevant doesn't mean that nobody else finds it relevant.
It's pretty obvious you can't see that you using the bible to justify your need to control others is no different than Westboro using the bible to justify controlling others.realdeal said:
You're fond of using the Bible to justify your need to control others, so please give me the passage where it states that same sex couples being married is a sin, but same sex domestic partners (which you're ok with) is not a sin.
realdeal said:
Last edited:
realdeal said:
What strikes me here is that if a person is a practicing Christian, than they would refrain from personal attacks, and conduct themselves in a manner of decency toward others. Acting or speaking otherwise is an example of a struggling Christian and a person who needs guidance and prayer. Sadly, as anyone who is alive today knows, many people are indifferent toward belief in a "higher power", whether it be God or Buddha or the great council in the sky, and act in a manner of "me first, only my opinion counts, etc". While this issue causes great conflict, it is important to remember, for me, that God loves EVERYONE of us, and the only distinction to Him is if we are true believers, than we will act accordingly, and seek forgiveness when we don't. If we choose, as God has given ALL of us free will, to do otherwise, well than we are not followers of God and will be judged accordingly when our time comes. :twocents:
Why is it so important for homosexuals to have the blessings of the church anyway? They already are recognized by the state to have the same rights as heterosexuals, that is really what matters anyway. Waste of time IMO.
antichrist said:
:rofl: You can think whatever you like. I've already explained it. If someone asks another person if they support or don't support "x" action being legal, that person will give their opinion based on their own convictions. When it's a moral issue (polygamy, for example, like same sex marriage, even mercy killing) people will make their call based on their own values, their own point of view, etc. - much of which is based in their religion. You put it up for a vote, you're going to get people's opinion. I've already shown that morality and law cannot be completely separated. Moral issues aren't right or wrong to everybody - that's why you get everybody's opinion in a vote.
Whether it's right or wrong (constitutional) to vote on moral issues like P8 is a separate question. But we've been there, discussed that, and P8 hasn't been ruled as unconstitutional yet and may never be.
So you've got either a problem with one or both of two things: 1. P8 was taken to a vote, and you can't handle the fact that people vote based on their own convictions, including their own moral values and 2. they should have never been able to vote on the issue because it's unconstitutional, which hasn't been the case as of 11/18/08 (to my knowledge).
We disagree - it's as simple as that. You seem to be fond of thinking I have a need to control someone. I think it's just another personal conviction I have to not have laws that directly endorse sin. I might think you're fond of a lack of morality (due to your own beliefs and convictions) and that you'd have civilization deteriorate into barbarians (with mercy killing, abortion, free drug use, acceptance of homosexuality, public drunkenness - we already have legal theft in place) for the sole purpose of anyone and everyone's definition of "pursuit of happiness" or "right" and a false sense of political correctness and equality, while attacking those putting on the brakes as "controlling."
When it comes down to it, if the majority of Americans want a moral free-for-all, then that's how it will be. But not as of 11/18/08, apparently.
(P.S. To clarify your quoted statement, if through majority decision, representation, etc. the US government or any state wants to acknowledge a contract between any two people for tax breaks, property transfer, etc apart from a religious union or sexual orientation, then what will be will be, but I'm completely against our government at any level acknowledging the "marriage" of two people engaging in homosexuality. That's MY personal opinion as of 11/18/08 - and even most of liberal California agrees.)
Tom, what does the Bible have to do with it? I don't see the Bible, or Biblical principles in Prop 8, so I don't understand why people are arguing that it does or doesn't. If some wacko says -- god hates gays -- that wacko is wrong. Period. I can't figure out where the so-called Biblical principle comes into a law like Prop 8.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the idea of banning gay marriage is simply about what marriage is vs. what domestic partnership is.
I can't figure out how it's even an argument. I can't figure out how one of the most anti-church, anti-conservative, anti-nuclear family contingent groups in America is wanting so badly to have the label of marriage put onto them. The only thing I can figure is that they want to "stick-it" to the conservatives. If they actually cared about the rights and privileges that really matter, they would care less about being called "married", and more about actually securing those rights.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the idea of banning gay marriage is simply about what marriage is vs. what domestic partnership is.
I can't figure out how it's even an argument. I can't figure out how one of the most anti-church, anti-conservative, anti-nuclear family contingent groups in America is wanting so badly to have the label of marriage put onto them. The only thing I can figure is that they want to "stick-it" to the conservatives. If they actually cared about the rights and privileges that really matter, they would care less about being called "married", and more about actually securing those rights.
Prop 8 wasn't about a constitutional amendment preventing recognition by the church. It was about preventing recognition by the state. Supposedly still two different entities in this country, despite the desires of many.riverrover said:
Personally I don't think the Bible should have anything to do with it. But I'm not the one who says same sex marriage is a sin, or counter to traditional relgious values. That's you, readldeal and others. Since you consider yourselves to be christians I can only assume that view of sin and traditional relgious values stems from the bible.RBBailey said:
Last edited:
You're being a hypocrite you know. You said you're fine with laws providing the same rights to civil unions. So answer the two very simple questions that, despite your claims otherwise, you've never answered.realdeal said:
1. For same sex couples why is being married a sin but a civil union not a sin. Or do you think they don't have sex unless they are married?
2. How does same sex marriage harm you?
Quote from antichrist:Since you consider yourselves to be christians I can only assume that view of sin and traditional relgious values stems from the bible.[/quote]
This is why I don't understand why people who have chosen a lifestyle so contradictory to the Christian point of view demand to be herded into that group.
If I go into a rednack bar and try and play Barry Manilow on the jukebox, get beat down, and told to leave. Am I going to want to go back in there? Why would I want to go in there?
What makes the title so important if you hold the same rights?
Have a ceremony in front of your peers, sign the common law papers, and get on with your life. This fight just seems to be going on for fights sake.
This is why I don't understand why people who have chosen a lifestyle so contradictory to the Christian point of view demand to be herded into that group.
If I go into a rednack bar and try and play Barry Manilow on the jukebox, get beat down, and told to leave. Am I going to want to go back in there? Why would I want to go in there?
What makes the title so important if you hold the same rights?
Have a ceremony in front of your peers, sign the common law papers, and get on with your life. This fight just seems to be going on for fights sake.
Did you even bother to read my reply?riverrover said:
It...is...about...the...state...not...the...church.
Well, as I and others have clearly shown, they don't have the same rights, so that's a smoke screen argument.
antichrist said:
Tom, If you have to ask the question "why is same sex marriage a sin", than the point of argument is finished. Many Christians simply do not believe in advocating or backing a law that in their opinion, is a sin. (Remember, this country was founded on the basis of individual freedoms, and our motto is, I believe, "In God We Trust", and while the Supreme Court observed, in the mid nineties, that the term does not promote religion, it reflects the heritage of ceremonial deism.) Therefore, if one doesn't believe that same sex marriage is a sin, they, by definition, ( of a practicing Christian) are not a practicing Christian. So the real question becomes, if many of the same sex couples want their union to be recognized by a church, why not form their own Church? The Bible is very specific on this matter, yet apparently the Bible only applies to Christians, or believers. Just as many gay advocates do not care for proponents of non same sex marriage shoving 'Christian morals" down their throat, many Christians do not want non Christian attitudes and morals shoved at them. IMHO, if individual states want to declare that the civil unions of same sex couples allows them the same rights in matters of insurance, or other civil matters, that is up to them. When it is put to a vote, and the majority of the voters say aye or nay, than I believe that the populace has spoken. If backers of same sex marriage are unhappy with the vote, than they will need to find a way to overturn it. Is it right to have a state vote on whether a "union" of same sex couples should be declared a marriage? I believe that yes, it is right. Is that a fair opinion? Yes, it is, just as the opinion of " no, it is not fair" is a valid opinion ,too. As far as being Christians being hypocritical on the marriage / civil union issue,I do not believe that is the case. While a government may allow for the union to be recognized, that does not mean Christians have to "approve of it". Just as pornography is allowed by law, to be sold at newsstands in front of our children, we, as Christians, do not have to approve of it. Abortion is another in the same issue, while allowed in some instances, it doesn't mean that practicing Christians approve of it. While a law may be law, and must be followed, practicing Christians deal with it (mostly) in a manner befitting and reflecting their values. ( disclaimer here: I myself do not support the radical approach that some groups and individuals use to support anti -abortion or anti pornography issues. Those that use violence in support of a "Christian cause" are in violation of one of the basic tenants of Christian morality, in my opinion)
antichrist said:
I've already explained my earlier statement, but you're still not getting it. There's nothing I could say to explain it to you further.
1. Same sex couples practice homosexuality by definition, which is sinful in itself per Romans. My point is that I'm personally against same sex marriage because it would be a direct acceptance of sin by our government - a sinful lifestyle. I've already shown that law and morality cannot be separated, and people will voice their opinions respectively.
Civil unions, if practicing homosexuality, are sinful as well, but at least the government could define (maybe even using a new term other than civil union) a contract between any two or more people for benefits included in the contract and agreed upon by all parties. Leave sexual orientation out of it completely. That's not hypocritical because nowhere am I supporting the sin of homosexuality.
2. How does drug use harm me directly? It doesn't. So why is it illegal to do/deal drugs? How does mercy killing harm me directly? It doesn't. So why was Dr. Jack Kevorkian convicted of homicide and imprisoned? How does dogfighting harm me directly? It doesn't. So why is Michael Vick in prison? I'm sure we could find many more examples. Law and morality cannot be separated. The irony (possibly hypocricy) of those who want to strip one group's morality from law (including Christian morality) are those who lobby for their own moral (or lack thereof) values to be pushed. Pot, meet kettle.
It comes down to: we disagree. To you, gay marriage might be acceptable - to me, it isn't. We'll both voice our opinions based on our own personal convictions and our own level of morality.
Californians have already done so.
The idea of "sin" is your basic problem. You should free yourself from the shackles of "sin".
The idea that we are unclean and undeserving in our natural state because of the activities of two made up folks in a magical garden is pretty stupid when you stop to consider it.
The concept that all of humanity is forever indebted to the officials in the church because Adam's squeeze ate unapproved produce is not a sufficient basis for the defamation of the human character in my book.
I know I am talking about "original sin" as a concept, (I don't suffer from that condition personally since I am not a judeo/christian subscriber) but without original sin we don't have unoriginal sin as a concept.
I do subscribe to the concept of karma and it is a powerful thing. I also believe that compassion is the highest form of human conduct.
In this light wouldn't compassion be a more useful tool to guide your moral life than casting judgement on a group that differs from you on the basis of sin?
Sin is a medevil concept, maybe a belief upgrade might be in order.
The idea that we are unclean and undeserving in our natural state because of the activities of two made up folks in a magical garden is pretty stupid when you stop to consider it.
The concept that all of humanity is forever indebted to the officials in the church because Adam's squeeze ate unapproved produce is not a sufficient basis for the defamation of the human character in my book.
I know I am talking about "original sin" as a concept, (I don't suffer from that condition personally since I am not a judeo/christian subscriber) but without original sin we don't have unoriginal sin as a concept.
I do subscribe to the concept of karma and it is a powerful thing. I also believe that compassion is the highest form of human conduct.
In this light wouldn't compassion be a more useful tool to guide your moral life than casting judgement on a group that differs from you on the basis of sin?
Sin is a medevil concept, maybe a belief upgrade might be in order.