I would really love an answer from our resident Christians…
-
BoogieKnight — 16 years ago(January 20, 2010 03:29 AM)
"I think the reason Christian put less emphasis on divorce is because, well, the majority of the time it just HAS to happen. Marriages go through turmoil, spousal abuse, one person gets saved and the other doesn't, and the only solution is to rid yourself of that person for the sake of your well-being."
But according to the Bible, your "well-being" isn't allowed to trump remaining in such a volatile marriage. So it is assumed that one is supposed to tolerate the termoil, spousal abuse, "getting saved" or not.the only allowable Biblical exception is adultery. -
BoogieKnight — 16 years ago(January 22, 2010 02:41 AM)
"God equally hates homosexuality and divorce. I was not trying to say that divorce was any less of a sin than homosexuality is. I was trying to explain that I think Christians put more emphasis on one of them because the situation is different."
Different yet equally unacceptable Biblically. So although you are only speaking for yourself, surely you can admit based upon this, that a great number of other Christians are in fact complete hypocrites when it comes to comparing the implications of divorce and homosexuality. Right? Pretty simple question here, ofuoku71. -
AmericanGayAtheist — 15 years ago(September 18, 2010 12:45 PM)
They should. A sin is a sin. God equally hates homosexuality and divorce. I was not trying to say that divorce was any less of a sin than homosexuality is. I was trying to explain that I think Christians put more emphasis on one of them because the situation is different.
Yeah, only 10 % (or less by Christian standards) of the population are gay but 50% of heterosexuals want the OPTION to divorce if they are UNHAPPY (and there is no scripture that say UNHAPPY is a valid reason for a divorce - in fact the only reason given in the bible was adultery). But that's the difference; its not about scripture or religion or anything else, it is the difference of what the "majority" wants as opposed to a left over prejudice that cretins over 35 can't let go.
The constitution was created to protect US Citizens from "MOB" (Majority) rule. That is why denying gay marriage is wrong, it is being denied out of a religious "prejudice" and has nothing to do the civil and legal aspect of it!
The really great news is that in the under 35 crowd, they get it! Even if we don't get gay marriage, they will - it is just a matter of time.
I just wish I had more time so I can see it happen!
"Atheism is a 'Religion' sort of like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby!!!" -
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 04:10 AM)
You are a dishonest piece of filth.
The Westboro Baptist Church????
They don't represent Christians and they certainly don't speak for Baptists.
This is a fringe bunch of radical nutjobs that protest with their vulgar signs at the funerals of serviceman who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They represent Christians like the Ku Klux Klan represents White people.
Whenever you make a dishonest argument like this, it makes your agenda look even more pathetic than it already is. It is this kind of crap that turns the public against you and is why Americans continue to be squarely against gay marriage. -
hadmatter — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 10:00 AM)
Al never said or implied that the Westboro Baptist Church represented Christianity in general, and your attempt to vilify him with this implication is just as pathetic as the behavior of which you're accusing him (behavior which, for the record, did not actually occur).
Of
course
Fred Phelps is a radical fringe nutjob, but he also has a huge number of vocal supporters (and, one might imagine, a fair number who agree with him but are smart enough to keep rather quiet about it).
Exactly what was "dishonest" about referring to Fred Phelps (a real man with a real, hateful, anti-gay agenda)? What was "dishonest" about supplying a
direct quote
from one of his supporters? What was dishonest about asking a valid question regarding what appears to be, at least from the perspective of an outsider, a fundamental Christian hypocrisy?
So you think that gay people wanting the right to marry is a "pathetic agenda". Fine. But your disgusting accusation that you and "the public" would turn against us because of something like
this
? That is the truly pathetic behavior on this thread.
Here's what it looks like to me. You're fully aware that the Christian obsession with homosexuals
cannot
be reconciled, biblically, with their general refusal to take exception to divorce. Rather than be forced to answer that hypocrisy, you manufacture a false offense - this
fiction
that Al accused all Christians of being like Phelps - and then blame homosexuals for
your
hatred of them.
Wrong.
You're "squarely against gay marriage" because you don't like gay people. You justify your personal dislike for gay people by using the bible. And you ignore other rules in the bible because they're not convenient to you.
Which is
exactly
the point that Al was making in the first place. Congratulations, you've demonstrated the precise hypocrisy he was trying to bring to light.
I am the sod-off shotgun. -
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 07:54 PM)
I'm not going to restate my position. It's all been done before.
'Almost' doesn't count. I don't see a federal law allowing this craziness in the near future. Once you convince the brain deads that rights you have never had are being 'taken away', you might get it.
I'm not going to relive past debates but every time interracial marriage, womens' rights, civil rights, court precedent, the 'homophobe' and "intolerance' name calling is brought up, you immediately lose the argument. None of this is germaine and/or true. Hadmatter told a lie about me hating gays. He also lied saying I was using the bible and religion in my comments. Also lies. This is how you do business. You don't HAVE an argument. It is based entirely on your own selfish demands and hope.
I'm not 'afraid' of further debate. You have nothing new and our side has won each time. As far as 'court cases' are concerned, when you win at the Supreme Court, the place you lost 39 years ago, you will have succeeeded in 'winning'.
It certainly could happen one day, so good luck. -
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 11, 2010 10:55 PM)
There's no 'pressure'. I've engaged in these so-called arguments with the pro-gay marriage side as have many others. You always come out on the short side because as I stated, you don't have a valid agument. It is just something that you want and hope for. Been there, done that. I illustrated how hadmatter told three lies in that one post about me and you misdirected the conversation to the Prop 8 proponents. Stefan, you're absolutely full of sh-t. You're living a delusional life.
You just keep on believing that you're as normal as the rest of us and that you have every 'right' to be married. Keep on believing that Baker v. Nelson isn't the controlling federal precedent on this issue. Meanwhile, the United States refuses to recognize this folly as 'marriage' as does most of the world. Keep hoping, wishing, and wanting. I'll keep laughing at your baseless
'arguments' and you can go waste your time trying to convince someone else.
So long, chump. -
ThatsWayHarsh-Tai — 12 years ago(April 11, 2013 12:23 AM)
I think you are confused.
Human beings are born with the 'right' to be human beings. To live and love and exist as they see fit the ONLY other 'right' - we, as a people are entitled to, is the right to live free from harm from our fellow man.
The state does not, our rights as human beings, make.
So, yes -
according to being born- we
all
deserve these fundamental 'rights' and -
according to being born - when one isn't allowed to pursue these "
GOD-GIVEN
" rights,
they are having something, which is inherently human, taken away from them.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.
You're really into Jesus, and Jesus was really into this
whole concept
. Tolerance, acceptance, compassion, forgiveness, humility
At least, this is what I'm told. Judging from the words/behaviours of many of his so-called 'disciples', I believe HE has been let down.
I find it sad that a 'message' that was supposed to represent goodness and purity of heart, is (consistently even, historically speaking) used as tool of oppression, hatred, and as a conduit to the ugliest parts of mankind's soul.
- we
-
anasamas — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 08:25 PM)
You're right; I misspoke. Have to admit I saw 'Westboro Baptist Church', scanned the post, saw the usual rhetoric and thought he was speaking about just them. He even mentions their funeral antics in the lead paragraph! My bad. I apologize to Al for my remarks re: this.
Now to the rest of your post, hadmatter.
It is my belief that the public isn't coming around on gay marriage for a number of reasons and much of it has to do with the way this has been presented. Most of it is based on half-truths, outright lies, and a demand for phantom 'rights' that do not exist. This has been discussed before at length and I'm not going to get involved in that again. It's just so easy to pick your arguments apart. I've done it on several boards and so have others. You don't have a leg to stand on so you play the 'equal rights' card. It's become boring because you guys lose the debate every time.
The reason I am against gay marriage has nothing to do with liking or disliking gays. It has to do with good old fashioned common sense. I happen to like most of the gay people I interact with on a regular basis. I'd even go so far as to say I like a larger percentage of them than heteros. They tend to be nicer, less aggressive, and share my love for animals.
'You justify your personal dislike for gay people by using the bible. And you ignore other rules in the bible because they're not convenient to you.'
This is one of those outright lies that I just spoke of. I never stated that religion or the bible have anything to do with my position on gay marriage. You just made that up. I happen to be agnostic. Thanks for proving my point.