Imagine if I did the same thing

Did you even read your own post? JW and LDS are types of Christians.

No they are not, they do not hold mainstream christian beliefs. But, if you need that crutch to make complaints about all christians in general shoving their beliefs down your throat, by all means, don't let that stop you.

Cut it out Newby. I didn't say LDS and JW are mainstream, but they are evangelizing Christians.

So what? As I said, they do not believe the same as 99% of other christian denominations either. Does that mean the majority of christians are like them? No, it does not, the majority of christians and christian churches do not go door to door, nor do they run people down in public venues. You're talking about a very small minority and trying to paint the entire group with that same brush, a group that does not even share their beliefs. You will go out of your way to not do that to muslims as displayed by your agreement with Kalam in the muslim thread you stared, but just the opposite when it comes to christians.
 
LOL. Was that a big enough sample, Newby?

It's not just the door to door guys and gals Evangelical Christians are the largest voting block in America. LDS and the RCC poured money into my state for Prop 8. It certainly felt like they were shoving their beliefs down my throat then.

It's their right as US citizens to give money to whatever political group they like Sky. Do you think gays are pushing their beliefs and views down everyone's throat by promoting politicians that believe as they do and to pass legislation specifically for them? Why is that okay, how is that different?

Muslims would kill them, but you seem okay with the islamic religion.
 
No they are not, they do not hold mainstream christian beliefs. But, if you need that crutch to make complaints about all christians in general shoving their beliefs down your throat, by all means, don't let that stop you.

Cut it out Newby. I didn't say LDS and JW are mainstream, but they are evangelizing Christians.

So what? As I said, they do not believe the same as 99% of other christian denominations either. Does that mean the majority of christians are like them? No, it does not, the majority of christians and christian churches do not go door to door, nor do they run people down in public venues. You're talking about a very small minority and trying to paint the entire group with that same brush, a group that does not even share their beliefs. You will go out of your way to not do that to muslims as displayed by your agreement with Kalam in the muslim thread you stared, but just the opposite when it comes to christians.

You misrepresent my view again. What's this biz about Kalam anyway? He's a good writer and advocate for Muslims.

I never stated that JW and LDS are the majority of Christian nor 'mainstream' Christians. Period. You keep confusing me with Madeline. LDS and JW are a sizeable minorities and they both go door to door ALOT.

RCC and LDS poured money in order to politically defeat marriage equality in my state.

I can't help but have affection for you, Newby. I love a passionate debate with differences of opinion walking just that fine edge.
 
Cut it out Newby. I didn't say LDS and JW are mainstream, but they are evangelizing Christians.

So what? As I said, they do not believe the same as 99% of other christian denominations either. Does that mean the majority of christians are like them? No, it does not, the majority of christians and christian churches do not go door to door, nor do they run people down in public venues. You're talking about a very small minority and trying to paint the entire group with that same brush, a group that does not even share their beliefs. You will go out of your way to not do that to muslims as displayed by your agreement with Kalam in the muslim thread you stared, but just the opposite when it comes to christians.

You misrepresent my view again. What's this biz about Kalam anyway? He's a good writer and advocate for Muslims.

I never stated that JW and LDS are the majority of Christian nor 'mainstream' Christians. Period. You keep confusing me with Madeline. LDS and JW are a sizeable minorities and they both go door to door ALOT.

RCC and LDS poured money in order to politically defeat marriage equality in my state.

I can't help but have affection for you, Newby. I love a passionate debate with differences of opinion walking just that fine edge.

Well, Sky, you walk a very fine line with your position or your view. You seem to be an advocate of Maddie's on occasion, so I have a hard time seeing too much of a difference, but I do know that there's one there. And I certainly respect your opinion, where not so much with Maddie.

Do you have a personal stake with the marriage equality issue? A personal question, I know, so don't answer if you don't wish too. But, I am actually for allowing gays to marry, I don't see the point in not letting them.
 
So what? As I said, they do not believe the same as 99% of other christian denominations either. Does that mean the majority of christians are like them? No, it does not, the majority of christians and christian churches do not go door to door, nor do they run people down in public venues. You're talking about a very small minority and trying to paint the entire group with that same brush, a group that does not even share their beliefs. You will go out of your way to not do that to muslims as displayed by your agreement with Kalam in the muslim thread you stared, but just the opposite when it comes to christians.

You misrepresent my view again. What's this biz about Kalam anyway? He's a good writer and advocate for Muslims.

I never stated that JW and LDS are the majority of Christian nor 'mainstream' Christians. Period. You keep confusing me with Madeline. LDS and JW are a sizeable minorities and they both go door to door ALOT.

RCC and LDS poured money in order to politically defeat marriage equality in my state.

I can't help but have affection for you, Newby. I love a passionate debate with differences of opinion walking just that fine edge.

Well, Sky, you walk a very fine line with your position or your view. You seem to be an advocate of Maddie's on occasion, so I have a hard time seeing too much of a difference, but I do know that there's one there. And I certainly respect your opinion, where not so much with Maddie.

Do you have a personal stake with the marriage equality issue? A personal question, I know, so don't answer if you don't wish too. But, I am actually for allowing gays to marry, I don't see the point in not letting them.

I look at things this way. Both you and Maddie are like friends to me. My views are nuanced.

I have a personal stake in Prop 8. My partner of 25 years and I married in the window where it was legal in California. We are still considered legally married.

Thank you for your support on this issue.
 
Did you even read your own post? JW and LDS are types of Christians.

No they are not, they do not hold mainstream christian beliefs. But, if you need that crutch to make complaints about all christians in general shoving their beliefs down your throat, by all means, don't let that stop you.

Cut it out Newby. I didn't say LDS and JW are mainstream, but they are evangelizing Christians.

This is why I call Christianity a religion, and true believers are not a part of a religion, but a relationship with God in Christ. Yes, they are trapped in that title "Christian" and they are the first true believers, but they do not honor a religion, but walk in a relationship.
 
You misrepresent my view again. What's this biz about Kalam anyway? He's a good writer and advocate for Muslims.

I never stated that JW and LDS are the majority of Christian nor 'mainstream' Christians. Period. You keep confusing me with Madeline. LDS and JW are a sizeable minorities and they both go door to door ALOT.

RCC and LDS poured money in order to politically defeat marriage equality in my state.

I can't help but have affection for you, Newby. I love a passionate debate with differences of opinion walking just that fine edge.

Well, Sky, you walk a very fine line with your position or your view. You seem to be an advocate of Maddie's on occasion, so I have a hard time seeing too much of a difference, but I do know that there's one there. And I certainly respect your opinion, where not so much with Maddie.

Do you have a personal stake with the marriage equality issue? A personal question, I know, so don't answer if you don't wish too. But, I am actually for allowing gays to marry, I don't see the point in not letting them.

I look at things this way. Both you and Maddie are like friends to me. My views are nuanced.

I have a personal stake in Prop 8. My partner of 25 years and I married in the window where it was legal in California. We are still considered legally married.

Thank you for your support on this issue.

Well, I have a better understanding of where some of your views and feelings stem from then. I realize that I am different than most in my views on gay marriage in my chosen faith, and I do understand how you could feel some animosity towards christians in general. I understand what the Bible says, but I also see those who are gay as God's children too, and I think it's up to everyone to determine their own relationship with God as they see fit. I don't think that people choose to be gay or that all gay relationships are created for sexual reasons only. Men and women marry because they fall in love, I don't see how it is any different with a gay couple, especially one that has been monogamous and long lasting like yours has. You should have equal rights under the law, and I think it is up to every church then to decide if they would bless that union or not. I think if the gay community changed their tactic and made it about equality under the law, and used the term civil union instead of marriage, then they would have more acceptance for it. It's the use of the word marriage that does most of the harm. If all that was truly wanted was equal rights under the law, then the terminology shouldn't matter to them anyway.

The other side of the coin is where do you allow these unions and where don't you? If you allow same sex couples, why not more than 2? It just opens up a huge dilemma for other types of problems as well. Our society is based on marriage and the family, many people see that as the underpinnings of our society and fear that if it is bastardized to fit any whim, then it will destroy the meaning behind marriage all together.
 
Well, Sky, you walk a very fine line with your position or your view. You seem to be an advocate of Maddie's on occasion, so I have a hard time seeing too much of a difference, but I do know that there's one there. And I certainly respect your opinion, where not so much with Maddie.

Do you have a personal stake with the marriage equality issue? A personal question, I know, so don't answer if you don't wish too. But, I am actually for allowing gays to marry, I don't see the point in not letting them.

I look at things this way. Both you and Maddie are like friends to me. My views are nuanced.

I have a personal stake in Prop 8. My partner of 25 years and I married in the window where it was legal in California. We are still considered legally married.

Thank you for your support on this issue.

Well, I have a better understanding of where some of your views and feelings stem from then. I realize that I am different than most in my views on gay marriage in my chosen faith, and I do understand how you could feel some animosity towards christians in general. I understand what the Bible says, but I also see those who are gay as God's children too, and I think it's up to everyone to determine their own relationship with God as they see fit. I don't think that people choose to be gay or that all gay relationships are created for sexual reasons only. Men and women marry because they fall in love, I don't see how it is any different with a gay couple, especially one that has been monogamous and long lasting like yours has. You should have equal rights under the law, and I think it is up to every church then to decide if they would bless that union or not. I think if the gay community changed their tactic and made it about equality under the law, and used the term civil union instead of marriage, then they would have more acceptance for it. It's the use of the word marriage that does most of the harm. If all that was truly wanted was equal rights under the law, then the terminology shouldn't matter to them anyway.

The other side of the coin is where do you allow these unions and where don't you? If you allow same sex couples, why not more than 2? It just opens up a huge dilemma for other types of problems as well. Our society is based on marriage and the family, many people see that as the underpinnings of our society and fear that if it is bastardized to fit any whim, then it will destroy the meaning behind marriage all together.

The terminology matters. There are legal implications when my partner and I go to the hospital. I know that from experience. Spouse status is greater than domestic partner when it comes to treatment by the medical care system.

If the laws made domestic partnership equal it still would not have the equivalent feeling that wife or husband do.

Throwing that fear that marriage will become plural marriage--if not two then three or an entire group shows me how you really feel about this issue. Paranoid that gays and lesbians will call each other wife or husband. We are family to each other. Like it or not.
 
Last edited:
I look at things this way. Both you and Maddie are like friends to me. My views are nuanced.

I have a personal stake in Prop 8. My partner of 25 years and I married in the window where it was legal in California. We are still considered legally married.

Thank you for your support on this issue.

Well, I have a better understanding of where some of your views and feelings stem from then. I realize that I am different than most in my views on gay marriage in my chosen faith, and I do understand how you could feel some animosity towards christians in general. I understand what the Bible says, but I also see those who are gay as God's children too, and I think it's up to everyone to determine their own relationship with God as they see fit. I don't think that people choose to be gay or that all gay relationships are created for sexual reasons only. Men and women marry because they fall in love, I don't see how it is any different with a gay couple, especially one that has been monogamous and long lasting like yours has. You should have equal rights under the law, and I think it is up to every church then to decide if they would bless that union or not. I think if the gay community changed their tactic and made it about equality under the law, and used the term civil union instead of marriage, then they would have more acceptance for it. It's the use of the word marriage that does most of the harm. If all that was truly wanted was equal rights under the law, then the terminology shouldn't matter to them anyway.

The other side of the coin is where do you allow these unions and where don't you? If you allow same sex couples, why not more than 2? It just opens up a huge dilemma for other types of problems as well. Our society is based on marriage and the family, many people see that as the underpinnings of our society and fear that if it is bastardized to fit any whim, then it will destroy the meaning behind marriage all together.

The terminology matters. There are legal implications when my partner and I go to the hospital. I know that from experience. Spouse status is greater than domestic partner when it comes to treatment by the medical care system.

If the laws made domestic partnership equal it still would not have the equivalent feeling that wife or husband do.

Throwing that fear that marriage will become plural marriage--if not two then three or an entire group shows me how you really feel about this issue. Paranoid that gays and lesbians will call each other wife or husband. We are family to each other. Like it or not.

Nope, your assumption is wrong. Like I said, letting anyone define it however they feel like it takes away from the meaning of it. Why have marriage at all then?
 
Would i find it offense? What is offensive about religious freedom?

Seriously, you people need to grow a freaking backbone.
 
Well, I have a better understanding of where some of your views and feelings stem from then. I realize that I am different than most in my views on gay marriage in my chosen faith, and I do understand how you could feel some animosity towards christians in general. I understand what the Bible says, but I also see those who are gay as God's children too, and I think it's up to everyone to determine their own relationship with God as they see fit. I don't think that people choose to be gay or that all gay relationships are created for sexual reasons only. Men and women marry because they fall in love, I don't see how it is any different with a gay couple, especially one that has been monogamous and long lasting like yours has. You should have equal rights under the law, and I think it is up to every church then to decide if they would bless that union or not. I think if the gay community changed their tactic and made it about equality under the law, and used the term civil union instead of marriage, then they would have more acceptance for it. It's the use of the word marriage that does most of the harm. If all that was truly wanted was equal rights under the law, then the terminology shouldn't matter to them anyway.

The other side of the coin is where do you allow these unions and where don't you? If you allow same sex couples, why not more than 2? It just opens up a huge dilemma for other types of problems as well. Our society is based on marriage and the family, many people see that as the underpinnings of our society and fear that if it is bastardized to fit any whim, then it will destroy the meaning behind marriage all together.

The terminology matters. There are legal implications when my partner and I go to the hospital. I know that from experience. Spouse status is greater than domestic partner when it comes to treatment by the medical care system.

If the laws made domestic partnership equal it still would not have the equivalent feeling that wife or husband do.

Throwing that fear that marriage will become plural marriage--if not two then three or an entire group shows me how you really feel about this issue. Paranoid that gays and lesbians will call each other wife or husband. We are family to each other. Like it or not.

Nope, your assumption is wrong. Like I said, letting anyone define it however they feel like it takes away from the meaning of it. Why have marriage at all then?

Thanks for letting me know how you really feel about marriage equality. You think if gays and lesbians marry that takes away from the meaning of it? Why bother having marriage at all if it is equally available to all? It's a civil practice. I don't care if the churches want to reserve a sacrament of marriage for their church alone. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top