Gay Marriage - Question.....

[paddymurphy]

... if you are not a Christian, or don't believe the Bible, why is it important to you to try to make it sound like God and/or the Bible is /does not condemn homosexuality?

If you don't believe, it should be irrelevant to you.

Lying is always relevant. Those who claim that the bibles is clear on this are lying.

 

[Faun]

'

because part of the liberal gay agenda is the destruction of organized religion.

I don't think that. They just want to neuter organized religion.
They want organized religion to stay out of it and go in their corner and play by themselves, so to speak.

And they would be right in this regard since religion does not dictate law in the U.S.

No, its does not, but you are the same libs who are saying its OK for muslims to invoke sharia law in this country------------------so they won't be offended.

you are idiots, inconsistent, intolerant fools.

You have a link to Liberals saying it's OK for Muslims to invoke Sharia law here? And btw, I don't say it's ok, so you are wrong about that too.

I am glad you don't agree with it. But its already happening, do some research.

Well I challenged you to prove it. If you won't, or can't, that provides me with enough research to reach a conclusion on the matter.

 

[Syriusly]

... if you are not a Christian, or don't believe the Bible, why is it important to you to try to make it sound like God and/or the Bible is /does not condemn homosexuality?

If you don't believe, it should be irrelevant to you.

Why is it important to you that homos not collect the exact same government cash and prizes you do for being married? What do government marriage benefits which rain down from Caesar have to do with religion or the Bible?

To a Christian, marriage is not a legal arrangement. It is a strictly defined bonding of a man and a woman - as created by God. To a Christian, God's plan is perfect, so to deviate from that plan in any arena (personal or societal) means only ultimate failure and destruction can result.

That being said, out of love, they want what is best for this Country and for others, and that is to be obedient to God -

I understand that issue with this for those that do no believe in God, but, I would think that an open minded rational person could also understand this as well.

Again, what does any of this have to do with government marriage benefits?

Christian's believe marriage is Holy. There is no "legal marriage" in their mind, and again, even if they do acknowledge the "legal marriage" I go again to the slipping away of morals in our society, as things become legal (abortion, gay marriage etc.) people start to look at them as "acceptable" - a Christian sees this as a trend to becoming more secular, and thus, losing the protection of God.

To a Christian, God's ways are HIGHER than societies. Although you view them separately (the Christian vow and the legal vow) a Christian does not.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

To me, just as a Hindu American is a sinner according to the Bible and that should not affect how you legally treat a Hindu- the same applies to homosexual Americans.

 

[paddymurphy]

I don't think that. They just want to neuter organized religion.
They want organized religion to stay out of it and go in their corner and play by themselves, so to speak.

And they would be right in this regard since religion does not dictate law in the U.S.

No, its does not, but you are the same libs who are saying its OK for muslims to invoke sharia law in this country------------------so they won't be offended.

you are idiots, inconsistent, intolerant fools.

You have a link to Liberals saying it's OK for Muslims to invoke Sharia law here? And btw, I don't say it's ok, so you are wrong about that too.

I am glad you don't agree with it. But its already happening, do some research.

Well I challenged you to prove it. If you won't, or can't, that provides me with enough research to reach a conclusion on the matter.

Never happened. I have done the research. Kind of hard to find a link to a story about something that did not happen.

 

[Faun]

... if you are not a Christian, or don't believe the Bible, why is it important to you to try to make it sound like God and/or the Bible is /does not condemn homosexuality?

If you don't believe, it should be irrelevant to you.

Why is it important to you that homos not collect the exact same government cash and prizes you do for being married? What do government marriage benefits which rain down from Caesar have to do with religion or the Bible?

To a Christian, marriage is not a legal arrangement. It is a strictly defined bonding of a man and a woman - as created by God. To a Christian, God's plan is perfect, so to deviate from that plan in any arena (personal or societal) means only ultimate failure and destruction can result.

That being said, out of love, they want what is best for this Country and for others, and that is to be obedient to God -

I understand that issue with this for those that do no believe in God, but, I would think that an open minded rational person could also understand this as well.

Again, what does any of this have to do with government marriage benefits?

Christian's believe marriage is Holy. There is no "legal marriage" in their mind, and again, even if they do acknowledge the "legal marriage" I go again to the slipping away of morals in our society, as things become legal (abortion, gay marriage etc.) people start to look at them as "acceptable" - a Christian sees this as a trend to becoming more secular, and thus, losing the protection of God.

To a Christian, God's ways are HIGHER than societies. Although you view them separately (the Christian vow and the legal vow) a Christian does not.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

To me, just as a Hindu American is a sinner according to the Bible and that should not affect how you legally treat a Hindu- the same applies to homosexual Americans.

And why would Christians get to decide which sinners shouldn't be allowed to marry? To Jews, Christians are sinners. Why not ban Christians from marrying?

 

[Faun]

And they would be right in this regard since religion does not dictate law in the U.S.

No, its does not, but you are the same libs who are saying its OK for muslims to invoke sharia law in this country------------------so they won't be offended.

you are idiots, inconsistent, intolerant fools.

You have a link to Liberals saying it's OK for Muslims to invoke Sharia law here? And btw, I don't say it's ok, so you are wrong about that too.

I am glad you don't agree with it. But its already happening, do some research.

Well I challenged you to prove it. If you won't, or can't, that provides me with enough research to reach a conclusion on the matter.

Never happened. I have done the research. Kind of hard to find a link to a story about something that did not happen.

I figured. That was the conclusion I reached when he failed to prove it.

 

[Correll]

I have actually become quite introspective in my middle age, and indeed one of the reasons i frequent sites such as this is to use you libs as an acid test for my positions, though you are generally disappointing in that regard.

As to my editing, i realized that i might have misunderstood your post initially.

Perhaps some more introspection for you would be helpful then since anyone claiming their side (left or right) is less hypocritical than the other is lacking in self awareness.

it is only "lacking in self awareness" if it is easily demonstrated that both sides are equally hypocritical.

Can you support that?

Measuring hypocrisy between the two sides is not quantifiable, which is why your attempt to do so is lacking in self awareness and why your challenge to prove otherwise is an appeal to a strawman.

Measuring?

Well, I am not aware of any units of hypocrisy, though, if there were to one created i would suggest a Clinton as a name.

But be that as it may.

Comparisons are certainly possible.

Do you think that John McCain ran a racist campaign?

Comparisons don't reveal which side is more hypocritical. Both sides can easily demonstrate hypocrisy in the other. It's not possible to determine either side has the high ground in that regard. Thinking you do only serves to reveal your own lack of self awareness.

You assume i would post isolated examples. Widely supported policies that contradict supposed principles can be greater or lesser than those of the other side.

your conclusion is based on assuming that your view is the only possible view, not allowing even for possibly incorrect, but not unreasonable opinions.

that is a sign of an extremely narrow minded person.

for a segment of the political spectrum that prides itself, normally, on it's open mindedness.

Almost hypocritical...

 

[g5000]

The State gets to decide who receives the State's cash and prizes, not your definition of God. Your definition of God does not decide who shall fileth a joint tax returneth and receiveth Social Security survivor benefits.

Amen.

 

[Faun]

Perhaps some more introspection for you would be helpful then since anyone claiming their side (left or right) is less hypocritical than the other is lacking in self awareness.

it is only "lacking in self awareness" if it is easily demonstrated that both sides are equally hypocritical.

Can you support that?

Measuring hypocrisy between the two sides is not quantifiable, which is why your attempt to do so is lacking in self awareness and why your challenge to prove otherwise is an appeal to a strawman.

Measuring?

Well, I am not aware of any units of hypocrisy, though, if there were to one created i would suggest a Clinton as a name.

But be that as it may.

Comparisons are certainly possible.

Do you think that John McCain ran a racist campaign?

Comparisons don't reveal which side is more hypocritical. Both sides can easily demonstrate hypocrisy in the other. It's not possible to determine either side has the high ground in that regard. Thinking you do only serves to reveal your own lack of self awareness.

You assume i would post isolated examples. Widely supported policies that contradict supposed principles can be greater or lesser than those of the other side.

your conclusion is based on assuming that your view is the only possible view, not allowing even for possibly incorrect, but not unreasonable opinions.

that is a sign of an extremely narrow minded person.

for a segment of the political spectrum that prides itself, normally, on it's open mindedness.

Almost hypocritical...

You're wrong again, I assumed no such thing.

 

[Correll]

The State gets to decide who receives the State's cash and prizes, not your definition of God. Your definition of God does not decide who shall fileth a joint tax returneth and receiveth Social Security survivor benefits.

It is as simple as that.

Amen.

The state gets it legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

The religious are just as much a part of that as you secularist. MOre so, if the numbers of self proclaimed religious is to be believed.

So, the question is, how do you justify not allowing them full participation in the political process.

FOr exampe a Hindu who would love to support policy against the meat industry.

 

[g5000]

The Christian Doctrine:

If you divorced for reasons other than adultery, you are going to hell.

If you are a fornicator outside of marriage, you are going to hell.

If you are a guy who smokes poles, you are going to hell.

If you are a Hindu, you are going to hell.

If you masturbate, you are going to hell.

If you surf porn sites, you are going to hell.

If you are a thief, you are going to hell.

If you take the Lord's name in vain, you are going to hell.

If you changed denominations, you are going to hell.





But all of you may receive government cash and prizes for being married. Woo hoo!

For some reason, there are some Christians who are only burned up about the pole smokers getting government gifts.

Hmmm....

Hypocrites.

 

[Correll]

it is only "lacking in self awareness" if it is easily demonstrated that both sides are equally hypocritical.

Can you support that?

Measuring hypocrisy between the two sides is not quantifiable, which is why your attempt to do so is lacking in self awareness and why your challenge to prove otherwise is an appeal to a strawman.

Measuring?

Well, I am not aware of any units of hypocrisy, though, if there were to one created i would suggest a Clinton as a name.

But be that as it may.

Comparisons are certainly possible.

Do you think that John McCain ran a racist campaign?

Comparisons don't reveal which side is more hypocritical. Both sides can easily demonstrate hypocrisy in the other. It's not possible to determine either side has the high ground in that regard. Thinking you do only serves to reveal your own lack of self awareness.

You assume i would post isolated examples. Widely supported policies that contradict supposed principles can be greater or lesser than those of the other side.

your conclusion is based on assuming that your view is the only possible view, not allowing even for possibly incorrect, but not unreasonable opinions.

that is a sign of an extremely narrow minded person.

for a segment of the political spectrum that prides itself, normally, on it's open mindedness.

Almost hypocritical...

You're wrong again, I assumed no such thing.

THen support your claim that comparisons don't work.

 

[Faun]

Measuring hypocrisy between the two sides is not quantifiable, which is why your attempt to do so is lacking in self awareness and why your challenge to prove otherwise is an appeal to a strawman.

Measuring?

Well, I am not aware of any units of hypocrisy, though, if there were to one created i would suggest a Clinton as a name.

But be that as it may.

Comparisons are certainly possible.

Do you think that John McCain ran a racist campaign?

Comparisons don't reveal which side is more hypocritical. Both sides can easily demonstrate hypocrisy in the other. It's not possible to determine either side has the high ground in that regard. Thinking you do only serves to reveal your own lack of self awareness.

You assume i would post isolated examples. Widely supported policies that contradict supposed principles can be greater or lesser than those of the other side.

your conclusion is based on assuming that your view is the only possible view, not allowing even for possibly incorrect, but not unreasonable opinions.

that is a sign of an extremely narrow minded person.

for a segment of the political spectrum that prides itself, normally, on it's open mindedness.

Almost hypocritical...

You're wrong again, I assumed no such thing.

THen support your claim that comparisons don't work.

No need to as again, there is no quantifiable measure. What you don't seem to understand is that a tit-for-tat toe-to-toe back-and-forth debate where each side cites examples of hypocrisy does not in any way measure which side is more hypocritical. It's beyond stupid to even suggest it can be proven that either side is more hypocritical than the other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

... if you are not a Christian, or don't believe the Bible, why is it important to you to try to make it sound like God and/or the Bible is /does not condemn homosexuality?

If you don't believe, it should be irrelevant to you.

Now that gay people have the right to marry, you're right it IS completely irrelevent

Why wasn't it irrelevant before? Why does a judicial fiat change any of the points Bonzi made?

 

[Cecilie1200]

... if you are not a Christian, or don't believe the Bible, why is it important to you to try to make it sound like God and/or the Bible is /does not condemn homosexuality?

If you don't believe, it should be irrelevant to you.

Probably because people claiming such things are using their own personal interpretation. And just as the BIble can be used to defend things like child abuse, slavery, and segregation, it can be used to condemn homosexuals too. But only from a certain point of view and interpretation.

Lev 18:22 for instance doesn't "condemn" homosexuality. It calls gay male sex acts 'abomination.' But in the context of verses before and after condemning an extant religion at the time. It's not condemning the sexual orientation but specific acts the ancient Jews observed being done by their contemporaries. Judaism forbids the practicing of any non-Jewish reliigon or religious pratices (Christianity, this means you too.) So they specificly forbade many things those religions were doing at the time from shaving their beards, tattoos, religious prostiution, and male homosexual sex acts.

Pointing this out to those who rip things out of context and try using it to defend their personal bigotry is no more a thing than would be someone knowing the contents of a Harry Potter novel and argueing against those trying to say Harry and Ron were in a gay relationship.

Ummm, I don't understand why someone who's not a Harry Potter fan would bother to argue about Harry and Ron's relationship, so I still don't understand why someone who doesn't believe in the Bible/Christianity would bother to try to tell Christians that "they're doing it wrong".

In fact, I understand it even less, because you MIGHT, on an outside chance, change the mind of the Harry Potter reader. There's no chance whatsoever you're going to change Christianity or its followers. So again, what are you achieving, other than to be confrontational and butthurt?

Also, it seems to me that 95% of the time, it's the atheist bringing up the subject, so it's not a matter of defending or correcting. It's a frontal assault. What's the point?

 

[Cecilie1200]

what about matthew 25:40

See, you and Delta are doing nothing but demonstrating Bonzi's point. You're busily telling us how we're "doing it wrong", rather than answering the question of WHY you feel the need to tell us we're doing it wrong. So instead of kneejerking to your squawking points, why don't you get back on-topic and answer the question?

 

[Cecilie1200]

... if you are not a Christian, or don't believe the Bible, why is it important to you to try to make it sound like God and/or the Bible is /does not condemn homosexuality? If you don't believe, it should be irrelevant to you.

True. What the Bible says should be irrelevant, since the 1st amendment protects us from religious intrusion into our lives.

that's moronic.

People are free to base their political positions and votes on whatever they desire.

IF they choose to base it on their religious beliefs that is their right and not a violation of the 1st amendment.

Oh, didn't we tell you? The First Amendment has been changed from "Congress shall make no law . . ." to "No individual shall express an opinion that has not been approved as completely inoffensive and politically correct."

My apologies. I could have sworn we sent you the memo.

 

[Cecilie1200]

why is it no one addresses matthew 25:40 or much of matthew....sometimes it does seem to non believers that you are cherry picking and just using the verses of the bible you want to use....i notice no one mentions when jesus says...he came only for the jews

Why is it that you can't just answer the question?

 

[Bonzi]

why is it no one addresses matthew 25:40 or much of matthew....sometimes it does seem to non believers that you are cherry picking and just using the verses of the bible you want to use....i notice no one mentions when jesus says...he came only for the jews

Why is it that you can't just answer the question?

I actually addressed Matthew 25:40 but I only heard crickets.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Romans 1: 26-7 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. I Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
It's not about having an excuse to be bigoted. Saying that is just trying to put Christian's in a negative light and is a generalization.

There ARE bigoted people out there (Christian and non-Christian).
TRUE Christian's know God's way is the ONLY way, and more importantly the BEST (perfect) way.

Christianity is the only way? So the history of humanity before about 1800 years ago when Christianity was created was what? Everyone including your own ancestors is burning in hell?

Grow up and quit embarassing true believers and good people with your fucked up perspective.

Is there any possibility whatsoever of you getting on-topic and answering the question, or are you just welded to your squawking points memo?