White Christians Are Now a Minority—But They're Getting More Isolated and Less Tolerant

[K9Buck]

Christians: Even Gandhi said they suck.
Quote by Mahatma Gandhi : “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christia...”

`
You nailed it.

There are a lot hypocritical Christians just like there are a lot of hypocritical liberals and gays that claim to be tolerant and inclusive but are anything but.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As ever Bob I struggle to decipher the crap you spout. My happy married life is in no way threatened by the two old fellas across the road wanting to get married. I see it as a positive that two people love each other and want to commit.

Of course you have a backward irrational hatred of Gay people, primarily because you need somebody to hate.

I tell you what might be considered a threat to marriage. Some old knobhead trading in his wife for a younger model every couple of years. That is a sick mockery. And you elected him as President.

I'm somewhat a religious Muslim i don't agree about gay marriage but I have no problem if two gay people decide to tie the knot, is their private life. And I have gay friends that I care for and respect and they know very well what I think. Hate the sin not the sinner.

Or, just admit it is not sin. Even better.

It's and its against human nature. But everyone is free to do whatever they please.

"Against human nature"

Apparently it isn't. Apparently it occurs naturally. Even if you label it a defect, it still occurs naturally. Whether you view it as a crippling disabity or a benign difference, like being 6' 6" tall, is up to you.

That goes right back to your religious beliefs, doesn't it? You can say " 'cause my religion" and 100 other reasons, but they all kind of boil down to that first one, don't they?

Religion or not yes it is against human nature. But I 2ont go out of my way to stop people from doing it. Is their choice and their life.

"Religion or not yes it is against human nature."

So, how is it against human nature "not-religion-wise"? Gay people seem to take to it very naturally.

 

[Windparadox]

White Christians have always been a minority. Whites only make up about 11% of the world population, and that's being loose with the definition of "white".

`
The article only dealt with the US, not the world.

 

[Windparadox]

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

`
Semantical gibberish and not the basis of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

 

[K9Buck]

The most intolerant people I came across as a Muslim identified themselves as either conservatives or patriotic. Most open minded are those who identified themselves as atheists and I'm religious myself.

Was the prophet Mohammed a tolerant person? Was the prophet Mohammed a true Muslim?

 

[Issa]

I'm somewhat a religious Muslim i don't agree about gay marriage but I have no problem if two gay people decide to tie the knot, is their private life. And I have gay friends that I care for and respect and they know very well what I think. Hate the sin not the sinner.

Or, just admit it is not sin. Even better.

It's and its against human nature. But everyone is free to do whatever they please.

"Against human nature"

Apparently it isn't. Apparently it occurs naturally. Even if you label it a defect, it still occurs naturally. Whether you view it as a crippling disabity or a benign difference, like being 6' 6" tall, is up to you.

That goes right back to your religious beliefs, doesn't it? You can say " 'cause my religion" and 100 other reasons, but they all kind of boil down to that first one, don't they?

Religion or not yes it is against human nature. But I 2ont go out of my way to stop people from doing it. Is their choice and their life.

"Religion or not yes it is against human nature."

So, how is it against human nature "not-religion-wise"? Gay people seem to take to it very naturally.

I'm somewhat a religious Muslim i don't agree about gay marriage but I have no problem if two gay people decide to tie the knot, is their private life. And I have gay friends that I care for and respect and they know very well what I think. Hate the sin not the sinner.

Or, just admit it is not sin. Even better.

It's and its against human nature. But everyone is free to do whatever they please.

"Against human nature"

Apparently it isn't. Apparently it occurs naturally. Even if you label it a defect, it still occurs naturally. Whether you view it as a crippling disabity or a benign difference, like being 6' 6" tall, is up to you.

That goes right back to your religious beliefs, doesn't it? You can say " 'cause my religion" and 100 other reasons, but they all kind of boil down to that first one, don't they?

Religion or not yes it is against human nature. But I 2ont go out of my way to stop people from doing it. Is their choice and their life.

"Religion or not yes it is against human nature."

So, how is it against human nature "not-religion-wise"? Gay people seem to take to it very naturally.

Well from a biology side is not natural unless if natural is something else for you.....no one is born gay, there's no gay gene. But again i emphasis that is none of my business if one is attracted to same sex. Same goes if someone likes to gamble a lot or smoke weed or any other practice, is their life they can do whatever they please. And honestly I don't know why we are worried about the 0.5% of the population's private life so much....We have bigger problems that needs to be fixed.

 

[Issa]

The most intolerant people I came across as a Muslim identified themselves as either conservatives or patriotic. Most open minded are those who identified themselves as atheists and I'm religious myself.

Was the prophet Mohammed a tolerant person? Was the prophet Mohammed a true Muslim?

Very true and very tolerant.

 

[K9Buck]

The most intolerant people I came across as a Muslim identified themselves as either conservatives or patriotic. Most open minded are those who identified themselves as atheists and I'm religious myself.

Was the prophet Mohammed a tolerant person? Was the prophet Mohammed a true Muslim?

Very true and very tolerant.

I ask because it's purported that the prophet Mohammad conquered and killed many. Is that accurate or mistaken?

 

[keepitreal]

I'm curious as to why you started this thread...
you have clearly, demonstrated to me,
that you are incapable of discussing religion

Religious homophobia is driving away young people, but evangelical leaders double down on anti-LGBT bigotry

So, what you're saying is,
God is a homophobic, bigot

God does not change...
He is the same, past, present and future

God and Jesus both despise religion,
They want relationships, not religion

When you have a relationship with God,
and a relationship with Jesus, you want to
live your life and conduct yourself, according to Gods Word

When you have a relationship with religion,
God and Heaven are contingent on
obedience to rules, traditions and conditions

Only those who do not have a relationship with God
can be effected by polluted religious teachings and teachers

People want to do want they want,
not live their lives and conduct themselves
according to Gods Word and what He wants

Perversion is not cultural diversity, its perversion

Calling a spade, a spade,
doesn't mean I'm homophobic and a bigot...
the devil is a liar and I'm not buying what he's selling

My own beliefs are rather eclectic.

To say the least

 

[Political Junky]

The most intolerant people I came across as a Muslim identified themselves as either conservatives or patriotic. Most open minded are those who identified themselves as atheists and I'm religious myself.

Was the prophet Mohammed a tolerant person? Was the prophet Mohammed a true Muslim?

Very true and very tolerant.

I ask because it's purported that the prophet Mohammad conquered and killed many. Is that accurate or mistaken?

Ever hear of the Inquisition?

 

[Asclepias]

The most intolerant people I came across as a Muslim identified themselves as either conservatives or patriotic. Most open minded are those who identified themselves as atheists and I'm religious myself.

Was the prophet Mohammed a tolerant person? Was the prophet Mohammed a true Muslim?

Very true and very tolerant.

I ask because it's purported that the prophet Mohammad conquered and killed many. Is that accurate or mistaken?

You ever hear of the papal bull Dum Diversas?

Dum Diversas - Wikipedia

"We weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors”.

 

[theHawk]

Supporting traditional marriage does NOT render one a bigot.

Pop quiz. Who built the greatest nation the world has ever known? Answer: white Christians.

I support "traditional marriage" by dint of being married for 21 years. I also support the rights of my neighbours to marry the person they love, whatever their gender.

People who deny this are not "supporting traditional marriage". They are acting as bigots.

Opposing Gay marriage is not "supporting traditional marriage". Its a weasel expression like "pro life".

Stick it up your arse.

Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. Are they denying those people from getting "married"? No. There is no law to prevent gay marriages. It's the queers that discriminate and persecute people that beleive in traditional marriage.

"Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot."

It's when they want this little neurosis codified into law that they become bigots. And the law allowing gay marriage was hard-fought against these very bigots.

Feel free to post the text of any law that makes gay marriage illegal.
Marriages are performed at churches and the government cannot interfere in them.

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

There absolutely were gay marriage bans, because gay people could not get marriage licenses in all States until recently. That's a ban. And your demand that I produce laws which say it is illegal is a silly response, as I have already said to you that it is now legal. I also pointed out that this right required a fight. I think I've heard enough from you to know you were on the losing side of that fight.

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

 

[theHawk]

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

`
Semantical gibberish and not the basis of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

That decision was about forcing states to recognize gay marriages. Gay marriages were not illegal before that.

Can you name a gay couple ever persecuted by the government and put in jail?

 

[Asclepias]

I support "traditional marriage" by dint of being married for 21 years. I also support the rights of my neighbours to marry the person they love, whatever their gender.

People who deny this are not "supporting traditional marriage". They are acting as bigots.

Opposing Gay marriage is not "supporting traditional marriage". Its a weasel expression like "pro life".

Stick it up your arse.

Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. Are they denying those people from getting "married"? No. There is no law to prevent gay marriages. It's the queers that discriminate and persecute people that beleive in traditional marriage.

"Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot."

It's when they want this little neurosis codified into law that they become bigots. And the law allowing gay marriage was hard-fought against these very bigots.

Feel free to post the text of any law that makes gay marriage illegal.
Marriages are performed at churches and the government cannot interfere in them.

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

There absolutely were gay marriage bans, because gay people could not get marriage licenses in all States until recently. That's a ban. And your demand that I produce laws which say it is illegal is a silly response, as I have already said to you that it is now legal. I also pointed out that this right required a fight. I think I've heard enough from you to know you were on the losing side of that fight.

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia

 

[theHawk]

Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot. Are they denying those people from getting "married"? No. There is no law to prevent gay marriages. It's the queers that discriminate and persecute people that beleive in traditional marriage.

"Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot."

It's when they want this little neurosis codified into law that they become bigots. And the law allowing gay marriage was hard-fought against these very bigots.

Feel free to post the text of any law that makes gay marriage illegal.
Marriages are performed at churches and the government cannot interfere in them.

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

There absolutely were gay marriage bans, because gay people could not get marriage licenses in all States until recently. That's a ban. And your demand that I produce laws which say it is illegal is a silly response, as I have already said to you that it is now legal. I also pointed out that this right required a fight. I think I've heard enough from you to know you were on the losing side of that fight.

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia

Thanks for proving my point. All those laws did was say the state would not recognize gay marriage, it did not "ban" them at all. Try reading the actual text of those laws.

 

[Asclepias]

"Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them a bigot."

It's when they want this little neurosis codified into law that they become bigots. And the law allowing gay marriage was hard-fought against these very bigots.

Feel free to post the text of any law that makes gay marriage illegal.
Marriages are performed at churches and the government cannot interfere in them.

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

There absolutely were gay marriage bans, because gay people could not get marriage licenses in all States until recently. That's a ban. And your demand that I produce laws which say it is illegal is a silly response, as I have already said to you that it is now legal. I also pointed out that this right required a fight. I think I've heard enough from you to know you were on the losing side of that fight.

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia

Thanks for proving my point. All those laws did was say the state would not recognize gay marriage, it did not "ban" them at all. Try reading the actual text of those laws.

if it didnt ban them why does it say "banning"

"Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. states passed several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments."

If you dont recognize the marriage legally they cant get the same benefits. Your attempt at playing semantics doesnt really change anything.

 

[theHawk]

Feel free to post the text of any law that makes gay marriage illegal.
Marriages are performed at churches and the government cannot interfere in them.

All the laws that the media dubbed as "gay marriage bans" were nothing of the sort. All they did was say the state would not recognize such marriages, it never prevented them from happening.

There absolutely were gay marriage bans, because gay people could not get marriage licenses in all States until recently. That's a ban. And your demand that I produce laws which say it is illegal is a silly response, as I have already said to you that it is now legal. I also pointed out that this right required a fight. I think I've heard enough from you to know you were on the losing side of that fight.

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia

Thanks for proving my point. All those laws did was say the state would not recognize gay marriage, it did not "ban" them at all. Try reading the actual text of those laws.

if it didnt ban them why does it say "banning"

"Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. states passed several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments."

If you dont recognize the marriage legally they cant get the same benefits. Your attempt at playing semantics doesnt really change anything.

Because that's what the media and queer enablers call it, and monkeys follows suit. If it doesn't outlaw the act, it's not a ban.

 

[Asclepias]

There absolutely were gay marriage bans, because gay people could not get marriage licenses in all States until recently. That's a ban. And your demand that I produce laws which say it is illegal is a silly response, as I have already said to you that it is now legal. I also pointed out that this right required a fight. I think I've heard enough from you to know you were on the losing side of that fight.

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia

Thanks for proving my point. All those laws did was say the state would not recognize gay marriage, it did not "ban" them at all. Try reading the actual text of those laws.

if it didnt ban them why does it say "banning"

"Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. states passed several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments."

If you dont recognize the marriage legally they cant get the same benefits. Your attempt at playing semantics doesnt really change anything.

Because that's what the media and queer enablers call it, and monkeys follows suit. If it doesn't outlaw the act, it's not a ban.

Its a ban if its not legally recognized. What if someone said you could buy a car but the state would not legally recognize your right to drive it?. Is this turning on a light bulb in that dim place you call a brain?

 

[Windparadox]

That decision was about forcing states to recognize gay marriages. Gay marriages were not illegal before that. Can you name a gay couple ever persecuted by the government and put in jail?

`
`
That makes no sense. In Wisconsin, a gay couple could not obtain a license to get married and since the law only recognizes marriages for people with licenses, regardless of any religious or private ceremonies they had. I assume the same applies to other states. Since the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, now states must must issue such a license to same sex couples so they can have a legally recognized union.

Many elements of our society are bitterly opposed to that. However, like it or not, that's the law.

 

[theHawk]

In other words, you can't produce one law or proposed law that banned gay marriage.

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type - Wikipedia

Thanks for proving my point. All those laws did was say the state would not recognize gay marriage, it did not "ban" them at all. Try reading the actual text of those laws.

if it didnt ban them why does it say "banning"

"Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, U.S. states passed several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as defense of marriage amendments."

If you dont recognize the marriage legally they cant get the same benefits. Your attempt at playing semantics doesnt really change anything.

Because that's what the media and queer enablers call it, and monkeys follows suit. If it doesn't outlaw the act, it's not a ban.

Its a ban if its not legally recognized. What if someone said you could buy a car but the state would not legally recognize your right to drive it?. Is this turning on a light bulb in that dim place you call a brain?

States are allowed to deny people from driving on public roads, that's why they issue something called a driver's license.

Try again tree-gibbon.