Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What Do You Want Us Gays To Do ?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
It's undeniable that kids gain no harm from being adopted by homosexual parents, nearly every study around the globe supports this. I don't even underswhy you're trying to argue, You have no chance of winning. You don't form your opinion based on results of scientific research results or common sense, your opinion is formed out of prejudice and bias.
You also keep claiming that gay marriage isn't beneficial to society. Actually it is for reasons I already explained. Having a relationship is healthy for a person. having a person enjoying life improves their mood, which in return improves their social relationships and productivity. Allowing gay marriage also helps improve tolerance.
is it about the kids? If that is the case you HAVE to agree with the following suggestions to not be a hypocrite:
- Straigth couples who are unable to get kids are not allowed to be married
- straigth couples must have kids during a specific time period after their marriage.
Saying it's a defective gene so it can be fixed is ignorant. You can't just flip a switch a change genes.
I think you're probably spinning your wheels trying to speak sense to him. He's let his personal feelings and emotions overtake his logic and sensibility. About the only way you can get through to these people is by using the law to show them where they are wrong. If they want to live in a country that espouses freedom and equality, then they have to live that life not just speak about it or wear it like a fake tin badge. It takes a real man with some balls to live in a truly free country and an even stronger man to actually "love thy neighbor".
If you ask me, our society and our evolution can only lead to us living together peacefully if we plan on surviving much longer. So, since that is the case then someone who cannot get along with his fellow man has some kind of genetic defect. Perhaps his genetic switches need flipping so he can learn to get along with others. I'm sure if someone came at him to involuntarily mess with his genetic coding he would be mighty upset. Yet, from his self righteous platform along with his belief that the more people you have behind you makes you "right", he'd have no problem forcing genetic manipulation on others he and his group deem defective.
===============================
There was also a time when interracial marriage was taboo. There was a time when the law said it was alright to use black people as slaves and to kill them whenever they attempted to escape. You can cry "But teh law!!11" all you want. Here the truth for you: laws change with the times. Just as we now accept things such as woman rights and interracial marriage, we will soon also allow gay marriage. The question isn't If. It's when. Nations such as the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Spain and Canada have made the first step and it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world allows it.
Tolerance grows with each new generation.
And yes, plenty of studies had enough time to study the results. You just don't want to accept the facts that go against your own personal prejudice, there is a difference.
And no, not all genetic issues can be changed through manipulation.
Reading your posts, I hope they find a gene for stupidty, and they can cure that too
That's pretty funny considering you're the one who is completely ignoring scientifc research and sticking to one liners. In fact, you have not present one single fact that actually supports your argument in any way or form besides a silly one liner.
"it's not a right because it isn't in the law" Yeah, I guess black people never had rights either when slavery was still allowed by law, right?
I've always kindof thought that Being Gay, was Natures answer to Over Population...
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
---
Grammar nazi's. This one is for you.
From the beginning, the debate over “same-sex marriage” has been one of those topsy-turvy issues in which the side that is truly tolerant and fair has been characterized as narrow-minded and oppressive, while the side that is intolerant and blatantly coercive has been depicted as open-minded and sympathetic.
Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one. Despite their agonized complaints about the refusal of the majority of Americans to give in on the subject, those who advocate government recognition of same-sex “marriage” want to use coercion to deny other people their fundamental rights.
The issue, it’s important to remember, is not whether society will allow homosexuals to “marry.” They may already do so, in any church or other sanctioning body that is willing to perform the ceremony. There are, in fact, many organizations willing to do so: the Episcopal Church USA, the Alliance of Baptists, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Unity School of Christianity, the Unitarian Universalists, the Swedenborgian Church of North America, the Quakers, the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and the United Church of Christ, among others. Such institutions either explicitly allow the consecration or blessing of same-sex “marriages” or look the other way when individual congregations perform such ceremonies.
No laws prevent these churches from conducting marriage ceremonies—and nearly all Americans would agree that it is right for the government to stay out of a church’s decision on the issue. Further, any couple of any kind may stand before a gathering of well-wishers and pledge their union to each other, and the law will do nothing to prevent them. Same-sex couples, or any other combination of people, animals, and inanimate objects, can and do “marry” in this way. What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these “marriages” and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.
An insurance company, for example, is free to treat a same-sex couple (or an unmarried two-sex couple) the same way it treats married couples, or not. A church can choose to bless same-sex unions, or not. An employer can choose to recognize same-sex couples as “married,” or not. As Richard Thompson Ford noted in Slate, “In 1992 only one Fortune 500 company offered employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners; today hundreds do.”
In short, individuals, organizations, and institutions in most states are currently free to treat same-sex unions as marriages, or not. This, of course, is the truly liberal and tolerant position. It means letting the people concerned make up their own minds about how to treat these relationships. But this freedom is precisely what the advocates of same-sex “marriage” want to destroy; they want to use the government’s power to force everyone to recognize same-sex unions as marriages whether they want to or not.
The effects of such coercion have already been felt in some places. Adoption agencies, for example, like any other organization, ought to be able to choose whether to give children to same-sex couples, or not. But in Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriage” has been declared legal, these agencies have been forced to accept applications from same-sex couples or go out of business.
Minority Rule
What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such “marriages.” Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.
Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group’s sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population. That’s why nearly all of the moves to legalize same-sex “marriage” have come from the courts, not the democratic process. After all, court cases would not be necessary if the public already agreed with the radicals.
This was made clear in the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the state constitution’s equal protection clauses mean that individuals have a fundamental “right to marry” whomever they choose and that gender restrictions in marriage are thus unconstitutional. The court, Republican-dominated and previously known as moderately conservative, voted by a slim 43 margin that sexual orientation would have to be treated just like race and sex in the state’s laws. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald M. George declared,
Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation. An individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
The court ruled that the state’s law approving “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples was not enough—only official recognition as marriage would do.
Note these words in the court’s decision: “Our state now recognizes.” Actually, the state did no such thing; the court did it for them. The decision struck down Proposition 22, a ballot measure approved by 61 percent of the state’s voters in the year 2000, which stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.” Thus, four judges decided to impose their personal views over the people’s clearly expressed will, shown powerfully in the state referendum. Nor does their decision reflect a changed social atmosphere. The issue will remain in contention through the November elections, as the ballot in California will include an initiative to amend the state constitution to prohibit the government from recognizing same-sex “marriages.”
What that would mean, of course, is not that Californians would be barred from “marrying” people of the same sex, but that they could not use the government to force other individuals, businesses, and institutions to recognize those “marriages.”
As this case shows, the people who seek to “impose their values” on others are those who support government recognition of same-sex “marriage,” not those who oppose it.
Moreover, it is not correct to argue that government recognition of two-sex marriages is unfair or oppressive. If proponents of same-sex “marriage” ask why the government should be allowed to require people to acknowledge traditional two-sex marriages, the answer is simple: It does not. The institutions of society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia. The government didn’t decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal codification of what society had already established.
Moreover, even homosexuals agree that marriage is a valid institution. They confirm this powerfully by trying to alter the institution through force of law so that same-sex couples can be included in it. The key difference between traditional marriage and same-sex “marriage,” however, is that the government, in acknowledging heterosexual marriage, does not force anything on society; it merely effects the enforcement of a contract that all—or nearly all—people accept as valid and sensible. Same-sex “marriage,” by contrast, is not seen as such by most people; forcing individuals to recognize it is not the legal codification of an existing social reality, but instead a radical social change forced by a few on the many.
A Pew Research Center Survey released earlier this year noted in its title that “Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage.” The survey reported that 55 percent of Americans oppose “allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally,” while only 36 percent support such a policy. A table in the report noted that “Most Groups Oppose Gay Marriage,” though the study observed that poll respondents approved of allowing civil unions for same-sex couples by a 5442 percent margin. Clearly, this suggests that most Americans are willing to allow same-sex couples to formalize their relationships in some way, but they don’t want to be forced to change the definition of marriage to include them.
A Sea Change
Even fewer people would support same-sex “marriage” if the full implications of laws allowing them were widely known. A few days after the California Supreme Court decision, conservative columnist Dennis Prager noted just how sweeping and anti-democratic the decision was, saying, “Nothing imaginable—leftward or rightward—would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history.” Unless the decision is reversed by an amendment to the California or US Constitution, Prager argued, “four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.”
Prager listed some of the social changes he foresees resulting from the court’s decision:
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. . . . Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. . . .
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger—if they show only women’s fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians—i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture—will be marginalized.
Some might argue that Prager is indulging in hyperbole and will only cause unnecessary panic with these absurd hobgoblins, but it is difficult to see how the people of California would be able to stop sexual radicals from using the state’s courts to implement all of these changes—and more—if the decision is allowed to stand. Yet, ironically, Prager notes, this far-reaching, radical decision has been deemed by the press as the compassionate, liberal-minded position on the matter. The mind boggles at the thought of what oppression might look like.
The libertarian writer Jennifer Roback Morse likewise notes that same-sex “marriage” is not a reduction of government intrusion into private lives, but an immense expansion of it. Writing in the National Catholic Register, she observes,
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” insist that theirs is a modest reform: a mere expansion of marriage to include people currently excluded. But the price of same-sex “marriage” is a reduction in tolerance for everyone else, and an expansion of the power of the state.
Morse provides several examples that show how oppressive the same-sex “liberators” are in practice, including the following:
Recently, a Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony. In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. . . .
And recently, a wedding photographer in New Mexico faced a hearing with the state’s Human Rights Commission because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn’t want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.
This list could be expanded and will only grow, as sexual radicals across the nation increasingly use the government to break down all resistance to their agenda. Recognizing the vast implications of a successful movement to disallow anyone from recognizing any difference between the sexes, Morse sees who the real victims of oppression would be:
Perhaps you think people have a natural civil right to marry the person of their choosing. But can you really force yourself to believe that wedding photography is a civil right?
Maybe you believe that same-sex couples are entitled to have children, somehow. But is any doctor they might encounter required to inseminate them?
As Morse and Prager both note, what advocates of government recognition of same-sex “marriage” are after is not “tolerance and respect,” but a forcible reordering of all of society along “gender-neutral” principles—and anyone who resists will face punishment by the government. In such an environment, it should hardly surprise us to see freedom of speech become a thing of the past.
Attitude Adjustments
An example of the suppression of dissent occurred in a debate last year in which the candidates for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination discussed issues related to homosexual rights. When Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel came out explicitly for forcing all of society to recognize same-sex “marriages,” and the audience erupted in cheers, the more prominent candidates kept their heads down and clearly tried to avoid making any big mistakes.
Two of them, however, were forced into Orwellian moments of self-abasement. Former Senator John Edwards felt compelled to apologize for once having said that he opposed same-sex “marriage” for religious reasons. He promised not to impose his “faith belief” on the American people—though he would apparently be willing to impose the radicals’ unbelief on all of society.
Even more revealingly, New Mexico Governor William Richardson, a strong supporter of the homosexualist agenda, blundered when asked whether homosexual behavior is a biological imperative or a choice. Richardson said, “It’s a choice.” Some people in the audience gasped audibly. This was potentially catastrophic for him because the great majority of homosexual activists claim that homosexual behavior is biological in origin.
Richardson’s campaign organization quickly issued a retraction of what he said in the debate. As Prager and Morse point out, this sort of forced “attitude adjustment” will become universal if the “same-sex marriage” agenda is embedded in the nation’s laws.
The question of whether the definition of marriage will be made by the free choices of society or by government fiat is the central issue in the “same-sex marriage” controversy. To be sure, those who argue that the government should not discriminate between traditional and same-sex couples can make their case seem principled and liberal-minded. The truth, however, is that those who favor forced recognition of same-sex “marriage” seek to suppress freedom, and those who oppose these ideas represent real liberty. •
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Actually isn't false as the situation is very comparabl, and yes, you did say what I quoted, perhaps you should read your post before you hit the "post message" tab so you can see for yourself the huge amount of ignorant bullshit you're posting.
oh and Frodus, giving people the freedom to take other peoples freedom away is not true freedom. In fact, it's quite shocking how you have convinced yourself that you're supporting a cause for freedom.
Reading your posts, I hope they find a gene for stupidty, and they can cure that too
===============================
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
Why is the fundamentalist interpretation of scripture the correct one? You are assuming that you are performing a correct exegesis, and that people who do not agree with you are hypocrites.
A more simple, and more correct exegesis of this issue can run as follows. The question is not what is a sin, the question is, what does one do about sin.
We are instructed to "imitate Christ in all things." Now, how did Christ respond to sin? he forgave it. He died for it. The sins of the world are washed in the blood of the lamb.
That means, regardless of what homosexuality is, Christians are responsible to forgive it. Those who do not forgive it 100% in Christ are falling into sin themselves.
This is why "sin" is not really the provonce of jurisprudence; no, when decided what should be lawful and unlawful, we have to use a different standard, and a good on is human rights, particularly in this case the right of free individuals to contract.
Personally, I feel that is a better interpretation of what Jesus taught with regards to government aand public policy.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Keep the childish "your brain doesn't work" comments to a minimum. As for your position, it's been ambiguous at best. You state that you're anti religion, yet quote the bible or remind everyone of it's intent in every post. You call them mindless zombies, but refuse to concede the notion that there may be contradicting arguments, or ambiguities in the interpretation of the bible. You say, without question, what the bible's stance is. Wouldn't that be the definition of mindless zombie then?
I don't think that I've said in any post that the bible doesn't have anti-gay passages here and there. The bible has anti-gay messages in it. You know what it also has? Anti-drinking messages, anti-stealing messages, anti-other religions messages, anti-<you name it> messages. To lighten things up a bit, to quote the Simpsons: "have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." It's the FOCUS on these specific lines, quoted with absolute authority like you have in previous posts, that bothers me.
That quote you posted, with some quick research, revealed over 25 different English translations. In addition, there seems to be considerable debate over the translation of some of the words, evidence that translators have introduced their own prejudices, and blatant changes to the translation over time as some of the practices became somewhat acceptable in modern society (ie. masturbation). What's to say in 50 years, if gays became accepted by that Church, that those anti-gay passes won't mysteriously disappear as well?
Going back to my original post, "why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide."
You don't have look hard find passages in the bible to support that stance. It's a very easy one. Luke 7:36-50 comes to mind.
Personally I don't have anything against religion. Christianity has some good messages that I don't disagree with. What I don't like is when people wield it as a weapon in the name of intolerance.
Multiplayer Games!
Great post.
Multiplayer Games!
Okay, this seems to be your main thesis and I see one major flaw. It supports a double standard. It's bad for government to enforce the contractual rights of gay couples, but perfectly okay for the government to enforce such rights for heterosexual couples?
From the tone of your post, you seem to think that letting individual agency decide the legitimacy of a marriage is ultimate freedom. So why not extend that freedom to heterosexuals as well? Why not let individual businesses decide if they want to recogonize the marriage of say... interracial couples ...or muslim couples or catholic couples... or buhdist couples. Your employee requested family leave? Well according to corporate policy, atheist marriages are not defined as such so said employee doesn't have any "family." There's a black man at the reception desk of a hospital claiming the he wants to see a white woman he's declared is his wife? Well, the hospital doesn't recognize ineterracial marriages so the man will have to be escorted by a family member.
Allowing individual citizens the right to oppress others is not the same as freedom.
I want you gays to keep standing up for yourselves. Do not give in or cave to these people who have their own self-interests as priority. You deserve to be a part of this country and what it has to offer just as much as anyone else.
I'm floored that people can use the Bible against homosexuality and show intolerance, but that same book says that Christianity is the only religion that can get you to Heaven and all others are going to Hell. If that's the case, then why all the tolerence for non-Christians in this country? There are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even Atheists that you allow to marry and be recognized under the law. Shouldn't your Christian majority be out to discredit their vows as well? Why do you discredit the religion that gays follow that allows them to marry and then you also demand that government not recognize their bonds, but you leave other religions alone?
Why not be consistent in your use of government to discriminate?
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
To be honest I find it difficult to discuss moral and social issues in this forums, not just this subject but generally any controversial matter.
Ever so often every time there is a controversial issue, people quote the Bible as source of truth.
Personally, with all due respect, I don't give a shit what the Bible says, do not quote it to me cause otherwise I am gonna quote J.R.R. Tolkien.
Quoting the Bible is just not a good argument.
Not everyone is religious and not everyone is christian.
I am more interested in "your" opinion, rather than what an old dusty book has to say on the subject.
I understand that for christian people, their views are really close to their believes, and I understand we live in a christian society, but try not to quote the Bible just as a winning argument, because it bloody ain't.
I really want people to discuss those kind of subject based on their own thoughts and conscience rather than religious belief.
Tolkien would have you quote the Bible. He was a pretty devout Christian.
The fact is, people quote that which they agree with when they are having a discussion. Christians quote the Bible, Libertarians quote Heinlein, Rand, and Rothbard, Existentialists Sartre, Buddhists Buddha, and so on. The quote itself is often not an argument per se, but merely an illustration.
If used as an appeal to authority it is always equally fallacious whether one quotes Jeremiah or Sam Harris.
If it's not revealed truth to you, that's great -- the statement or quote stands on its own merits -- but that is no reason to assume its not what the person thinks themselves. To them, the Bible is not a "dusty old book" but the testament if the Living God, and as such is part of what they are and as an indivdual engaged in conversation with them, you owe them the respect, if you TRULY want to know what THEY think, to realize that the this Bible you call a "dusty old book" is as much a part of them as your ponderings are of you. You do not ponder things in a vacuum. The language you use came from someone else. Everything you know or think is your own musings on knowledge you gained from others.
No different for the Christian. If you really want to know what a person speaks, learn their language, whether they be Christian or Bahai. It'll serve you well for greater understanding.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Keep the childish "your brain doesn't work" comments to a minimum. As for your position, it's been ambiguous at best. You state that you're anti religion, yet quote the bible or remind everyone of it's intent in every post. You call them mindless zombies, but refuse to concede the notion that there may be contradicting arguments, or ambiguities in the interpretation of the bible. You say, without question, what the bible's stance is. Wouldn't that be the definition of mindless zombie then?
I don't think that I've said in any post that the bible doesn't have anti-gay passages here and there. The bible has anti-gay messages in it. You know what it also has? Anti-drinking messages, anti-stealing messages, anti-other religions messages, anti-<you name it> messages. To lighten things up a bit, to quote the Simpsons: "have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." It's the FOCUS on these specific lines, quoted with absolute authority like you have in previous posts, that bothers me.
That quote you posted, with some quick research, revealed over 25 different English translations. In addition, there seems to be considerable debate over the translation of some of the words, evidence that translators have introduced their own prejudices, and blatant changes to the translation over time as some of the practices became somewhat acceptable in modern society (ie. masturbation). What's to say in 50 years, if gays became accepted by that Church, that those anti-gay passes won't mysteriously disappear as well?
Going back to my original post, "why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide."
You don't have look hard find passages in the bible to support that stance. It's a very easy one. Luke 7:36-50 comes to mind.
Personally I don't have anything against religion. Christianity has some good messages that I don't disagree with. What I don't like is when people wield it as a weapon in the name of intolerance.
Good points all over, but to be honest, you flamed me first. I just flamed back, maybe in a childish manner but who the hell cares?
Ok, to make this thing simple, here is where I stand:
- I don't like religion at all. I hate what religion do to people and the ignorance it spread.
- I support gay marriage. I live in Norway where gays been recognised by the state for ages. More correctly, I really don't care much if they marry or not cause it doesn't have anything to do with me personally.
- I'm quite sceptic to letting gays and lesbians adopt children. There are conflicting studies about the effect same-sex parents have on a child.
- How can you misunderstand a sentence that say, lets say - You shall not be an adulterer for that is a sin in the eyes of God? Whatever translation you read, the message is the same. Anyway, translations have a tendency to lose the original message. To get the true meaning, you have to read the redsea scrolls and other scriptures dating from that time. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, and christian claim to follow the bible, that is they follow what they want and give a bugger in the rest.
- While I like the Simpsons I don't use them as a source for anything, else than poking fun at the average american family. The bible got some set rules and it's every christian duty to follow it as best they can. With that said, the bible is full of conflicting verses, like you should kill homosexuals, disobedient teenagers, non virgin women who lost the virginity before marriage and so on as said in the old testament. While in another verse, actually lots of places it said god is love and loves all of mankind. It's cause of shit like that I look at the bible as a ridiculous scripture written by ignorant men, and only men. Men wrote the bible, not women. Makes you think of the actual value of the entire book and all the 'wisdom' in it.
The child adoption issue is my only real issue though. Religion doesn't belong in a discussion like this, but somehow it always manage to put it's slimy tentacles all over these kinda discussions.
---
Grammar nazi's. This one is for you.
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Keep the childish "your brain doesn't work" comments to a minimum. As for your position, it's been ambiguous at best. You state that you're anti religion, yet quote the bible or remind everyone of it's intent in every post. You call them mindless zombies, but refuse to concede the notion that there may be contradicting arguments, or ambiguities in the interpretation of the bible. You say, without question, what the bible's stance is. Wouldn't that be the definition of mindless zombie then?
I don't think that I've said in any post that the bible doesn't have anti-gay passages here and there. The bible has anti-gay messages in it. You know what it also has? Anti-drinking messages, anti-stealing messages, anti-other religions messages, anti-<you name it> messages. To lighten things up a bit, to quote the Simpsons: "have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." It's the FOCUS on these specific lines, quoted with absolute authority like you have in previous posts, that bothers me.
That quote you posted, with some quick research, revealed over 25 different English translations. In addition, there seems to be considerable debate over the translation of some of the words, evidence that translators have introduced their own prejudices, and blatant changes to the translation over time as some of the practices became somewhat acceptable in modern society (ie. masturbation). What's to say in 50 years, if gays became accepted by that Church, that those anti-gay passes won't mysteriously disappear as well?
Going back to my original post, "why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide."
You don't have look hard find passages in the bible to support that stance. It's a very easy one. Luke 7:36-50 comes to mind.
Personally I don't have anything against religion. Christianity has some good messages that I don't disagree with. What I don't like is when people wield it as a weapon in the name of intolerance.
Good points all over, but to be honest, you flamed me first. I just flamed back, maybe in a childish manner but who the hell cares?
Ok, to make this thing simple, here is where I stand:
- I don't like religion at all. I hate what religion do to people and the ignorance it spread.
- I support gay marriage. I live in Norway where gays been recognised by the state for ages. More correctly, I really don't care much if they marry or not cause it doesn't have anything to do with me personally.
- I'm quite sceptic to letting gays and lesbians adopt children. There are conflicting studies about the effect same-sex parents have on a child.
- How can you misunderstand a sentence that say, lets say - You shall not be an adulterer for that is a sin in the eyes of God? Whatever translation you read, the message is the same. Anyway, translations have a tendency to lose the original message. To get the true meaning, you have to read the redsea scrolls and other scriptures dating from that time. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, and christian claim to follow the bible, that is they follow what they want and give a bugger in the rest.
- While I like the Simpsons I don't use them as a source for anything, else than poking fun at the average american family. The bible got some set rules and it's every christian duty to follow it as best they can. With that said, the bible is full of conflicting verses, like you should kill homosexuals, disobedient teenagers, non virgin women who lost the virginity before marriage and so on as said in the old testament. While in another verse, actually lots of places it said god is love and loves all of mankind. It's cause of shit like that I look at the bible as a ridiculous scripture written by ignorant men, and only men. Men wrote the bible, not women. Makes you think of the actual value of the entire book and all the 'wisdom' in it.
The child adoption issue is my only real issue though. Religion doesn't belong in a discussion like this, but somehow it always manage to put it's slimy tentacles all over these kinda discussions.
Religion ended slavery, brought about liberty, gave us the notion of the sanctity of rights, gave us the idea of human equality, and even the scientific method itself. Could these things have happened another way? perhaps there is another universe where such things developed secularly -- but not our universe.
Knowledge throughout the past two thousand years has been preserved by religious people. The MOST devoted religious -- monks of all denominations.
Good people will use religion and learn from it and help to make the world a better place. Good secular people will use reason to do the same. Bad people will use religion, or their secular ideology to do evil. It's not whether one is religious or not, it is how one uses that sentiment. That is a function of character and the sum of the choices made by the individual.
Most of us are a mix -- we use our philosophy or religion to justify some of our bad actions, but not all. We also choose philosophies and faiths which represent the best within us and attempt to act upon it in the world as best wecan.
Most of us use a mix of reason and faith to do what we will do, and whether we will be saints or sociopaths involves something a good deal more mysterious and complex than simple determinism based upon whether one holds to a diety or goes to a church or mosque.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Keep the childish "your brain doesn't work" comments to a minimum. As for your position, it's been ambiguous at best. You state that you're anti religion, yet quote the bible or remind everyone of it's intent in every post. You call them mindless zombies, but refuse to concede the notion that there may be contradicting arguments, or ambiguities in the interpretation of the bible. You say, without question, what the bible's stance is. Wouldn't that be the definition of mindless zombie then?
I don't think that I've said in any post that the bible doesn't have anti-gay passages here and there. The bible has anti-gay messages in it. You know what it also has? Anti-drinking messages, anti-stealing messages, anti-other religions messages, anti-<you name it> messages. To lighten things up a bit, to quote the Simpsons: "have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." It's the FOCUS on these specific lines, quoted with absolute authority like you have in previous posts, that bothers me.
That quote you posted, with some quick research, revealed over 25 different English translations. In addition, there seems to be considerable debate over the translation of some of the words, evidence that translators have introduced their own prejudices, and blatant changes to the translation over time as some of the practices became somewhat acceptable in modern society (ie. masturbation). What's to say in 50 years, if gays became accepted by that Church, that those anti-gay passes won't mysteriously disappear as well?
Going back to my original post, "why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide."
You don't have look hard find passages in the bible to support that stance. It's a very easy one. Luke 7:36-50 comes to mind.
Personally I don't have anything against religion. Christianity has some good messages that I don't disagree with. What I don't like is when people wield it as a weapon in the name of intolerance.
Good points all over, but to be honest, you flamed me first. I just flamed back, maybe in a childish manner but who the hell cares?
Ok, to make this thing simple, here is where I stand:
- I don't like religion at all. I hate what religion do to people and the ignorance it spread.
- I support gay marriage. I live in Norway where gays been recognised by the state for ages. More correctly, I really don't care much if they marry or not cause it doesn't have anything to do with me personally.
- I'm quite sceptic to letting gays and lesbians adopt children. There are conflicting studies about the effect same-sex parents have on a child.
- How can you misunderstand a sentence that say, lets say - You shall not be an adulterer for that is a sin in the eyes of God? Whatever translation you read, the message is the same. Anyway, translations have a tendency to lose the original message. To get the true meaning, you have to read the redsea scrolls and other scriptures dating from that time. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, and christian claim to follow the bible, that is they follow what they want and give a bugger in the rest.
- While I like the Simpsons I don't use them as a source for anything, else than poking fun at the average american family. The bible got some set rules and it's every christian duty to follow it as best they can. With that said, the bible is full of conflicting verses, like you should kill homosexuals, disobedient teenagers, non virgin women who lost the virginity before marriage and so on as said in the old testament. While in another verse, actually lots of places it said god is love and loves all of mankind. It's cause of shit like that I look at the bible as a ridiculous scripture written by ignorant men, and only men. Men wrote the bible, not women. Makes you think of the actual value of the entire book and all the 'wisdom' in it.
The child adoption issue is my only real issue though. Religion doesn't belong in a discussion like this, but somehow it always manage to put it's slimy tentacles all over these kinda discussions.
Religion ended slavery, brought about liberty, gave us the notion of the sanctity of rights, gave us the idea of human equality, and even the scientific method itself. Could these things have happened another way? perhaps there is another universe where such things developed secularly -- but not our universe.
Knowledge throughout the past two thousand years has been preserved by religious people. The MOST devoted religious -- monks of all denominations.
Good people will use religion and learn from it and help to make the world a better place. Good secular people will use reason to do the same. Bad people will use religion, or their secular ideology to do evil. It's not whether one is religious or not, it is how one uses that sentiment. That is a function of character and the sum of the choices made by the individual.
Most of us are a mix -- we use our philosophy or religion to justify some of our bad actions, but not all. We also choose philosophies and faiths which represent the best within us and attempt to act upon it in the world as best wecan.
Most of us use a mix of reason and faith to do what we will do, and whether we will be saints or sociopaths involves something a good deal more mysterious and complex than simple determinism based upon whether one holds to a diety or goes to a church or mosque.
I'm not so sure religion did all those things so much as just a sense of order. That order can be setup by a lot of things; religion, organizations, governments and laws. They all give us a sense of order and allow us to pursue objectives.
I think if religion were ended today people would still fall back on order in one way or another. It's something that is innate in us. Anywhere you have a group of people they begin to setup some kind of structure. It was just religion in history that we used for that. I think lately though it's changing and we're relying on other forms of order. And some of them work quite well and even offer more freedom and expression than religion did. I think that might be why a lot of scientists today are not religious.
=============================
It all seems so stupid
It makes me want to give up
But why should I give up
When it all seems so stupid
Good example, you found a verse in the bible, you found a specific translation of that verse that supports your prejudice, and you've used it as clear evidence of your position, while simultaneously ignoring the overall message that your messiah seemingly preached. I think I've had enough of this thread.
Good work. You totally missed my entire point. If you didn't pick up that I'm extremely anti-religion I suggest you order a new brain or something, cause the one you got at the moment clearly doesn't work. It's nothing to discuss anyway. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, multiple times all over the place, both in the old testament and the new one. That some religious people, who claim they follow the bible choose to ignore what doesn't fit their lifestyle is their problem, and to be honest quite hypocrite. Religion fuck people up anyway, tear them in all direction till they become the mindless zombie I believe religion make them.
Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Keep the childish "your brain doesn't work" comments to a minimum. As for your position, it's been ambiguous at best. You state that you're anti religion, yet quote the bible or remind everyone of it's intent in every post. You call them mindless zombies, but refuse to concede the notion that there may be contradicting arguments, or ambiguities in the interpretation of the bible. You say, without question, what the bible's stance is. Wouldn't that be the definition of mindless zombie then?
I don't think that I've said in any post that the bible doesn't have anti-gay passages here and there. The bible has anti-gay messages in it. You know what it also has? Anti-drinking messages, anti-stealing messages, anti-other religions messages, anti-<you name it> messages. To lighten things up a bit, to quote the Simpsons: "have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom." It's the FOCUS on these specific lines, quoted with absolute authority like you have in previous posts, that bothers me.
That quote you posted, with some quick research, revealed over 25 different English translations. In addition, there seems to be considerable debate over the translation of some of the words, evidence that translators have introduced their own prejudices, and blatant changes to the translation over time as some of the practices became somewhat acceptable in modern society (ie. masturbation). What's to say in 50 years, if gays became accepted by that Church, that those anti-gay passes won't mysteriously disappear as well?
Going back to my original post, "why not just follow the obvious message Jesus seemed to preach. You know, the big flashing neon one about not being dicks, about if someone is a good loving person then maybe they can be forgiven. Jesus seemed to be able to let that shit slide."
You don't have look hard find passages in the bible to support that stance. It's a very easy one. Luke 7:36-50 comes to mind.
Personally I don't have anything against religion. Christianity has some good messages that I don't disagree with. What I don't like is when people wield it as a weapon in the name of intolerance.
Good points all over, but to be honest, you flamed me first. I just flamed back, maybe in a childish manner but who the hell cares?
Ok, to make this thing simple, here is where I stand:
- I don't like religion at all. I hate what religion do to people and the ignorance it spread.
- I support gay marriage. I live in Norway where gays been recognised by the state for ages. More correctly, I really don't care much if they marry or not cause it doesn't have anything to do with me personally.
- I'm quite sceptic to letting gays and lesbians adopt children. There are conflicting studies about the effect same-sex parents have on a child.
- How can you misunderstand a sentence that say, lets say - You shall not be an adulterer for that is a sin in the eyes of God? Whatever translation you read, the message is the same. Anyway, translations have a tendency to lose the original message. To get the true meaning, you have to read the redsea scrolls and other scriptures dating from that time. The bible say homosexuality is a sin, and christian claim to follow the bible, that is they follow what they want and give a bugger in the rest.
- While I like the Simpsons I don't use them as a source for anything, else than poking fun at the average american family. The bible got some set rules and it's every christian duty to follow it as best they can. With that said, the bible is full of conflicting verses, like you should kill homosexuals, disobedient teenagers, non virgin women who lost the virginity before marriage and so on as said in the old testament. While in another verse, actually lots of places it said god is love and loves all of mankind. It's cause of shit like that I look at the bible as a ridiculous scripture written by ignorant men, and only men. Men wrote the bible, not women. Makes you think of the actual value of the entire book and all the 'wisdom' in it.
The child adoption issue is my only real issue though. Religion doesn't belong in a discussion like this, but somehow it always manage to put it's slimy tentacles all over these kinda discussions.
Religion ended slavery, brought about liberty, gave us the notion of the sanctity of rights, gave us the idea of human equality, and even the scientific method itself. Could these things have happened another way? perhaps there is another universe where such things developed secularly -- but not our universe.
Knowledge throughout the past two thousand years has been preserved by religious people. The MOST devoted religious -- monks of all denominations.
Good people will use religion and learn from it and help to make the world a better place. Good secular people will use reason to do the same. Bad people will use religion, or their secular ideology to do evil. It's not whether one is religious or not, it is how one uses that sentiment. That is a function of character and the sum of the choices made by the individual.
Most of us are a mix -- we use our philosophy or religion to justify some of our bad actions, but not all. We also choose philosophies and faiths which represent the best within us and attempt to act upon it in the world as best wecan.
Most of us use a mix of reason and faith to do what we will do, and whether we will be saints or sociopaths involves something a good deal more mysterious and complex than simple determinism based upon whether one holds to a diety or goes to a church or mosque.
I'm not so sure religion did all those things so much as just a sense of order. That order can be setup by a lot of things; religion, organizations, governments and laws. They all give us a sense of order and allow us to pursue objectives.
I think if religion were ended today people would still fall back on order in one way or another. It's something that is innate in us. Anywhere you have a group of people they begin to setup some kind of structure. It was just religion in history that we used for that. I think lately though it's changing and we're relying on other forms of order. And some of them work quite well and even offer more freedom and expression than religion did. I think that might be why a lot of scientists today are not religious.
Well, the people who did them said they did them because they were trying to do God's will, or act out his commandments, or were seeking to better understand His creation.
If one actually knows religious people, one finds that for many it is not something they "fall back" on, and to say so belittles the religious experience. The fact is, many religious people come to religious belief out of a lifetime of experience, and coming to the conclusion that the religion they choose to follow is true.
To be sure, for some, religion is an escape, but certainly not for all. For some it is actually the beginning of a deeper engagement with reality.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I just wanted to share my story, yes, i m gay, i live in a relationship for the last 11 years, oh and we are very happy, i live in a country where it's not possible to marry yet, but they are talking a lot about it lately.
My partner (since i cant use husban so i dont insulte the sanctity of marriage) was diagnosed Lateral Amyotrophic sclerosis (no idea if it's spelt this way in english) this year, meaning he will eventually end up in a bed without moving anything but his eyeballs. Since we CANT marry we have been busy running (well he cant run anymore but u understand...) from on place to another preparing for his death, while he is still alive, it's almost as if we were giving up hope while spending fortunes at the lawyer.
The stranger thing is, by law, I will have to hand half the stuff in his name to a family who never cared for him and put him on the street when he said to them he was gay, and even the other half, that will be handle to me via a testament, can be contested...
Who can honestly say this is fair, can the righteous Christian say my family is not worthy of protection, how can they say I dont deserve to marry the person i love, and not having him worry the last years of his life about if i m gonna be okay after he dies, or if I will be able to make his will happens when he will be so sick he wont be able to move.
You guys against marriage dont understand we are humans, we have relashionships, i love my husband, and I will stay by his side whatever happens, it's probably more than most "traditional family" zealots would do.
Blah blah, whine whine. No one -cares- what happens to you. No one wants you to get massacred in a holocaust, no one wants you to get persecuted. We simply don't care.
You will forever be nothing more than an insult thrown at straight people in MMOs. For that, I pity you. I also think it kicks ass. Homosexuals have a legacy that will never die. That's almost as good as getting married and having a family, right?
"I can't marry my boyfriend!"
"That's okay. Another newbie just got called a homo"
"We will never die!"
Hats off to you. You make this country more interesting.
I am afraid you are only partially correct. The... groundwork laid by religion was a catalyst that eventually led to these notions. Unfortunately, each and every one of the concepts above was actively suppresed by religion in one or more ways. Slavery was justified by religion for centuries, and technically still is supported by the Old Testament. Likewise, leaders of the Catholic faith supported the European monarchies, and denounced America's "heresy" in declaring rights for themselves. As for the scientific method, ever heard of the Dark Ages? For nearly a millenium, the Church made scientific advancement, and indeed any attempt at improving the quality of life for humanity, effectively illegal. The justification there was that the problems Europe was facing were punishments from god, and that attempts to allieviate them were against his will. (For instance, a group of farmers beginning to design and build a crude irrigation system that would have nearly doubled their crop capacity were set upon. The work was deemed heresy and the ringleaders executed.)
As for the preservation of knowledge, you are largely correct, but only by default. The church was the only place with enough scholars to preserve it. But unfortunately, the religious don't make particularly neutral keepers. They tend to have a few bonfires now and then, with anything they don't like going up in smoke.
Even today, Vatican City is squatting over a small mountain of history, much of which they absolutely refuse to reveal to anyone but their own. Give me a few days, some helpers, and appropriate page scanning equipment, and I could literally rewrite the history books if even a tenth of their hidden material proves valid.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I am afraid you are only partially correct. The... groundwork laid by religion was a catalyst that eventually led to these notions. Unfortunately, each and every one of the concepts above was actively suppresed by religion in one or more ways. Slavery was justified by religion for centuries, and technically still is supported by the Old Testament. Likewise, leaders of the Catholic faith supported the European monarchies, and denounced America's "heresy" in declaring rights for themselves. As for the scientific method, ever heard of the Dark Ages? For nearly a millenium, the Church made scientific advancement, and indeed any attempt at improving the quality of life for humanity, effectively illegal. The justification there was that the problems Europe was facing were punishments from god, and that attempts to allieviate them were against his will. (For instance, a group of farmers beginning to design and build a crude irrigation system that would have nearly doubled their crop capacity were set upon. The work was deemed heresy and the ringleaders executed.)
As for the preservation of knowledge, you are largely correct, but only by default. The church was the only place with enough scholars to preserve it. But unfortunately, the religious don't make particularly neutral keepers. They tend to have a few bonfires now and then, with anything they don't like going up in smoke.
Even today, Vatican City is squatting over a small mountain of history, much of which they absolutely refuse to reveal to anyone but their own. Give me a few days, some helpers, and appropriate page scanning equipment, and I could literally rewrite the history books if even a tenth of their hidden material proves valid.
Remember I am writng what I am writing in the context of people claiming religion is bad, and using a catalogue of the evil things that religious people have done, or the evil things that have been done in the name of religion as their evidence for their position. I did not come on here and proclaim, rteligion is great because...
I am trying to show how badly this style of reasoning is.
As I said, evil people use religion to do evil; good people use religion to do good. The facts are that the people who did good in the name of religion are the people who have given us everything we hold dear today. They did NOT do so by default, but specifically BECAUSE of the religion they practiced -- at least that is what they ahve said time and again throughout history.
The church's were not scholars by default -- the church preserved and protected scholarship -- period. It preserved and promoted literacy -- gave us the first printing press, which brought literacy to the masses and sparked every religion of the modern age. All that from decisions to translate and print the Bible.
It's what it did as part of what it was. At the same time it was also systematically used as suppression, but that goes along with exactly what I am saying.
If bad people doing bad things in the name of religion counts against religion, then good people doing good things in its name counts for it. If we look at the two in this way, we find almost everything good we have today came from some religion, and some of the bad things too.
That being said, if we use the same style of thinking to look at the bad -- we find the worst things in histpry have come from people who have rejected God and placed reason on a pedestal -- Mao, Stalin , and all the communists brought supression to new levels under their atheist regimes. This shows quote clearly that it is the PEOPLE, not the religion or ideology.
Good people choose good ideologies, bad people choose bad ideologies.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Locked: Raising dead threads just isn't the same as raising dead humans.