"Tell me about the last time you saw another man's sack." (1 Viewer)

[larry_boy_44]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it. The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage. to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

 

[SWC]

it is about right and wrong and being an intolerent bigot and trying to back that up with religion is wrong now just like it was wrong when the same type of folks tried to do it with blacks and women thats just the truth amigos so take that to the bank and keep on standing up for those that need it brohans

 

[TobiasFunke]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

It shouldn't be surprising that many Christians don't find Christianity irrational. Hence, the disconnect.

That's fine. But it has no place in public policy. And if they choose to introduce Christianity into that sphere, they're asking for it to be called out as irrational. And they don't get to play the victim when that happens, any more than, say, an Orthodox Jew who protests women's rights because his God tells him that women belong in the home serving their men and being submissive. That Orthodox Jew has every right to think that and to worship with others who think that. But once he enters the public sphere and starts spewing that nonsense, we have no obligation to tolerate it. We can and should tell that bassackwards idiot to take his nonsense back to the synagogue. He's not "under attack" because he's the one who decided to bring his religious nonsense to us, not vice versa.

 

[mad sweeney]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

I think you're confusing Christianity in general with your very specific group/church of intense Christians and speakkng for all of them as if they all behaved as yours does. That's just not the case. There's zero chance anyone other than the hardcore members are going to criminalize adultery or coveting or any other "normal person" sins.

 

[eurotrashman]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

Being intolerant of people based on decisions and choices they make is completely different than being intolerant of people who have attributes they can't control.

 

[dgreen]

If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position.

I think this question has been raised before, but: What is "tolerant" and "intolerant"? What do they look like?

If someone made that argument to you, in what way would you not tolerate that position?

Personally, I'd just say, "Oh yeah?" and leave it at that. I'd likely say nothing to them. I wouldn't tell them they are wrong. I wouldn't try to argue with them. I would make no effort to change their mind. I'd totally disagree with them in my mind. To me, that would be me "tolerating" their position.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position.

I think this question has been raised before, but: What is "tolerant" and "intolerant"? What do they look like? If someone made that argument to you, in what way would you not tolerate that position? Personally, I'd just say, "Oh yeah?" and leave it at that. I'd likely say nothing to them. I wouldn't tell them they are wrong. I wouldn't try to argue with them. I would make no effort to change their mind. I'd totally disagree with them in my mind. To me, that would be me "tolerating" their position.

Sure, it's easy to walk away from that example because it was silly and nobody would agree and I couldn't actually influence anything if I thought that. But suppose someone says "I support segregating the races because my cult leader who is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ says it's the right thing to do. Therefore I support the reversal of Brown vs. Board of Ed and the repeal of the civil rights act, and I will be active in the fight for both." And then let's suppose there's literally millions of people who agree with them, enough to influence public policy. Do you still just walk away and not try to argue with them (and anyone else who may listen to or read your conversation) and make no effort to change their mind? I'd say you're not being "tolerant" of their nonsense, but I also don't think you should be. I think it's a good thing to not tolerate harmful actions.

 

[Please See Mine]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it. The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage. to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

 

[SWC]

please donot assume larry boy and his ilk speak for all of us thanks brohan

 

[jonessed]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it. The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage. to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

It's really not that simple. There are studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

 

[dgreen]

If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position.

I think this question has been raised before, but: What is "tolerant" and "intolerant"? What do they look like? If someone made that argument to you, in what way would you not tolerate that position? Personally, I'd just say, "Oh yeah?" and leave it at that. I'd likely say nothing to them. I wouldn't tell them they are wrong. I wouldn't try to argue with them. I would make no effort to change their mind. I'd totally disagree with them in my mind. To me, that would be me "tolerating" their position.

Sure, it's easy to walk away from that example because it was silly and nobody would agree and I couldn't actually influence anything if I thought that. But suppose someone says "I support segregating the races because my cult leader who is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ says it's the right thing to do. Therefore I support the reversal of Brown vs. Board of Ed and the repeal of the civil rights act, and I will be active in the fight for both." And then let's suppose there's literally millions of people who agree with them, enough to influence public policy. Do you still just walk away and not try to argue with them (and anyone else who may listen to or read your conversation) and make no effort to change their mind? I'd say you're not being "tolerant" of their nonsense, but I also don't think you should be. I think it's a good thing to not tolerate harmful actions.

OK, but now we are getting into some differences I think I raised earlier. It's one thing to not tolerate someone's actions that are attempting to harm someone and another to not tolerate their beliefs. Not everyone who believes X will translate that belief into a harmful action.

 

[Please See Mine]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it. The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage. to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

Meh, it's really not that simple. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

Has pretty much nothing to do with what LB said, but ok.

Where is the study that says that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment as opposed to a homosexual marriage environment?

 

[Disco Stu]

The fact that you call me a "pathetic bigot" shows that not only do you not have any idea about God, you don't know the first thing about me, either.

But, hey, thanks for participating in the conversation. And thank you for proving my point about which side is attacking the other. I haven't said one mean, hurtful thing this entire thread, but the amount of personal insults and attacks on myself and my character is pretty huge.

I know you don't see it, but your entire premise is mean and hurtful.

 

[jonessed]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it. The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage. to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

Meh, it's really not that simple. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

Has pretty much nothing to do with what LB said, but ok. Where is the study that says that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment as opposed to a homosexual marriage environment?

Just Google it. I can't right now. You will find psychologists discussing it. It shouldn't be that surprising that kids are better off with a mom and a dad. The sexes play very different roles in child raising.I don't think it's a very good argument considering our current social make-up, but it's not all about God and "ickiness" (I imagine its all inter-connected though).

 

[larry_boy_44]

The fact that you call me a "pathetic bigot" shows that not only do you not have any idea about God, you don't know the first thing about me, either.

But, hey, thanks for participating in the conversation. And thank you for proving my point about which side is attacking the other. I haven't said one mean, hurtful thing this entire thread, but the amount of personal insults and attacks on myself and my character is pretty huge.

I know you don't see it, but your entire premise is mean and hurtful.

I'm not saying anyone can't do anything. I'm not saying you don't have the right to disagree with me.

But beyond that, if I'm right, i'm the only one trying not to hurt these people.

 

[Arizona Ron]

 

[saintsfan]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position. But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it. The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage. to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

Meh, it's really not that simple. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

Has pretty much nothing to do with what LB said, but ok.

Where is the study that says that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment as opposed to a homosexual marriage environment?

I don't know if there is a study, but to me, children being better off in an environment where they have both a mommy and daddy married is so self-evident it doesn't need a study.

Now, if you ask me if children are necessarily worse off being raised by two parents of the same sex, I'd say no and it's preferable to have two attentive parents of the same sex than one or none.

However, an attentive man and woman beats two attentive men and two attentive women all day every day. They get different things from each sex. As much as people want to say that men and women are basically the same, they aren't. Anybody who's raised a little girl and a little boy knows that they are different in many ways and they benefit from the strengths of each sex. Not to mention the social stigma, however unfair, of a kid being raised by homosexual parents.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position.

But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it.

The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage.

to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

Meh, it's really not that simple. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

Has pretty much nothing to do with what LB said, but ok.

Where is the study that says that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment as opposed to a homosexual marriage environment?

Just Google it. I can't right now. You will find psychologists discussing it.It shouldn't be that surprising that kids are better off with a mom and a dad. The sexes play very different roles in child raising.

I don't think it's a very good argument considering our current social make-up, but it's not all about God and "ickiness" (I imagine its all inter-connected though).

Done. I googled "gay parents." I mostly found a lot of articles ridiculing your position. Also this, from the Wikipedia entry on LGBT parenting:

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

...

Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[24] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, [27] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[28] the National Association of Social Workers,[29] the Child Welfare League of America,[30] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[31] and Canadian Psychological Association.[32] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."[7]

Sure, there's a few "studies" by idiots with agendas finding otherwise. You can find a few studies proving anything you want. The evidence is pretty conclusive here.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position.

But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it.

The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage.

to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

Meh, it's really not that simple. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

Has pretty much nothing to do with what LB said, but ok.

Where is the study that says that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment as opposed to a homosexual marriage environment?

Just Google it. I can't right now. You will find psychologists discussing it.It shouldn't be that surprising that kids are better off with a mom and a dad. The sexes play very different roles in child raising.

I don't think it's a very good argument considering our current social make-up, but it's not all about God and "ickiness" (I imagine its all inter-connected though).

I googled gay parents. I found a lot of people laughing at people like you. Also this, from the Wikipedia entry:

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

...

Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[24] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, [27] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[28] the National Association of Social Workers,[29] the Child Welfare League of America,[30] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[31] and Canadian Psychological Association.[32] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."[7]

Sure, there's a few "studies" by idiots with agendas finding otherwise. You can find a few studies proving anything you want. The evidence is pretty conclusive here.

you are failing to take into account that all of those people saying that would be called bigots and seen as idiots by the "majority" for not saying what they did simply for saying it.

No study done that shows that homosexual parents are less fit than heterosexual parents has any chance of being taken as credible by a huge number of people. There is no evidence admissible. Its already a closed case.

They have no choice to say those things or to be branded "hate groups" (See: "Focus on the Family"), losing funding, and in general having a negative social stigma (even if they were telling the truth).

 

[Please See Mine]

Shocked by those results. Shocked.

Not to mention the fact that I have no idea what bearing it should have on gay people having the right to a marriage, which is what was the point at hand in the first place.

 

[Please See Mine]

No study done that shows that homosexual parents are less fit than heterosexual parents has any chance of being taken as credible by a huge number of people. There is no evidence admissible. Its already a closed case.

Which studies do you have? Jonessed can also post them if he likes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Shocked by those results. Shocked.

Not to mention the fact that I have no idea what bearing it should have on gay people having the right to a marriage, which is what was the point at hand in the first place.

Also not to mention the fact that the appropriate comparison in the first place is actually gay couples vs. non-existence or foster homes, not gay vs straight. Nobody's taking kids out of caring, nurturing straight homes and shipping them off to gay homes.

 

[jonessed]

You are intolerant of people you think are wrong. That's a pretty normal human trait, especially in today's society.

It's not about right and wrong, it's about irrationality. I tolerate viewpoints I disagree with all the time. Some people don't like certain environmental laws and regulations. I often disagree, but if they argue that the economic harm outweighs the environmental benefit, that's a viewpoint that I (and anyone) can tolerate. Because that's a rational position.

But I don't tolerate the irrational. Nobody does, and nobody should. It would be really silly to tolerate irrationality. The whole basis for debate and discussion would disappear. If I say "I support Obamacare because I want to live until I'm 250 and Obamacare will make that happen," you shouldn't tolerate that position. It's total nonsense. Similarly, I don't tolerate people who tell me they don't support gay rights but can't give me a rational reason for their position.

I think if you asked the Christians who oppose gay marriage if gay couples should have the "rights" that are extended to married couples to them on a right-by-right basis, the majority would be fine with it.

The problem is that they want to call it "marriage" and "marriage" is seen as a sacred word to Christians. Beyond that, marriage is very often (and in most states) clearly defined in a way that most Christians agree with and believe it should stay as (between a man and a woman). They don't want that changed. They see that, by the definition used in legal terms, everyone has equal rights to marriage.

to act like all of that is irrational is, well, irrational.

I'm glad Christians get to decide for 325 million of us how a concept that completely pre-dates their existence signified by a word that has existed for even less time that has to be engaged in.

Meh, it's really not that simple. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment. If you believe it's important to keep those values intact to maintain the country's social fabric there's nothing irrational about that.Whether you chooses to give the studies credence or that this would even outweigh other factors is certainly up for debate, but the opposition viewpoint is being quite simplified here (who would have guessed).

Has pretty much nothing to do with what LB said, but ok.

Where is the study that says that children are better off being raised in a heterosexual marriage environment as opposed to a homosexual marriage environment?

Just Google it. I can't right now. You will find psychologists discussing it.It shouldn't be that surprising that kids are better off with a mom and a dad. The sexes play very different roles in child raising.

I don't think it's a very good argument considering our current social make-up, but it's not all about God and "ickiness" (I imagine its all inter-connected though).

Done. I googled "gay parents." I mostly found a lot of articles ridiculing your position. Also this, from the Wikipedia entry on LGBT parenting:

Scientific research has been generally consistent in showing that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

...

Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[24] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[6] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[1] the American Psychiatric Association,[25] the American Psychological Association,[26] the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, [27] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[28] the National Association of Social Workers,[29] the Child Welfare League of America,[30] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[31] and Canadian Psychological Association.[32] In 2006, Gregory M. Herek stated in American Psychologist: "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."[7]

Sure, there's a few "studies" by idiots with agendas finding otherwise. You can find a few studies proving anything you want. The evidence is pretty conclusive here.

The headline of that article is "Part of a Study of LGBT rights". If you are struggling to find articles i will look them up later.

 

[Disco Stu]

The fact that you call me a "pathetic bigot" shows that not only do you not have any idea about God, you don't know the first thing about me, either.

But, hey, thanks for participating in the conversation. And thank you for proving my point about which side is attacking the other. I haven't said one mean, hurtful thing this entire thread, but the amount of personal insults and attacks on myself and my character is pretty huge.

I know you don't see it, but your entire premise is mean and hurtful.

I'm not saying anyone can't do anything. I'm not saying you don't have the right to disagree with me.

But beyond that, if I'm right, i'm the only one trying not to hurt these people.

That's right... you're saying gays do have the right to marry. As long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

What could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah.

 

[Disco Stu]

Shocked by those results. Shocked.

Not to mention the fact that I have no idea what bearing it should have on gay people having the right to a marriage, which is what was the point at hand in the first place.

Also not to mention the fact that the appropriate comparison in the first place is actually gay couples vs. non-existence or foster homes, not gay vs straight. Nobody's taking kids out of caring, nurturing straight homes and shipping them off to gay homes.

Not yet.

 

[jonessed]

attack the name of the study but provide no backup all hat and no cattle right there brohans

i already stated that I can't right now nor do I think it would be all that relevant in our current social structure anyway single parenting is a big problem and two parents is better than one i alluded to this once already brohans

 

[TobiasFunke]

The headline of that article is "Part of a Study of LGBT rights". If you are struggling to find articles i will look them up later.

What article? That's from a Wikipedia entry.

I found a few articles from people with agendas far more obvious than the long list of professional organizations found above. Great. Like I said, you can find a few studies to support anything. For example: link. I prefer to deal in overwhelming expert consensus, and it's pretty obvious to any rational person who takes the time to look at it that we've got an overwhelming expert consensus here.

Again, not that it matters. Gay marriage does not = taking babies away from straight couples and giving them to gay couples, so that argument against gay marriage isn't rational. So we're once again left with "God said so" and "because it's icky" as the only articulated reasons for opposition.

 

[CBusAlex]

The headline of that article is "Part of a Study of LGBT rights". If you are struggling to find articles i will look them up later.

In before jonessed disappears from this thread forever.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Is Larry a virgin and/or married?

 

[jonessed]

The headline of that article is "Part of a Study of LGBT rights". If you are struggling to find articles i will look them up later.

In before jonessed disappears from this thread forever.

I will look them up. This will be the third time I've stated that I don't think it's a compelling argument, but people seem determined to agree with me emphatically and demand more links.

 

[SWC]

attack the name of the study but provide no backup all hat and no cattle right there brohans

i already stated that I can't right now nor do I think it would be all that relevant in our current social structure anyway single parenting is a big problem and two parents is better than one i alluded to this once already brohans

yeah i know it brohan that is why i deleted the comment i realize my comment was a low blow so i got rid of it sorry about that i just get worked up about this one

 

[timschochet]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

This is absolutely false, unless you believe that "Christians" only apply to those who share your specific, rather extreme views. (For all I know, you might.)

 

[larry_boy_44]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

This is absolutely false, unless you believe that "Christians" only apply to those who share your specific, rather extreme views. (For all I know, you might.)

I more meant those who are voting against and protesting against homosexuality than the whole. You are correct, that was definitely me mis-speaking.

 

[B-Deep]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

Because i can give you example after example of homosexuals who are being denied rights simply for being gay. Molst of america believes gay is who those people are and thus, denying them rights or belittling them is wrong

much like it was wrong when African Americans were denied rights a belittled

it is really as simple as that

and just as you have the right to call them sinners, i have the right to tell you that you are intolerant. You can disagree with me, and say so, but nothing protects you from me and the giant mass of people who agree with me telling you you are wrong

 

[larry_boy_44]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

Because i can give you example after example of homosexuals who are being denied rights simply for being gay. Molst of america believes gay is who those people are and thus, denying them rights or belittling them is wrong

much like it was wrong when African Americans were denied rights a belittled

it is really as simple as that

and just as you have the right to call them sinners, i have the right to tell you that you are intolerant. You can disagree with me, and say so, but nothing protects you from me and the giant mass of people who agree with me telling you you are wrong

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

 

[shader]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

This is absolutely false, unless you believe that "Christians" only apply to those who share your specific, rather extreme views. (For all I know, you might.)

I more meant those who are voting against and protesting against homosexuality than the whole. You are correct, that was definitely me mis-speaking.

Yeah Larry, plenty of christians drink alcohol (which isn't prohibited in the bible anyway), gamble and commit adultery. But when the subject of gay marriage comes up, they get outraged at it. Let's be honest here. The majority of "christians" care far more about homosexuals than they do the sins they committ willingly on a daily basis. If one "christian" can go clubbing and having all the premarital sex he wants, then pray for forgiveness on Sunday and have it all forgiven, then how is that any different than a homosexual doing the same. The hypocrisy among MANY so-called christians is mind-boggling.

 

[Please See Mine]

The headline of that article is "Part of a Study of LGBT rights". If you are struggling to find articles i will look them up later.

In before jonessed disappears from this thread forever.

I will look them up. This will be the third time I've stated that I don't think it's a compelling argument, but people seem determined to agree with me emphatically and demand more links.

Why would you bring it up if it's not compelling? All hat and no cattle, obviously.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the point

there is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

This is absolutely false, unless you believe that "Christians" only apply to those who share your specific, rather extreme views. (For all I know, you might.)

I more meant those who are voting against and protesting against homosexuality than the whole. You are correct, that was definitely me mis-speaking.

Yeah Larry, plenty of christians drink alcohol (which isn't prohibited in the bible anyway), gamble and commit adultery. But when the subject of gay marriage comes up, they get outraged at it. Let's be honest here. The majority of "christians" care far more about homosexuals than they do the sins they committ willingly on a daily basis. If one "christian" can go clubbing and having all the premarital sex he wants, then pray for forgiveness on Sunday and have it all forgiven, then how is that any different than a homosexual doing the same. The hypocrisy among MANY so-called christians is mind-boggling.

the person you described is not a Christian...

I realize that many churches have no standards and stopped preaching actual morality or Biblical values a while ago, but you can't do that. Living for God is a 24/7 thing every day whether you are in church or not. If you are sinning willfully and assuming you can just go repent and keep doing it, you aren't actually following God. You might call yourself a Christian, but you really aren't one. (note: "you" in this instance is not actually you, shader, its whomever is doing this stuff).

God requires repentance. Repentance is turning from sin and then doing everything in our power to not sin. If you aren't resisting and walking away constantly, then you aren't really living for God. Everyone falls, but not everyone makes a permanent place in their life for their sin.

 

[jonessed]

attack the name of the study but provide no backup all hat and no cattle right there brohans

i already stated that I can't right now nor do I think it would be all that relevant in our current social structure anyway single parenting is a big problem and two parents is better than one i alluded to this once already brohans

yeah i know it brohan that is why i deleted the comment i realize my comment was a low blow so i got rid of it sorry about that i just get worked up about this one

It's alright. I actually put myself in a position of playing devils advocate here on gay marriage. I don't actually have a problem with gay marriage. I have both friends and family that are gay. Now I have to link a bunch of stuff that I don't even find all that relevant.

 

[mad sweeney]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the pointthere is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

Because i can give you example after example of homosexuals who are being denied rights simply for being gay. Molst of america believes gay is who those people are and thus, denying them rights or belittling them is wrong

much like it was wrong when African Americans were denied rights a belittled

it is really as simple as that

and just as you have the right to call them sinners, i have the right to tell you that you are intolerant. You can disagree with me, and say so, but nothing protects you from me and the giant mass of people who agree with me telling you you are wrong

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

No, we're denying you the opportunity to deny rights to others because you don't like it. Believe whatever fairy tale you want, but when you try to force others to live by the way you want them to then you're wrong.

 

[TobiasFunke]

attack the name of the study but provide no backup all hat and no cattle right there brohans

i already stated that I can't right now nor do I think it would be all that relevant in our current social structure anyway single parenting is a big problem and two parents is better than one i alluded to this once already brohans

yeah i know it brohan that is why i deleted the comment i realize my comment was a low blow so i got rid of it sorry about that i just get worked up about this one

It's alright. I actually put myself in a position of playing devils advocate here on gay marriage. I don't actually have a problem with gay marriage. I have both friends and family that are gay. Now I have to link a bunch of stuff that I don't even find all that relevant.

You've done a public service for the benefit of the FFA. Can you imagine if LarryBoy was the only person on one side of a debate around here? We'd all go mad.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Does anyone disagree with what Charles Barkley said here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=As-ITvXlTPI#t=145s

if people have the right to come out against this, people have the right to come out against people that come out against this

that's kind of how it works

I agree, but that is kind of the whole point: tolerance has to work both ways. Sadly, intolerance exists way too often on both sides of this topic.

that's not the pointthere is no requirement to be tolerant of intolerance. What that really means is don't express your opinions about my intolerance.

the point is no one has a right to express their views and not have others express THEIR views as well. This includes Jason Collins. He has to expect people to speak out against him, and that is their right. But those people have to expect the same. The issue is the tide has turned and most of the voices are coming to the defense of Collins. This causes those who do not to play the victim card and say "we should not be crucified for our views". No one has freedom from the consequences of their speech.

But what is "intolerance" really?

Am I intolerant of people who are having premarital sex when i say it is sinful for them to be doing so? If not, why is it different when I say the same thing about people have homosexual sex? If so, why? Why does it matter?

I get why its a big deal to want gay marriage to be legal, I understand that. I don't understand the seeming need to attack people for saying that they believe homosexuality is immoral. If you don't care that I think smoking, drinking, recreational drug use, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gambling, and countless other things that the majority of Americans do is immoral, why do you care so much about this one?

Because I promise you that if you gave the majority of Christians the ability to criminalize adultery or gambling or alcohol, they would. Seriously, try and bring back prohibition and I bet you'd have the evangelicals behind you. I know they're very against legalizing marijuana because "its immoral

Why do you think they try to make abortions illegal? Try to stop schools from handing out condoms?

There have been multiple Christian schools and other orgs that have gotten in trouble in the last couple years for firing women who got pregnant out of marriage when they worked for them. This isn't just a gay thing, that's just the one that gets the most media attention and its the one that has the most people "firing back".

Because i can give you example after example of homosexuals who are being denied rights simply for being gay. Molst of america believes gay is who those people are and thus, denying them rights or belittling them is wrong

much like it was wrong when African Americans were denied rights a belittled

it is really as simple as that

and just as you have the right to call them sinners, i have the right to tell you that you are intolerant. You can disagree with me, and say so, but nothing protects you from me and the giant mass of people who agree with me telling you you are wrong

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

No, we're denying you the opportunity to deny rights to others because you don't like it. Believe whatever fairy tale you want, but when you try to force others to live by the way you want them to then you're wrong.

Let me requote what I just said again for you since it obviously wasn't read the first time you saw it:

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

 

[Disco Stu]

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

You can keep saying it, but everyone else sees it for what it is... a huge stretch at best. I understand you need to believe you're not doing anything wrong though.

Gays already have the right to get married, right? So keeping the law as-is doesn't deny them the right to marry. That's your loophole, correct?

 

[Moe.]

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights. That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

Wait, so you're not trying to deny them rights? So then you're okay with gay marriage? What in the hell has this thread been about then?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Let me requote what I just said again for you since it obviously wasn't read the first time you saw it:

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights. That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

I have no idea what this means. Anyone? Does Larry think that people are trying to force Christians to have gay weddings in churches or something? That's the best guess I've got, but it seems far too absurd.

 

[larry_boy_44]

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

You can keep saying it, but everyone else sees it for what it is... a huge stretch at best. I understand you need to believe you're not doing anything wrong though.

Gays already have the right to get married, right? So keeping the law as-is doesn't deny them the right to marry. That's your loophole, correct?

What part of "I couldn't care less what the government did or changes" wasn't clear to you?

I'm not the one on the picket lines, I'm not the one that wrote the laws years and years ago. I'm not the one voting for anything. I don't care.

If you want to point to big bad Christians who are out denying "rights" to people, I'm not the one to point to because I don't care. I've said that repeatedly, I don't.

Is homosexuality a sin? Absolutely.

Is it really sad that some of the rights of married couples aren't extended to homosexual couples? Yeah. It is. I totally see how that is awful and have no problem with it being fixed.

I just don't care.

I understand why Christians feel the way they do (which is why I posted what I did in this thread). I also understand why people who support gay marriage and think homosexuality is not immoral feel the way they do.

But what the government does doesn't matter to me. It isn't what I am focused on and one way or the other it has very little effect on me personally.

So, yes, I'm not the one your looking for. I posted in this thread because of the consistent misportrayal of things and the disrespect given to God and Christianity in general, not because I'm some crazy Bible-thumping picketer at a funeral for a soldier.

I'm not that guy (in fact I dislike those guys as much or more than you do). But that doesn't mean I'm going to change what I know God has said about the morality of things. But this world has made its choice and I can't un-make it for them. They're gonna walk that path whether its through homosexuality or other sin, their rebellion to God is the point, and that isn't going to change based on what the government says.

 

[larry_boy_44]

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights. That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

Wait, so you're not trying to deny them rights? So then you're okay with gay marriage? What in the hell has this thread been about then?

Me stating my Christian view on things and trying to explain where other Christians are coming from when I can.

Other people coming up with new and inventive ways to accuse me of things I don't think and accuse me (and other Christians) of being a bigot.

 

[SWC]

not only do i think larry is full of mularky i also think that most christians do not believe for one second that god taught us to be bigoted or to treat our brother brohan mans as second class citizens just be good to eachother and treat everyone equal not real hard of a concept even for a dummy like me

 

[Moe.]

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights.

That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

You can keep saying it, but everyone else sees it for what it is... a huge stretch at best. I understand you need to believe you're not doing anything wrong though.

Gays already have the right to get married, right? So keeping the law as-is doesn't deny them the right to marry. That's your loophole, correct?

What part of "I couldn't care less what the government did or changes" wasn't clear to you?

I'm not the one on the picket lines, I'm not the one that wrote the laws years and years ago. I'm not the one voting for anything. I don't care.

If you want to point to big bad Christians who are out denying "rights" to people, I'm not the one to point to because I don't care. I've said that repeatedly, I don't.

Is homosexuality a sin? Absolutely.

Is it really sad that some of the rights of married couples aren't extended to homosexual couples? Yeah. It is. I totally see how that is awful and have no problem with it being fixed.

I just don't care.

I understand why Christians feel the way they do (which is why I posted what I did in this thread). I also understand why people who support gay marriage and think homosexuality is not immoral feel the way they do.

But what the government does doesn't matter to me. It isn't what I am focused on and one way or the other it has very little effect on me personally.

So, yes, I'm not the one your looking for. I posted in this thread because of the consistent misportrayal of things and the disrespect given to God and Christianity in general, not because I'm some crazy Bible-thumping picketer at a funeral for a soldier.

I'm not that guy (in fact I dislike those guys as much or more than you do). But that doesn't mean I'm going to change what I know God has said about the morality of things. But this world has made its choice and I can't un-make it for them. They're gonna walk that path whether its through homosexuality or other sin, their rebellion to God is the point, and that isn't going to change based on what the government says.

But I'm not denying them any rights, nor do I support denying them any rights. That's the biggest reason this isn't going anywhere, it is automatically assumed that anyone who believes being gay is a sin is trying to deny someone rights, so those who support gay marriage are seeking to deny the rights of Christians to believe what their religion teaches.

Wait, so you're not trying to deny them rights? So then you're okay with gay marriage? What in the hell has this thread been about then?

Me stating my Christian view on things and trying to explain where other Christians are coming from when I can.

Other people coming up with new and inventive ways to accuse me of things I don't think and accuse me (and other Christians) of being a bigot.

Gotcha. I think even the most ardent gay marriage supporters are fine with religious people not "recognizing" gay people as being married as long as you understand that your beliefs shouldn't really have an impact on the law.

 

[larry_boy_44]

not only do i think larry is full of mularky i also think that most christians do not believe for one second that god taught us to be bigoted or to treat our brother brohan mans as second class citizens just be good to eachother and treat everyone equal not real hard of a concept even for a dummy like me

You are right, he didn't teach us to treat others as second class citizens. (which, btw, I don't do)

However, that doesn't mean He didn't teach an exact moral code and a morality that needs to be followed. We can't just go "I luv you brohan" and do whatever we want. That's not how it works.

Romans 6:1-3 (The Message)

So what do we do? Keep on sinning so God can keep on forgiving? I should hope not! If we’ve left the country where sin is sovereign, how can we still live in our old house there? Or didn’t you realize we packed up and left there for good? That is what happened in baptism. When we went under the water, we left the old country of sin behind; when we came up out of the water, we entered into the new country of grace—a new life in a new land!

we are to leave the life of sin (and the sin involved) behind after salvation (and baptism).