Your attitudes toward gays and gay rights (1 Viewer)

[Jayrod]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

It matters to me because I care for their spiritual well being. And whether or not someone things they are being damaged or not doesn't negate the facts. If I don't believe I'm dying of cancer, but am, indeed dying of cancer, my belief doesn't change the fact.

Hmm I think you may have a different definition of "facts" than me.

Facts are the truth. I'm putting forth the hypothetical argument that I'm right about God to explain why I feel it necessary to keep people from being damaged in ways they don't believe they are being damaged. See the cancer example above.

 

[CBusAlex]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

Okay, so homosexuality and Islam are both spiritually damaging, in your view. And you would vote against gay marriage because you don't think the law should support spiritually damaging practices.

If you had been born in the 1700s, would you have voted against the first amendment? Would you vote to repeal it today (or at least, the "freedom of religion" part of it) if that were on the ballot?

 

[Clifford]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

This is where religion is failing you. Nothing is damaging them or us or society. If you can present an argument as to why other than "the bible calls it a sin" then I would be glad to hear it. I can present a similar argument for just about every other sin I can think of. I have never heard an argument as to how homosexual sex or homosexual relationships damage a homosexual or anyone else.

If you don't understand how sin is damaging spiritually, then I don't know how else to explain it.

I don't understand how homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Fennis]

what if you were a one armed woman born in Egypt in 1486?

 

[RUSF18]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

It matters to me because I care for their spiritual well being. And whether or not someone things they are being damaged or not doesn't negate the facts. If I don't believe I'm dying of cancer, but am, indeed dying of cancer, my belief doesn't change the fact.

Hmm I think you may have a different definition of "facts" than me.

Facts are the truth. I'm putting forth the hypothetical argument that I'm right about God to explain why I feel it necessary to keep people from being damaged in ways they don't believe they are being damaged. See the cancer example above.

Okay. Good luck in your life.

 

[mad sweeney]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

Yes, it is. If they're married in accordance with their Muslim beliefs, just like Christians getting married is fulfilling to/for what Jesus intended (in your first post about this), then it 100% IS an act which supports and justifies their non-believe in the divinity and path to salvation through Jesus. You're just another one who wants to make homosexuality different than the rest. You have zero support for that stance based entirely on your own words.

 

[Jayrod]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

So basically you think that sexual urges should be repressed, then.

Everyone has repressed sexual urges. Giving in to some of them to try and find "relief" doesn't really solve the issue.

How on earth did you get this from what I wrote?

The point is get rid of the guilt and you get rid of repressing the urges and feeling bad about them. Once the church finally decides that sex is a natural and normal part of God's creation they solve all these silly little internal quibbles, like how God expects them to love another as themselves and love all of his creation, yet they are supposed to view an entire subsection of society as living in sin simply for being who they are.

Anyway, simple enough concept.

Because you said cheating on your spouse is a bad thing. To keep from cheating on my spouse requires repression of sexual urges to have sex with other women.

Sex is very natural and I engage in it regularly and healthily with my spouse. Not sure where you get that the church decided that sex was unnatural (unless you have issues with the Catholic Church in which case you can just get behind me on that).

 

[mad sweeney]

I've been away for a bit, but I've read the reactions to my post.

I suppose the biggest difference between two atheists or Muslims getting married is that there is nothing inherently sinful within their marriages. In fact, I would prefer that all heterosexual couples, no matter what they think about God, be married and monogamous and never divorce as I believe that to be the best thing for all involved. So it is not really comparable to the gay marriage issue.

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

The "damage" that they are doing to each other is "spiritual" according to you, not according to them, as they do not share your spiritual beliefs. So again, why does it matter to you?

Of course this is again saying that it is understandable that you don't want your particular church to support gay marriage.

It matters to me because I care for their spiritual well being. And whether or not someone things they are being damaged or not doesn't negate the facts. If I don't believe I'm dying of cancer, but am, indeed dying of cancer, my belief doesn't change the fact.

Hmm I think you may have a different definition of "facts" than me.

Facts are the truth. I'm putting forth the hypothetical argument that I'm right about God to explain why I feel it necessary to keep people from being damaged in ways they don't believe they are being damaged. See the cancer example above.

Well, except for Jews and Muslims and atheists denying Jesus/God and therefore dooming their souls for eternity after they die. Those are ok, you wouldn't vote against them being able to get married or try to take the word marriage from them. But the gays... well that's different of course.

 

[Clifford]

Before we get totally off the rails, I would really like to hear why homosexuality is a sin, without any references to the bible.

Something like this:

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It is therefore against the single most important guiding principle in Christianity, which is Love Thy God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Not only is stealing expressly against God's commandments, it violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world.

 

[mad sweeney]

Before we get totally off the rails, I would really like to hear why homosexuality is a sin, without any references to the bible.

Something like this:

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It is therefore against the single most important guiding principle in Christianity, which is Love Thy God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Not only is stealing expressly against God's commandments, it violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world.

Because it RUINS straight marriages. Duh!

 

[Jayrod]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

Yes, it is. If they're married in accordance with their Muslim beliefs, just like Christians getting married is fulfilling to/for what Jesus intended (in your first post about this), then it 100% IS an act which supports and justifies their non-believe in the divinity and path to salvation through Jesus. You're just another one who wants to make homosexuality different than the rest. You have zero support for that stance based entirely on your own words.

Man, you sure are beating the crap out of that strawman.

Let me know when you are ready to actually discuss something with me.

 

[Clifford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

So basically you think that sexual urges should be repressed, then.

Everyone has repressed sexual urges. Giving in to some of them to try and find "relief" doesn't really solve the issue.

How on earth did you get this from what I wrote?

The point is get rid of the guilt and you get rid of repressing the urges and feeling bad about them. Once the church finally decides that sex is a natural and normal part of God's creation they solve all these silly little internal quibbles, like how God expects them to love another as themselves and love all of his creation, yet they are supposed to view an entire subsection of society as living in sin simply for being who they are.

Anyway, simple enough concept.

Because you said cheating on your spouse is a bad thing. To keep from cheating on my spouse requires repression of sexual urges to have sex with other women.

Sex is very natural and I engage in it regularly and healthily with my spouse. Not sure where you get that the church decided that sex was unnatural (unless you have issues with the Catholic Church in which case you can just get behind me on that).

I'm referring the concept of sexual sin which you referenced as one of your sins. Porno for instance. If your wife knows you watch porn and is ok with it, then why should watching porn be a sin? If your wife knows that you want to #### other women but don't because it would hurt her, why is lusting after women considered a sin (in the modern evangelical church, not the Catholic church).

But I am much more interested to hear why homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Jayrod]

Before we get totally off the rails, I would really like to hear why homosexuality is a sin, without any references to the bible.

Something like this:

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It is therefore against the single most important guiding principle in Christianity, which is Love Thy God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Not only is stealing expressly against God's commandments, it violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world.

Your entire example is chock full of Bible references.

 

[mad sweeney]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

Yes, it is. If they're married in accordance with their Muslim beliefs, just like Christians getting married is fulfilling to/for what Jesus intended (in your first post about this), then it 100% IS an act which supports and justifies their non-believe in the divinity and path to salvation through Jesus. You're just another one who wants to make homosexuality different than the rest. You have zero support for that stance based entirely on your own words.

Man, you sure are beating the crap out of that strawman.

Let me know when you are ready to actually discuss something with me.

I'm using your own words. Do you not believe that Muslims and atheists and Jews are spiritually unhealthy because they don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?

 

[hagmania]

Loving thy neighbor as thyself seems to condone homosexuality.

 

[Jayrod]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

Yes, it is. If they're married in accordance with their Muslim beliefs, just like Christians getting married is fulfilling to/for what Jesus intended (in your first post about this), then it 100% IS an act which supports and justifies their non-believe in the divinity and path to salvation through Jesus. You're just another one who wants to make homosexuality different than the rest. You have zero support for that stance based entirely on your own words.

Man, you sure are beating the crap out of that strawman.

Let me know when you are ready to actually discuss something with me.

I'm using your own words. Do you not believe that Muslims and atheists and Jews are spiritually unhealthy because they don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?

 

[NCCommish]

The Gay Agenda

 

[Clifford]

Before we get totally off the rails, I would really like to hear why homosexuality is a sin, without any references to the bible.

Something like this:

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It is therefore against the single most important guiding principle in Christianity, which is Love Thy God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Not only is stealing expressly against God's commandments, it violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world.

Your entire example is chock full of Bible references.

I references a guiding principle of many religions and God's commandments. It works without them. I knew I would get blasted if I did not include the whole quote from Jesus. Try this version.

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world. It causes direct and real harm to another individual.

 

[mad sweeney]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice. To say that as a society we accept gay marriage means we accept homosexual sex which means that we accept you doing something that is damaging to you. The main problem with that, of course, is that the damage is primarily spiritual and that the state is in no way connected to spiritual things. So again I'm conflicted. I guess I'm at the point where I can't justify condoning the practice and if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage, but I'm not actively campaigning against it.

Do you think it is more spiritually damaging to engage in homosexual sex than it is to be an atheist or a practicing Muslim?

No, but their marriage isn't a support of their atheism or their adherence to Islam like gay marriage is a support of homosexuality.

Yes, it is. If they're married in accordance with their Muslim beliefs, just like Christians getting married is fulfilling to/for what Jesus intended (in your first post about this), then it 100% IS an act which supports and justifies their non-believe in the divinity and path to salvation through Jesus. You're just another one who wants to make homosexuality different than the rest. You have zero support for that stance based entirely on your own words.

Man, you sure are beating the crap out of that strawman.

Let me know when you are ready to actually discuss something with me.

I'm using your own words. Do you not believe that Muslims and atheists and Jews are spiritually unhealthy because they don't accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior?

Gotcha, back to hiding behind that little book and pretending you're applying the same standard to everyone. You don't have any way to rectify what you said about gays to other religions. Running and hiding is the best you can do.

Guess what that makes you.

 

[RUSF18]

Before we get totally off the rails, I would really like to hear why homosexuality is a sin, without any references to the bible.

Something like this:

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It is therefore against the single most important guiding principle in Christianity, which is Love Thy God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself. Not only is stealing expressly against God's commandments, it violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world.

Your entire example is chock full of Bible references.

I references a guiding principle of many religions and God's commandments. It works without them. I knew I would get blasted if I did not include the whole quote from Jesus. Try this version.

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world. It causes direct and real harm to another individual.

Isn't that still plenty?

 

[irish eyes]

I wish they would just get it over with allow gay marriage everywhere. Then they can all start getting divorces and taking half of each others sh@@ (not literally, hehe) and know what it's really like.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

EVERYONE PILE ON JAYROD!

That would be spiritually damaging.

Still probably better than banging Rosie O'Donnell though.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Stealing is a sin because it harms another individual by removing from them what is rightfully theirs. It violates the Golden Rule which is the guiding principle behind not only Christianity but also many other religions around the world. It causes direct and real harm to another individual.

You're misunderstanding what "sin" is. Stealing isn't a sin because it damages another individual (although that obviously makes it a not-very-excellent thing to do). It's a sin because it damages the thief's relationship with God.

There are lots of things that Christianity regards as sinful that have no effect whatsoever on other people. If you open your Bible to a random page in the OT, there's a good chance that the author will be saying something bad about idolatry, but idolatry doesn't hurt anybody else. The only reason why it's bad is because of the effect it has on the idolator.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

the state is in no way connected to spiritual things.

It's weird that you acknowledge this, but then totally disregard it anyway.

if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage

Why? Surely you understand that the gay "marriage" people are fighting for isn't the same kind of marriage that you got at your church, right? Just because they use the same word doesn't mean they're the same thing. You said marriage "is the symbol of Jesus and the church." That's one kind of marriage - specifically, that's the religious kind you get in a Christian church. The word "marriage" has other meanings as well. The kind of marriage that homosexuals want access to is not the same as your "symbol of Jesus" kind of marriage, it's a contract that bestows some secular rights. Why would you vote against that?

 

[mad sweeney]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

the state is in no way connected to spiritual things.

It's weird that you acknowledge this, but then totally disregard it anyway.

if pushed to vote on the issue, I'd vote against gay marriage

Why? Surely you understand that the gay "marriage" people are fighting for isn't the same kind of marriage that you got at your church, right? Just because they use the same word doesn't mean they're the same thing. You said marriage "is the symbol of Jesus and the church." That's one kind of marriage - specifically, that's the religious kind you get in a Christian church. The word "marriage" has other meanings as well. The kind of marriage that homosexuals want access to is not the same as your "symbol of Jesus" kind of marriage, it's a contract that bestows some secular rights. Why would you vote against that?

Yeah, but it's DIFFERENT when it comes to other straight groups. It's only an issue if they're gay.

 

[TPW]

1. Nobody cares if you are gay.

2. Nobody will know you are gay if you do not tell them.

3. People do not hate gay activists because they are gay. They hate them because they are obnoxious a-holes.

 

[RUSF18]

1. Nobody cares if you are gay.

2. Nobody will know you are gay if you do not tell them.

3. People do not hate gay activists because they are gay. They hate them because they are obnoxious a-holes.

I'm willing to wager a couple bucks that you actually care if someone is gay.

 

[TPW]

I strongly disapprove of the lifestyle on both moral and common sense grounds but I don't really give a rat's rear what people do in their bed behind closed doors. However, if all the militant activism keeps up people are going to get really sick of it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

1. Nobody cares if you are gay.

2. Nobody will know you are gay if you do not tell them.

3. People do not hate gay activists because they are gay. They hate them because they are obnoxious a-holes.

 

[Jayrod]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

This is a great question. Not in the sense that I'm debating if being Muslim should be illegal or not, but in the sense that "Is this what I'm saying by voting against gay marriage?" Am I trying to legislate morality? Because I'm against that. I don't think you can force people to believe in God and it is counter-productive to force people to adhere to God's standards if they do not wish to.

I also think maybe I am hung up on the blurring of defining marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religiously sanctioned union. It does use the same word and I know that homosexuals would get along much better if they stuck with the word "unions", but then that makes me think that maybe they are after more than just a legal union. It seems that some people want Christianity to stop thinking of homosexuality as a sin at all. And that is why it has become such a fight. Because if you just wanted to go for a legal union, I'm sure it would be a lot easier road, but insisting that we call it marriage puts it in the face of religious people.

 

[mad sweeney]

1. Nobody cares if you are gay.

2. Nobody will know you are gay if you do not tell them.

3. People do not hate gay activists because they are gay. They hate them because they are obnoxious a-holes.

1 X

2 X

3 foul tip then X

Yer Out!

I bet you're one of those guys that might vote 1 or 2 anonymously but in public go for the whole "I'm tired of hearing about it" because you want to appear like you don't care but in reality you're just tired of seeing how low rent your side is.

 

[mad sweeney]

I strongly disapprove of the lifestyle on both moral and common sense grounds but I don't really give a rat's rear what people do in their bed behind closed doors. However, if all the militant activism keeps up people are going to get really sick of it.

When you don't care what people do in public, let us know. You're a real "I don't see what's wrong with the back of the bus" type.

 

[mad sweeney]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

This is a great question. Not in the sense that I'm debating if being Muslim should be illegal or not, but in the sense that "Is this what I'm saying by voting against gay marriage?" Am I trying to legislate morality? Because I'm against that. I don't think you can force people to believe in God and it is counter-productive to force people to adhere to God's standards if they do not wish to.

I also think maybe I am hung up on the blurring of defining marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religiously sanctioned union. It does use the same word and I know that homosexuals would get along much better if they stuck with the word "unions", but then that makes me think that maybe they are after more than just a legal union. It seems that some people want Christianity to stop thinking of homosexuality as a sin at all. And that is why it has become such a fight. Because if you just wanted to go for a legal union, I'm sure it would be a lot easier road, but insisting that we call it marriage puts it in the face of religious people.

Update: still digging

but...but....but... gay is DIFFERENT!!!!

 

[mad sweeney]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

 

[roadkill1292]

I strongly disapprove of the lifestyle on both moral and common sense grounds but I don't really give a rat's rear what people do in their bed behind closed doors. However, if all the militant activism keeps up people are going to get really sick of it.

People happy with conformity even if it represses civil liberties will always be disturbed by "activism." Too bad. Activism is what gets wrong things fixed.

 

[Jayrod]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

Why are you so mad, bro?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

This is a great question. Not in the sense that I'm debating if being Muslim should be illegal or not, but in the sense that "Is this what I'm saying by voting against gay marriage?" Am I trying to legislate morality? Because I'm against that.

So then why would you vote against gay marriage?

I also think maybe I am hung up on the blurring of defining marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religiously sanctioned union. It does use the same word and I know that homosexuals would get along much better if they stuck with the word "unions", but then that makes me think that maybe they are after more than just a legal union. It seems that some people want Christianity to stop thinking of homosexuality as a sin at all. And that is why it has become such a fight. Because if you just wanted to go for a legal union, I'm sure it would be a lot easier road, but insisting that we call it marriage puts it in the face of religious people.

Once again, it's very weird that you acknowledge that the word "marriage" has multiple uses, but then totally disregard that fact anyway.

When I file my taxes in a few weeks, I'll be checking the box that says "married filing jointly" not "unioned filing jointly." The "marriage" that homosexuals want access to is not the same thing as the "marriage" your pastor does at your church. The "marriage" that two Muslims get is also not the same thing as the marriage your pastor does at your church, but you're not opposed to Muslims getting married, apparently.

It almost sounds like you want us to believe that if they just used a different word for the same exact thing, you'd be ok with it. But because homosexuals "insist" on calling the thing they want "marriage" (which is not at all surprising, because that's the word for the thing they want), you feel compelled to vote against it.

 

[Jayrod]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

This is a great question. Not in the sense that I'm debating if being Muslim should be illegal or not, but in the sense that "Is this what I'm saying by voting against gay marriage?" Am I trying to legislate morality? Because I'm against that.

So then why would you vote against gay marriage?

I also think maybe I am hung up on the blurring of defining marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religiously sanctioned union. It does use the same word and I know that homosexuals would get along much better if they stuck with the word "unions", but then that makes me think that maybe they are after more than just a legal union. It seems that some people want Christianity to stop thinking of homosexuality as a sin at all. And that is why it has become such a fight. Because if you just wanted to go for a legal union, I'm sure it would be a lot easier road, but insisting that we call it marriage puts it in the face of religious people.

Once again, it's very weird that you acknowledge that the word "marriage" has multiple uses, but then totally disregard that fact anyway.

When I file my taxes in a few weeks, I'll be checking the box that says "married filing jointly" not "unioned filing jointly." The "marriage" that homosexuals want access to is not the same thing as the "marriage" your pastor does at your church. The "marriage" that two Muslims get is also not the same thing as the marriage your pastor does at your church, but you're not opposed to Muslims getting married, apparently.

It almost sounds like you want us to believe that if they just used a different word for the same exact thing, you'd be ok with it. But because homosexuals "insist" on calling the thing they want "marriage" (which is not at all surprising, because that's the word for the thing they want), you feel compelled to vote against it.

Why is it legally called marriage, then? If it is such a different thing. And why do we now have to have special laws designating that a gay couple can get married, if it is just a legal union?

The reason I and others have such a hard time separating the two is because they have never been separate since the inception of our current legal system. Marriage as a legal designation was patterned after marriage as a religious designation. The change to a separate definition has really only been a debate since the debate of gay marriage itself.

I guess, I'm just saying give me (and others) a bit of a break on struggling with the whole concept because it isn't as if this is just two completely separate concepts who just happen to have the same name. To explain further: the legal definition and the religious definition have been "married" together and it will take a painful "divorce" to get them apart in the eyes of the general public.

 

[mad sweeney]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

Why are you so mad, bro?

Why do you think disobeying the very first commandment is less spiritually harmful than gays?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

1. Nobody cares if you are gay.

2. Nobody will know you are gay if you do not tell them.

3. People do not hate gay activists because they are gay. They hate them because they are obnoxious a-holes.

Obnoxious a-holes are the WORST, aren't they?

 

[Henry Ford]

If you Christians could just get off the idea of sexual sin, which is a patriarchal tactic used to oppress women for centuries, then you'd get a lot less friction from the rest of the world.

I'm not sure I understand the patriarchy thing here. There's nothing in Christianity that I'm aware of that says that adultery is bad for women but okay for men. But whatever. No sexual sin. Got it.

They way you guys (and girls) beat yourselves up for perfectly healthy and natural urges is just hard to watch. All it does is bottle all that sexual energy up inside you and it eventually explodes, usually in the form of cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or even something worse. Which of course serves to reinforce the notion of sexual sin in the very insulated circles most active Christians work in (something consistently reinforced by the megachurches which are, after all, subscription-based businesses).

It's a sick, sick loop.

Wait a second. You just told me there's no such thing as sexual sin. So why do you suddenly have a problem with cheating on your spouse or getting into hookers or something "worse?"

Well, because cheating on your spouse is a breach of trust, almost always involves lies, and betrayal, If it didn't it wouldn't be cheating.

Hookers? Besides being illegal, not exactly a healthy consensual relationship. Consensual sure, but cmon, do I really have to explain what could be bad or sinful about developing a hooker habit?

Something worse would be cheating on your wife whilst smoking crack with your gay hooker lover, eg Haggard.

Point being repression of sexual urges often leads to bad results. Remove the need for repressing them, eg sexual sin, and you remove effects that are a hell of a lot worse than sex.

Yes. Outside of illegality, what's wrong with having sex with prostitutes?

 

[mad sweeney]

Which then leads me to believe that I think my main issue is that it is a legal sanction of what I believe to be not just "against the Bible" but an actually damaging practice.

Should it be illegal to be Muslim? Why or why not?

This is a great question. Not in the sense that I'm debating if being Muslim should be illegal or not, but in the sense that "Is this what I'm saying by voting against gay marriage?" Am I trying to legislate morality? Because I'm against that.

So then why would you vote against gay marriage?

I also think maybe I am hung up on the blurring of defining marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religiously sanctioned union. It does use the same word and I know that homosexuals would get along much better if they stuck with the word "unions", but then that makes me think that maybe they are after more than just a legal union. It seems that some people want Christianity to stop thinking of homosexuality as a sin at all. And that is why it has become such a fight. Because if you just wanted to go for a legal union, I'm sure it would be a lot easier road, but insisting that we call it marriage puts it in the face of religious people.

Once again, it's very weird that you acknowledge that the word "marriage" has multiple uses, but then totally disregard that fact anyway.

When I file my taxes in a few weeks, I'll be checking the box that says "married filing jointly" not "unioned filing jointly." The "marriage" that homosexuals want access to is not the same thing as the "marriage" your pastor does at your church. The "marriage" that two Muslims get is also not the same thing as the marriage your pastor does at your church, but you're not opposed to Muslims getting married, apparently.

It almost sounds like you want us to believe that if they just used a different word for the same exact thing, you'd be ok with it. But because homosexuals "insist" on calling the thing they want "marriage" (which is not at all surprising, because that's the word for the thing they want), you feel compelled to vote against it.

Why is it legally called marriage, then? If it is such a different thing. And why do we now have to have special laws designating that a gay couple can get married, if it is just a legal union?

The reason I and others have such a hard time separating the two is because they have never been separate since the inception of our current legal system. Marriage as a legal designation was patterned after marriage as a religious designation. The change to a separate definition has really only been a debate since the debate of gay marriage itself.

I guess, I'm just saying give me (and others) a bit of a break on struggling with the whole concept because it isn't as if this is just two completely separate concepts who just happen to have the same name. To explain further: the legal definition and the religious definition have been "married" together and it will take a painful "divorce" to get them apart in the eyes of the general public.

It's only painful to people who are, y'know, kinda bigoted. They types that don't bat an eye at Sikhs, or Jews, or Muslims, or atheists using the same word but then all of a sudden need to be given a break because of all the pain and spiritual damage and ruinous effect on everyone else's marriage* such a new thing will cause.

*presumably it won't cause any damage to all the other non-Christian marriages which aren't really marriages at all because they aren't a fulfillment of Jesus even though no one objects to them using the same term as those uppity gays want to use.

 

[Henry Ford]

Loving thy neighbor as thyself seems to condone homosexuality.

Yes, but only handys.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

1. Nobody cares if you are gay.

2. Nobody will know you are gay if you do not tell them.

3. People do not hate gay activists because they are gay. They hate them because they are obnoxious a-holes.

Jesus, you're loathesome.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Why is it legally called marriage, then? If it is such a different thing.

Why is a strike bad in baseball but good in bowling? Then someone told me about a basketball strike, that sounds bad but I'm not quite sure.

Weird how English works like that. Sometimes the same word is used to mean different things. I'm sure you're usually able to manage - why is it giving you such a hard time in this instance?

And why do we now have to have special laws designating that a gay couple can get married, if it is just a legal union?

Seriously?

The reason I and others have such a hard time separating the two is because they have never been separate since the inception of our current legal system.

On the contrary, they've always been separate. The package of rights conferred on two people who have the kind of marriage recognized by the state doesn't require a ceremony in a Christian church or anything. The kind of marriage you're trying to "protect" is a religious ceremony performed by a Christian pastor, etc. - but then you still have to go down to town hall and get the other, secular kind of marriage, too. (ETA: You don't literally always have to physically head to town hall, but you know what I mean. Your pastor can do your Christian wedding ceremony, but you still need to fill out and submit a marriage license to the state. You can have a Christian wedding without getting a state-sanctioned marriage, and vice versa.)

I guess, I'm just saying give me (and others) a bit of a break on struggling with the whole concept

Sure, how long do you need? A few minutes? It's not that hard of a concept.

 

[chauncey]

Bunch of bigots and hypocrites up in here.

 

[Ilov80s]

I strongly disapprove of the lifestyle on both moral and common sense grounds but I don't really give a rat's rear what people do in their bed behind closed doors. However, if all the militant activism keeps up people are going to get really sick of it.

Militant activism?

 

[MaxThreshold]

See, the thing is, if all you people who just want the furor to die down because you're sick of it, all you people hiding behind the Bible just for the gay issue but don't care about ahteists or Muslims et al, all you people who don't see why it's worth talking about would just actually NOT CARE like you claim and not try to impose your beliefs on other things that don't affect you at all, then it won't be such a big deal anymore. The reason it's still a big deal is because you people make it a big deal. It's a big deal in the world because there are so few openly gay athletes. You know why they're not openly gay? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT A BIG DEAL.

Why are you so mad, bro?

Sweeney's blowing a gasket because you keep ignoring him. The more you ignore, the more he tries to berate you because he can't stand it.

Everyone on these forums has run into Sweeney at one time or another. It's never a pleasant experience because he's so militant in his views.

 

[tonydead]

And why do we now have to have special laws designating that a gay couple can get married?

OMFG!!

It's a special law that forbids gays and only gays from getting married. Forget about Muslims and Atheists. Rapists and child molesters, hell Charles Manson is getting married. How does that sit on your Christian vision of marriage?

 

[RBM]

how fired up some of you get over this garbage