Gay Marriage
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 2,302 comments
- 85,007 views
- 2,732
Originally posted by Gil
Umm...
Actually, I thought I did put it in simple terms.
See post #81 and #90 of this thread.
Each may require actually opening the Bible. But I think I made it simple. Heck, I may have just added more logs to the fah'r.(fire)
I know the verses you talked about, especially Lev. 20:22. But for those that are not Jewish or Christian, they might not know...
- 6,977
- old-guy64
Yes, "Grasshoppa", that is true.
But if you send an intelligent person to the place to find the proof for themselves, then you maintain credibility. And they cannot accuse you of twisting the information to suit your own purpose.
Also, the information means more if you have to seek it out, and find it for yourself.
I may be an old fart, but I'm a wily, old fart.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Please explain how that was "juvenile and offensive". I meant it quite literally. I'm certain that if there was a God (and please note the captial G), He would find lynchings an abomination deserving of the worst possible damnation. Certainly far more damnable than consenting adult homosexuals. I also wanted to make it clear that my argument had nothing whatsoever to do with the perceived anti-Christian bias you are so quick to throw up like a shield around your arguments.
I didn't say you had. You are, however, perfectly willing to dismiss a large number of potentially excellent parents out of hand, based purely on their sexual preference. So in effect, while you are admitting that not all heteroexuals are good parents, you are categorically denying that any homosexual could ever be a good parent.
I disagree strongly with that opinion, and I also have to say that you did not address my original comment at all.
I have made it abundantly clear that my posts here are my own opinion and have nothing whatsoever to do with my status as a moderator. Although I am listed as co-mod of this board, that merely reflects the fact that I spend a lot of time here. I try very hard to avoid interfering on this board, since it is after all the Opinion board and I don't want to inhibit the expression of opinions. This is not to say that I won't argue vehemently if I think people are incorrect in their logic. But I will do it personally, and not officially.
If people think it would help matters, I will ask Jordan to remove my name from the top of this board.
- 12,993
- USA! USA!
Are there any gay men willing to comment?
Besides Doug?
Besides Doug?
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I'm going to try to make this simple, clear, and non-offensive. I doubt I'll make it, but know from this point forward I'm not intending to be offensive.
NOTE: For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use the word "Christian" to mean the hyper-conservative, politically aggressive Jerry Falwell type. I understand this is a generality and does not reflect the views of many Christians.
The post quoted above is the classic fallacy of social Conservatism. I'm going to use Christians as the example only because they are the most identifiable by far. What they don't understand - deliberately or not - is this:
Atheists and gays are not lobbying to change Christians' lives. They are only lobbying for their own freedoms. Christians, on the other hand, are lobbying against the gays and atheists. Right-wing conservatives are lobbying to stamp out the freedoms of other groups.
That's such a clear and fundamental difference. You MUST be able to understand it. You must.
Gays want the freedom to be gay. They want Christians to have the freedom to be Christian, too. But Christians, who presume that their own freedom is sacrosanct and unquestionable, are looking to prevent everybody else from having those freedoms, if they disapprove of them on moral grounds. And by "moral grounds", I mean "consenting adult" morality. No one rational thinks murder, violence, or theft is moral and no one rational would condone that kind of anarchy.
I mean that Christians of this type want to prevent me from doing something they disapprove of. That's immoral, in my book. I'm not asking Pako to give up his beliefs or Gil to deny the things his pappy taught him throughout his life. I'm not trying to change their lives at all.
I'm just trying to get the Right Wing Conservatives to stop changing my life. I can't put it any clearer. If that's not an understandable difference, I'm forced to say it's because you don't want to understand.
Those who want to live a strict, pious life, are welcome to do so without interference from me or the law! But if my life doesn't fit their mold of "morality", that's just too bad. I'm not making them to join in - but I won't tolerate them trying to interfere, either. I'm already leaving them alone - now it's their turn to keep their blue noses out of my business.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
See thread titled "Enemy Love" for the full background.Originally posted by Pako
www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread/.php?s=&threadid=24761
- 3,425
Duke thats the best Mind your own damm business post I've seen in a while !
I never liked the " I am so superior I can tell everyone how they should live attitude " that most conservatives of all religions have. Why must they think god gave them a mandate to legislate ?
I never liked the " I am so superior I can tell everyone how they should live attitude " that most conservatives of all religions have. Why must they think god gave them a mandate to legislate ?
You're getting too milefileish and philosophical.
- 935
That is the problem. The government is not supposed to have moral values; it is just supposed to keep order.
- 10,832
There was never a law specifically passed to prevent gays from marrying. However, the law, as is was written, in quaint, antiquated, and naive language, is conveniently used to manipulate and control. Then the people who feel they benefit in this protection from "jeoprody", act as if laws can't be changed, modified, or broadened. In one breath they cry out for the right to get themselves legislated into a perceived morally superior position, and in the next attempt to fall back on the particular wording of laws to support their argument. It's a matter of whatever is convenient. I would hope Christians be more honest.
If you really think the world would be better off reverting to the moral conditions of a hundred years ago, there is no reason to be so selective about it. Maybe we could start lynchings again? I mean, it was customary at the time. Another fifty years earlier and we could still be debating the morality of slavery. Weren't there laws specifically stating that blacks couldn't vote, own property, or even maintain human status.
How about taking sufferage from women? It was a law that they couldn't vote. It's reasoning was as obvious as the logic behind hanging blacks from trees and photographing it for postcards sold in pinch-faced church-goers dime stores as souvineers.
Weren't those all laws?
The American Christian prerogative: "Be like us or suffer the consequences." Perhaps it's a relic of what Christians themselves endured two thousand years ago.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,133
- Mile High City
The problem is easy. In order to justify a law's existance or the existance of a new piece of legislation, you have to justify that law with reasoning outside of religion.
One more time:
You cannot use religious reasons for the existance of a law.
This is a plain and simple fact that America was founded on to preserve the freedom of religion (or lack of) that we are all enjoying today.
So, if anyone would like to give me a non-religious reason that guy people should not get married... I'm all ears.
One more time:
You cannot use religious reasons for the existance of a law.
This is a plain and simple fact that America was founded on to preserve the freedom of religion (or lack of) that we are all enjoying today.
So, if anyone would like to give me a non-religious reason that guy people should not get married... I'm all ears.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Because there are a huge number of closed-minded conservative people who refuse to understand that allowing other people the freedom to do something doesn't require you to do it as well.
I'd be interested to hear where you got the statistic that Christians are in the minority in the US. They certainly are not in the minority any place I've ever lived or worked.
I'd be interested to hear where you got the statistic that Christians are in the minority in the US. They certainly are not in the minority any place I've ever lived or worked.
Similar threads
