|
Post by mikael on Nov 16, 2006 21:59:18 GMT -5
I hope you realize just how awful and intolerant that sounds. Think of it this way; How would you feel if somebody posted "That's different. They aren't CHRISTIAN" somewhere, consistently? Don't say it happens constantly, because an opression of the majority isn't happening. Nobody's asking you to like it; Just shut up and don't say anything if you don't like it. I'm an awful person. Get used to it. I'll shut up the day I die. Until then, deal with it. The Bible is still an excellent moral compass today. And for the UMPTEENTH TIME TODAY, it is NOT a DAMNABLE THEOCRACY! I think that a good example of that is the Islamofacists. If the MAJORITY of America wants something to be done, then regardless of how you feel, it WILL be DONE. I don't want a theocracy; I want respect for marriage. Well, GRANDI, I'm waiting for that FAIRNESS to kick in ANYTIME now. It is FACT to ME and MILLIONS of other Americans. Perception, friend. OH MY GOD! HE JUST INSULTED MY FAITH! BAN HIM BAN HIM![/sarcasm] I'm not forcing them to BELIEVE anything. They can even continue sinning for all I care. But I won't see them profane marriage by being 'married' as gays. AGAIN, it is NOT a theocracy. As explained above. .... I think I'll leave this debate before I say things I'll regret. You truly embody why I believe religion is so corrupt, Gandalan.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 16, 2006 22:00:03 GMT -5
Ok,
First, stay on topic.
Second, use a respectful tone.
Third, don't take anything personally.
Fourth, attack the person's views, not the person.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 17, 2006 13:22:25 GMT -5
Go ahead
|
|
|
Post by Dutchy on Nov 17, 2006 13:28:40 GMT -5
What about christians not being gay and just don't care about it either so the gay people can mary they are happy and the christians shouldn't make such a big deal out of it because they don't have to talk to those they don't wanna speak or something like it and gay mariage what difference would it make... more weddings, more happyness it's not like god or anyone told the humans to prevent people from being gay you know
|
|
force
Sokka
Yes, it's a band.
Posts: 133
|
Post by force on Nov 17, 2006 14:29:04 GMT -5
What about christians not being gay and just don't care about it either so the gay people can mary they are happy and the christians shouldn't make such a big deal out of it because they don't have to talk to those they don't wanna speak or something like it and gay mariage what difference would it make... more weddings, more happyness it's not like god or anyone told the humans to prevent people from being gay you know Because Christians are programmed to be obsessed with the behavior of their neighbors. They have absolutely no respect for anyone's beliefs but their own. They may say they do, but its lie (whether they realize it is or not). If they truly respected other's beliefs, they'd have the decency to leave these people alone and let them live their lives the way they want. But they feel the need to metaphorically kick the door down of gay couple's house and scream "STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! YOU'RE PISSING OFF MY GOD!!" Christians are also under the delusion that marriage is some sacred church thing which is not true; at least not anymore. The American government has basically adopted marriage and made it a state function. It is a legal contract between two individuals. Someone can be married by a judge, a mayor, anyone with a marriage license. Now, the majority of people get married in churches but that's only because they wish to undergo their religious ceremony to make them feel more comfortable with the marriage, but this is not required. Going to the church and having a minister read you from the "good" book has no weight once so ever on the marriage itself outside your church. In other words, the marriage is only a religious thing if the couple chooses it to be. So the argument against this that gays getting married by the government is somehow an affront to God is completely absurd as marriage is no longer solely a religious thing. The Christians can ban gay religious marriages, but they have no right to take away a homosexual couples right to be married by the state. It is not a church function. And if God has a problem with it, to bad. He can get over it.
|
|
|
Post by alpacas4eva on Nov 17, 2006 14:40:37 GMT -5
What about christians not being gay and just don't care about it either so the gay people can mary they are happy and the christians shouldn't make such a big deal out of it because they don't have to talk to those they don't wanna speak or something like it and gay mariage what difference would it make... more weddings, more happyness it's not like god or anyone told the humans to prevent people from being gay you know Because Christians are programmed to be obsessed with the behavior of their neighbors. They have absolutely no respect for anyone's beliefs but their own. They may say they do, but its lie (whether they realize it is or not). If they truly respected other's beliefs, they'd have the decency to leave these people alone and let them live their lives the way they want. But they feel the need to metaphorically kick the door down of gay couple's house and scream "STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! YOU'RE PISSING OFF MY GOD!!" Excuse me! That is not a very nice thing to say. Not all Christians are like that. I'm sorry you think we are. I don't really believe in gay marriage, but I'm not going to force my opinions down anybody's throat. You're doing exactly what you're saying Christians are doing. You're bashing us for what we believe in. While some Christians may be like that, not all of us are. I suggest you actually stay on the topic, which by the way is "The Homosexual Debate." This isn't the "Bash all Christians" thread.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 17, 2006 14:44:50 GMT -5
Second, use a respectful tone. Fourth, attack the person's views, not the person. Repeated for emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by alpacas4eva on Nov 17, 2006 14:56:35 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to sound disrespectful or to attack force as a person. I read my post over again and it did sound like I was directing it all at him, which I didn't intend to.
I'm sorry, force. I just want you to know that not all Christians are like that. Again I'm sorry.
|
|
force
Sokka
Yes, it's a band.
Posts: 133
|
Post by force on Nov 17, 2006 15:06:54 GMT -5
Because Christians are programmed to be obsessed with the behavior of their neighbors. They have absolutely no respect for anyone's beliefs but their own. They may say they do, but its lie (whether they realize it is or not). If they truly respected other's beliefs, they'd have the decency to leave these people alone and let them live their lives the way they want. But they feel the need to metaphorically kick the door down of gay couple's house and scream "STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! YOU'RE PISSING OFF MY GOD!!" Excuse me! That is not a very nice thing to say. Not all Christians are like that. I'm sorry you think we are. I don't really believe in gay marriage, but I'm not going to force my opinions down anybody's throat. You're doing exactly what you're saying Christians are doing. You're bashing us for what we believe in. While some Christians may be like that, not all of us are. Well I apologize if I offended you, I am well aware that not all Christians are like that and upon retrospect I can see how my previous post may have sounded like I wasn't and for that I am sorry. But your confusing "bashing' for "passionate debate". Aside from that, though, I don’t understand at all what you mean by "You're doing exactly what you're saying Christians are doing. You're bashing us for what we believe in." I'm bashing Christians because they believe in a text that commands them to oppress all those who sin, regardless of those people's own beliefs. The fundamentalist Christians do not respect the beliefs of others and believe that they're beliefs justify intolerance. Why should I, or anyone, respect such a belief? You'll notice not once have I said anything along the lines of, "God doesn't exist, you pin head. You’re pathetic cause you believe in God." That's because I do not believe that, and I can and do respect yours and all Christian’s belief in God, but I do not respect their beliefs that they have the right, given to them by said God, to oppress people for they're sin. Because if I did, I would be respecting intolerance itself. Which I refuse to do. I suggest you actually stay on the topic, which by the way is "The Homosexual Debate." This isn't the "Bash all Christians" thread. I don’t recall ever diverting from the topic. The topic at hand is "homosexual marriages" and the fundamentalist Christian's obsession with limiting their American Constitution given rights very much relates to the topic.
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Nov 17, 2006 16:33:58 GMT -5
I suggest you actually stay on the topic, which by the way is "The Homosexual Debate." This isn't the "Bash all Christians" thread. I don’t recall ever diverting from the topic. The topic at hand is "homosexual marriages" and the fundamentalist Christian's obsession with limiting their American Constitution given rights very much relates to the topic. That has a topic of it's own now. Go bash us over there please. And Force, as you said earlier: Marriage as a whole has been adopted by the State. That's great. Do you think I agree with that? Hell no. And I won't either. Marriage was and always SHOULD have been a church only function. The state shouldn't have the right to 'marry' anybody; it's a church function. They have the right to grant 'legal unionship', and nothing more. Hence, why we disagree.
|
|
force
Sokka
Yes, it's a band.
Posts: 133
|
Post by force on Nov 17, 2006 18:06:50 GMT -5
I don’t recall ever diverting from the topic. The topic at hand is "homosexual marriages" and the fundamentalist Christian's obsession with limiting their American Constitution given rights very much relates to the topic. That has a topic of it's own now. Go bash us over there please. And Force, as you said earlier: Marriage as a whole has been adopted by the State. That's great. Do you think I agree with that? Hell no. And I won't either. Marriage was and always SHOULD have been a church only function. The state shouldn't have the right to 'marry' anybody; it's a church function. They have the right to grant 'legal unionship', and nothing more. Hence, why we disagree. The only thing the State toke was the word "marriage". Words have power, people cling meaninglessly to words. What the State provides and what the Bible presents are two different things with the same word. Being married in the church has no bearing once so ever in society outside the church. Being married in the church doesn't give you the legal benefits, the titles, all that stuff. Only the state provides that. If you look at it closely enough (which most fundamentalists conveniently don’t) you will realize the marriage the state provides is nothing like "God's marriage" of the bible. This whole argument could be changed if they simply changed the word "Marriage" to something else, but at the same time, the completely outrageous reaction of some Christians and pure spite and bigotry they display all because of one simple little word is staggering. It would be so much easier if they would just get over it, but they won’t, and here we are.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetalavatar on Nov 17, 2006 20:58:46 GMT -5
Then the problem is just semantics? Well, that's a relief.
We all want separation of church and state, no theocracy. Well, at least we say we do... and what the state provides is a civil union, even though it's called a marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, that imparts certain legal benefits to the two the members of the union.
Marriage is the same word used in the English language by religions (not just Christianity) to name a special ceremony/ sacrament by which two individuals or families "become one"
As it stands now, marriage by the state alone is illegitimate in the eyes of any church or said church's god(s), just as marriage in any church is illegitimate in the eyes of the state...that's why you need a marriage license. So already what the state calls marriage and various religious institutions call marriage are two entirely different things.
Why not call all "marriages" by the state a "civil union," both hetero/homosexual, and then the religious institutions can be left to do the marrying...what ever that particular group defines it as? Then all couples would have equal legal rights, because that's what our wonderful country is founded on, the Enlightenment principles of equality and justice. Our laws cannot be based on the religious beliefs of one group because that would be discriminatory (how would you feel if suddenly Congress decided to make Sharia law? Unhappy is my guess). Freedom of religion, or freedom from religion, for everyone, not just the majority.
Then the state wouldn't have to worry about defending the 'sanctity' of marriage -- because the holy (sanctus) is the churches' business, not the state, and it would be up to every religion whether or not they would allow homosexual couples to have the special ceremony.
@zink (below this): THANK YOU for both of those points!
|
|
Zink
Ty Lee
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8
Posts: 4,279
|
Post by Zink on Nov 17, 2006 21:21:41 GMT -5
^ Bravo. I was going to include nearly the same thing in my post, until I realize you had said the exact same thing better than I ever could. Excuse me! That is not a very nice thing to say. Not all Christians are like that. I'm sorry you think we are. I don't really believe in gay marriage, but I'm not going to force my opinions down anybody's throat. You're doing exactly what you're saying Christians are doing. You're bashing us for what we believe in. While some Christians may be like that, not all of us are. Well I apologize if I offended you, I am well aware that not all Christians are like that and upon retrospect I can see how my previous post may have sounded like I wasn't and for that I am sorry. But your confusing "bashing' for "passionate debate". Passionate debate is not the same as calling all Christians intolerant and disrespectful liars and hypocrites. When I get on a debate board, I'd prefer to see opinions based on fact rather than rants about the horrors of Christainty. I can appericate that you feel strongly about this subject, but please, as Grandi and the rules say, use a respectful tone. @oln Metga: Please don't judge religon by Gandalan. Please, please don't.
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Nov 17, 2006 21:48:25 GMT -5
It is immoral because God never intended it to happen. It is a SIN. That is untrue, you say that God is perfect. He can see the future, the past, and everything. If he never intended it to happen, why did it happen? He must have allowed it to happen, that means he did nothing to change it, and being gay comes from environmental influences, it will all be a part of faith. You can't deny your hormones, and I doubt God would condemn you to hell because your body reacts in such a way, causing your mind to follow. If God created everything, and if God is perfect, he will know the outcomes, and there is no, "Well God isn't always right." Because that woudl be contradicting your Bible. It used to be considerd immoral for a black man and a white woman to be married. We today consider that to be persecution. How is that any different from banning gay civil unions? WAY different. I'm not racist, so there's no problem with a back-white marriage. They aren't GAY. But they do share one similar trait, they're different, different as in black from white, and man with man, instead of woman. I don’t recall ever diverting from the topic. The topic at hand is "homosexual marriages" and the fundamentalist Christian's obsession with limiting their American Constitution given rights very much relates to the topic. That has a topic of it's own now. Go bash us over there please. And Force, as you said earlier: Marriage as a whole has been adopted by the State. That's great. Do you think I agree with that? Hell no. And I won't either. Marriage was and always SHOULD have been a church only function. The state shouldn't have the right to 'marry' anybody; it's a church function. They have the right to grant 'legal unionship', and nothing more. Hence, why we disagree. So you're saying only Christians get the right to marry.
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Nov 17, 2006 22:26:04 GMT -5
This is why I hate being 3-4v1. I have to write a 3 page post... That's all good and fine. I don't want to spite them, and I suppose that in your eyes, my 'useless clinging' is annoying. Well, too bad. It's what we evil Christians are best at. Sorry I'm such a bigot. Or even better, how about we all just get 'married' in churches and get 'legal unions' from the state? That way, everbody's happy. What am I? Satan? He allows it to happen, yes, but he doesn't WANT it to happen. The second paragraph I agree with. He does know the outcome, whatever that outcome is. I know, but that's the only similarity I saw, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage NOW. I don't care how anybody views my opinion now, in the future, or how they used to view it. This is my opinion. I don't change them to suit the times. People who do so have no belief in their opinions, and if they don't believe in their own opinions enough to uphold them, then they really shouldn't HAVE them in the first place. I said 'church'. Church can be replaced by whatever other holy place you want, 'synagogue', 'evil icy castle', whatever. Marriage is a biblical term, not a state term. The state has only the right to give legal unions. It's not like Christianity recognizes the other marriages, but they have a right to happen. I'm not completely unopen.
|
|