Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[KrazyHorse]

No, since you're still in favor of straight marriage.

Ahem. We prefer opposite marriage

[BlackCat]

Great, so join me then and oppose gay marriage.

No problem if you agree that the church can perform marriages that have any kind of legality

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm arguing for equal rights.

That's a different argument. Does the system treat a gay person any different then anyone else?

No, since you're still in favor of straight marriage.

So long as there are government benefits associated with marriage, I can see why the government ought to regulate them. However, I would be more then willing to state that the government should have no role whatsoever if the system were to change.

Why? Because if the government won't get out of the marriage business, then I feel it's only right that the government expands its definition--not the religious one, but the civil one--to be equal and non-discriminatory.

The definition treats a gay man no different from a straight man. It neither deprives him of marriage, nor imposes additional burdens.

[Q Classic]

Ok, now you have to go back to what I actually said. I said my impression of the homosexual lifestyle was tempered by him, and his life. For the person who was supposed to be gay, he was completely unhappy.

Are you trying to conflate two disparate meanings of the word "gay" here?

I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid doing things the way that he did from the example that he showed me. He is not the only one either, there are others that I have met as well who had similar issues.

I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid being religious, given the examples all of the religious people have shown me about their issues, as well as my own experience.

Oh, so Christ didn't force his beliefs on anyone when he said, "I and the Father are one?" The mere act of articulating one's beliefs is not forcing anyone to read them let alone abide by them, even as it confronts those who think otherwise. What you are saying is you dislike intellectual confrontation, and would prefer not to engage with others who disagree with you.

Wrong. Christ offered his beliefs up for people to encounter. He did not trample upon their free will, rights, and option to disbelieve.

You're trying to do the latter.

Well I am sorry to hear that. Christ loves you very much QCubed, so much that he died for you. Never forget it. No matter what happens to you in your life, he has not forgotten or given up on you.

If this line came from a source I respected intellectually, who did not have a habit of outright fabrication, of bigotry, of deliberately misinterpreting other people's words to set up strawmen, maybe I'd consider it.

Actually, I have considered it. And what it boils down to is that I've found organized religion to be toxic to my sanity, and personal spirituality to be utterly useless.

I do not care if Jesus Christ died for me. I did not ask for him to, and I did not need that sacrifice. It's kind of him, but it's like telling me you donated to PETA in my name.

Way to waste your effort.

[Q Classic]

That's a different argument. Does the system treat a gay person any different then anyone else?

It does in some areas, and Christianists such as yourself are seeking to enshrine it.

So long as there are government benefits associated with marriage, I can see why the government ought to regulate them. However, I would be more then willing to state that the government should have no role whatsoever if the system were to change.

Which is not too different from how I view things, except you're trying to impose your religious beliefs upon the rest of us, and I am preferring to remove them.

The definition treats a gay man no different from a straight man. It neither deprives him of marriage, nor imposes additional burdens.

This has got to be the most disingenuous argument I've seen, the "a gay man can get married to a woman!"

You're right, it doesn't deprive him of a marriage he does not want. It does deprive him of a marriage he does.

The definition treats gays different from straights because straights have additional options to seek marriages they do want, while preventing gays from seeking marriages they want.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you trying to conflate two disparate meanings of the word "gay" here?

Yes. False advertising apparently.

I do not think it unreasonable if I avoid being religious, given the examples all of the religious people have shown me about their issues, as well as my own experience.

And that sir is your choice.

Wrong. Christ offered his beliefs up for people to encounter.

He walked into the temple and taught. He called himself God.

He did not trample upon their free will, rights, and option to disbelieve.

That is very true, but he did confront the pharisees.

You're trying to do the latter.

How so? How am I in any way restricting your free will? You chose to open this thread. You chose to reply to me, and I have chosen to engage in a conversation with you. You are free to leave whenever you wish, and you are free to return whenever you wish.

If this line came from a source I respected intellectually, who did not have a habit of outright fabrication, of bigotry, of deliberately misinterpreting other people's words to set up strawmen, maybe I'd consider it.

Ahh, forget about me. I'm meaningless and useless. It's all on Christ himself. He does love you.

Actually, I have considered it. And what it boils down to is that I've found organized religion to be toxic to my sanity, and personal spirituality to be utterly useless.

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that Christ loves you

I do not care if Jesus Christ died for me. I did not ask for him to, and I did not need that sacrifice. It's kind of him, but it's like telling me you donated to PETA in my name.

It's not something I did, but that he did for everyone.

Way to waste your effort.

My effort? What did I do?

[Q Classic]

Yes. False advertising apparently.

And that sir is your choice.

Yes, exactly. A choice. Whereas the gay is not, and thus bigotry based on that is worse.

He walked into the temple and taught. He called himself God.

He did not, however, try to force the religious authorities to kowtow to him.

That is very true, but he did confront the pharisees.

But he did not try to take over their organization.

How so? How am I in any way restricting your free will? You chose to open this thread. You chose to reply to me, and I have chosen to engage in a conversation with you. You are free to leave whenever you wish, and you are free to return whenever you wish.

You're agitating for enshrining discriminatory laws; you support them; if those actions come to fruition and them discriminate against me, you will have contributed to removing some of my rights and free will.

Ahh, forget about me. I'm meaningless and useless. It's all on Christ himself. He does love you.

I do not ask for the love of someone whom I do not know, did not truly know, and does not truly know me, no matter his or her claims contrary. Additionally, your assumption that you speak on his behalf when I'm more or less in apostasy seems awfully presumptuous.

Perhaps so, but that still doesn't change the fact that Christ loves you

Saying someone loves you is not the same as actually loving you. Additionally, a general love based on philosophy statements without any acts to show it suggests mere lip service.

If Christ loves me, he hasn't been very loving to me, before, during, and after my departure from the Church.

And really, when using my reason and free will, I've come to the conclusion that there's no reason for him to, and no harm if he does or does not; I have no need of his purported love, and no need to satisfy myself with any such delusion on my part.

It's not something I did, but that he did for everyone.

My effort? What did I do?

Clearly, you're misreading again. It's no wonder you have trouble discussing anything meaningfully with anyone on these boards.

I did not say you did it. I shifted to a general, hypothetical "you", which is apparent in context.

[MrFun]

Not really. My personal experience with him is that he was simply not right in the head. It reinforced my impressions that being gay really wasn't a positive lifestyle if you want to put it that way.

So because you have encountered INDIVIDUAL gay men who happen to have bad behavior/character traits, to you this must mean that being gay has something to do with this.

Being gay in of itself is not a determining factor in whether or not a person develops destructive behavior or bad character traits. Rather, it's how a gay person chooses to deal, or not deal with, the stress of living in a homophobic and heterosexist society. Not to mention how they cope or fail to cope with other stress factors that are prevalent for most individual people REGARDLESS of sexual orientation (major job/career changes, death of loved one, long distance relocation, diagnosed with a terminal illness).

Same goes with choosing to live an unhealthy sex lifestyle - people can choose to engage in sexual activities or risks that are detrimental to their well-being whether they are straight or gay.

[MrFun]

You are making an argument against one that I never made or stated. Do you enjoy your rants? I'm perplexed as to where you are getting your material, Mr. Fun. It's not from me.

From your post about need for mutual consent for marriages and divorces: "You might as well say that I can set up a marriage without the permission of the other person."

You stated in context of argument that if mutual consent is needed in a marriage, then it follows that divorce should be based on mutual consent. However, you have used this same remark before in past threads that if marriage really is a right, then this means you can force someone to marry you.

And unlike your succeeding posts in here, you are wrong - U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving versus Virginia that marriage is indeed a civil right.

[Ben Kenobi]

You stated in context of argument that if mutual consent is needed in a marriage, then it follows that divorce should be based on mutual consent. However, you have used this same remark before in past threads that if marriage really is a right, then this means you can force someone to marry you.

All I was saying here is if it's consent/consent for marriage, that it ought to be consent/consent for divorce. By saying consent/no consent is sufficient for divorce, then no consent/consent ought to be enough for marriage.

Natural rights work differently then civil rights. If I have the natural right to marriage, then I do have the right to force another person to abide by my rights, the same way as we have the natural right to life, which prevents people from killing us. In this sense the rights imply a corresponding obligation on the part of everyone else to fulfill your natural right to life (by laws against murder). If it applied to marriage, it would mean an obligation for laws requiring marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, exactly. A choice. Whereas the gay is not, and thus bigotry based on that is worse.

So the holocaust was wrong because gay people were shoved in the ovens?

He did not, however, try to force the religious authorities to kowtow to him.

He condemned them as evil.

You're agitating for enshrining discriminatory laws;

I am arguing the laws in themselves are not discriminatory, and have good reasons to remain the same. Now, you are welcome to disagree with my assessment, but that hardly means I am oppressing you as a person.

you support them; if those actions come to fruition and them discriminate against me, you will have contributed to removing some of my rights and free will.

I have been discriminated against for speaking out on my beliefs. So forgive me if I have little faith in the presumption of those who claim to be against discrimination.

I do not ask for the love of someone whom I do not know, did not truly know, and does not truly know me, no matter his or her claims contrary. Additionally, your assumption that you speak on his behalf when I'm more or less in apostasy seems awfully presumptuous.

Read him for yourself then. He does love you and he does know you better then you know yourself.

Saying someone loves you is not the same as actually loving you. Additionally, a general love based on philosophy statements without any acts to show it suggests mere lip service. If Christ loves me, he hasn't been very loving to me, before, during, and after my departure from the Church.

What would you expect to happen for you as confirmation that Christ does love you?

[MrFun]

BK, it must suck to be wrong almost EVERY TIME. Here is a quote of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring marriage to be a BASIC right:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

[Q Classic]

So the holocaust was wrong because gay people were shoved in the ovens?

Way to Godwinize your own argument.

Actually, if you want a serious answer to that, the Nazis targeted an ethnic group, which is not something one can choose or leave. Anyone that had Jewish blood was rounded up and sent to the camps, whether or not they were practicing Jews. But nice try, *******.

I am arguing the laws in themselves are not discriminatory, and have good reasons to remain the same. Now, you are welcome to disagree with my assessment, but that hardly means I am oppressing you as a person.

You are not, but you support laws that would be oppresive.

I have been discriminated against for speaking out on my beliefs. So forgive me if I have little faith in the presumption of those who claim to be against discrimination.

There is a difference between being intolerant of a person's opinion, and being intolerant of a person for who they are.

Those that disagree with you are the former. You are the latter.

Read him for yourself then. He does love you and he does know you better then you know yourself.

I have read the Bible, I've read theology. I remain unconvinced, because the arguments are founded on the conclusion that God must be good and God must love people.

What would you expect to happen for you as confirmation that Christ does love you?

As I have no need of him, I do not care whether your religious figure cares for me or not.

This is part of the problem religionists have when trying to convert those who left--we've heard the language, we know what it's about.

And **** like this is creepy and drives people away; it doesn't bring them back.

[chequita guevara]

It amazes me how many Christians are so full of hate.

[Q Classic]

It amazes me how many Christians are so full of hate.

No, che. They love you. It's just that their love seems like hate because it's a very sadistic kind of love, and they just never bothered to tell you the safe word.