First  Prev  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
Posted 12/7/11
I'm against it. I dont support gay rights. Homosexuality is wrong.
That is what I know to be the truth. First of all, love has nothing to do with sex. Love is caring, not sexual activities.
When gay people say they are "in love" they are really just sexually aroused. Love is caring, I love all you people but I'm not sexually aroused by you. I dont support gays raising children, becuase it's highly likely for gay parents to teach thier kids that homosexuality is not perverse and sinful. I'm not saying they would be abusive. If gay marriage passes I would not recognize gays as married people anyways. You can use the term marriage, but I will only see the marriage as a false marriage, a pretend marriage. God does not recogize gay marriage as true marriage, so I dont support it. I could care less, but I dont want to support the gay cuase, because doing so would be sinful. That would be like me being the guy who says " I now pronounce you..." and I would not do that. I will not lend a hand to the gay cuase. Too many kids on here are far left. Kids will be kids.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/2/12

KnightofMayhem wrote:

I'm against it. I dont support gay rights. Homosexuality is wrong.
That is what I know to be the truth. First of all, love has nothing to do with sex. Love is caring, not sexual activities.
When gay people say they are "in love" they are really just sexually aroused. Love is caring, I love all you people but I'm not sexually aroused by you. I dont support gays raising children, becuase it's highly likely for gay parents to teach thier kids that homosexuality is not perverse and sinful. I'm not saying they would be abusive. If gay marriage passes I would not recognize gays as married people anyways. You can use the term marriage, but I will only see the marriage as a false marriage, a pretend marriage. God does not recogize gay marriage as true marriage, so I dont support it. I could care less, but I dont want to support the gay cuase, because doing so would be sinful. That would be like me being the guy who says " I now pronounce you..." and I would not do that. I will not lend a hand to the gay cuase. Too many kids on here are far left. Kids will be kids.


So you don't support other human being's rights to live their lives as they want just because you think it's wrong?
What kind of sense does that make to you? It's their lives, not yours. It's not a matter of personal belief, it's a matter of human freedom.

And when you say, they're just sexually aroused, you're basicly saying that homosexual orientation is just a fetish, not an actual orientation of attraction. You don't really belive that, do you?
Posted 1/3/12


First of all I dont believe in your magical Human Freedom. You talk about it like it's something everyone has. The only freedom you have is your ability to do what you can possibly do, such as getting up in the morining and going back to bed. Some people dont even have that freedom. So dont talk about freedom, what a crap word. Who are you to say 'human freedom'? Freedom only exists in govt. and free-will. You can break laws and be imprisoned or you can use your legs to walk. That's freedom. Human freedom is something humanists say.
People dont have their magical 'right' to live their lives the way they want. Life doesnt work that way. That's Hippy talk. No one is born with 'rights' people around you just treat you nice enough and you think it's rights? What kind of rights are you talking about exactly?
The right to free speech? The right to choose what kind of coffee I want?
Control: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.
That is what people have. The ability to move thier eyes to the direction they want. The ability to turn a light switch to on and off. Even that can be taken away. By mutilating, removing eyes, or killing.
Freedom of speech for example is more of an allowance of speech and not a magical right. Where do rights come from? People, you'd say. Then I'd say, that's your problem, some people dont recognize your man-made set of rules, and liberties. Like the Geneva Convention. Terrorists still shoot medics. You are not supossed to shoot medics, but they do it anyways.
When you said

It's not a matter of personal belief, it's a matter of human freedom

I laughed, and now I'm telling you human freedom, the one you're talking about, is, indeed, a personal belief.

No, I dont support gays, and homsexuality.
You asked:

So you don't support other human being's rights to live their lives as they want just because you think it's wrong?
Why should I support them if I know what they're doing is wrong? Who are you to say human beings have rights? That's a man- made subjective idea. What about people born into slavery? They have no rights and they belong to other people. There is no magical 'human freedom'.

Whether I think it's wrong or not, it doesn't matter. I know God knows it's wrong, therefore it is wrong, and I will not support it. I lable homosexuality as wicked perversion and I put it along side beastiality, pedophilia, and other perversions.
You said:


What kind of sense does that make to you? It's their lives, not yours.

It's makes a lot of sense to me. I would be a hypocrite if I were to support homosexuals and thier cuase. A christian supporting perversion, that makes no sense at all. No, it's not my life. They do have free-will. They have the ability to make choices and do what they can possibly do, but I have free-will too. As you would put it I have the right to voice my veiws. Wouldn't you agree?


And when you say, they're just sexually aroused, you're basicly saying that homosexual orientation is just a fetish, not an actual orientation of attraction. You don't really belive that, do you?

As for the homosexual condition being a fetish, I'd say it's possible that homosexuals are born with a predisposition to develop a 'fetish' for gays. I dont believe babies are born gay, I know I wasnt thinking of anything sexual when I was 1, 2, 3, 4.... you get what I mean.
After reading what you posted, I could say that your a humanist. Humanism's goal: everyone be happy and get along.

Islam is derived from a word that means peace, but I'm a christian and Christ didnt come to make peace on earth.
http://carm.org/did-jesus-come-to-bring-peace-or-not
I dont care about people's feelings too much, that's why I'm not afraid to be politically incorrect. Serotonin isnt everything. http://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality

It's not over yet: Gay people need to realize, homosexuality is not good, and as I have said before "Love is caring, not sexual activities".
It is wrong to teach people that love is lust for the flesh. However, if a person repents and lays their sin at the cross, they will be forgiven, because they are sinners too. Homosexuality doesnt need to be replaced by heterosexuality, there's also celibacy, simple, no sex at all. I hope people aren't too offended by this. Hopefully, people will read this and think "oh, that's what christians believe" and hopefully people will look into christianity a bit more, maybe read the bible, and i hope there's a chance people will be saved.
Godspeed.
:lol:
32067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Montreal, Quebec
Offline
Posted 1/3/12
As a legally married (Canada, Quebec) gay dude, I support gay marriage as much as I support straight marriage I guess. I don't really give it much thought.
My boyfriend and I got married because he's Canadian, and I'm American. We wanted to live together all the time and figured it'd be easier for me to immigrate into Canada that it would be for him to immigrate into the U.S.
I'm glad we could get married, because it made immigration way easy. But we've both admitted to each other that if we were both Canadian or both American, we'd still be boyfriend/boyfriend instead of husband/husband. We don't question our commitment, we really do love one another and want to spend forever together, but... getting married was an obnoxious expense money-wise, and neither of us are very romantic at all.
ANY WAYS.
It's too bad more areas of the world aren't as easy as Canada when it comes to gay marriage. I'm sure there are plenty more couples in the same situation I was in that just need an easy way to live in the same country. And of coarse the romantic couples who just want to do it for the wedding and stuff.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/3/12 , edited 1/3/12

KnightofMayhem wrote:



First of all I dont believe in your magical Human Freedom. You talk about it like it's something everyone has. The only freedom you have is your ability to do what you can possibly do, such as getting up in the morining and going back to bed. Some people dont even have that freedom. So dont talk about freedom, what a crap word. Who are you to say 'human freedom'? Freedom only exists in govt. and free-will. You can break laws and be imprisoned or you can use your legs to walk. That's freedom. Human freedom is something humanists say.

People dont have their magical 'right' to live their lives the way they want. Life doesnt work that way. That's Hippy talk. No one is born with 'rights' people around you just treat you nice enough and you think it's rights? What kind of rights are you talking about exactly?
The right to free speech? The right to choose what kind of coffee I want?
Control: To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct.
That is what people have. The ability to move thier eyes to the direction they want. The ability to turn a light switch to on and off. Even that can be taken away. By mutilating, removing eyes, or killing.
Freedom of speech for example is more of an allowance of speech and not a magical right. Where do rights come from? People, you'd say. Then I'd say, that's your problem, some people dont recognize your man-made set of rules, and liberties.
Like the Geneva Convention. Terrorists still shoot medics. You are not supossed to shoot medics, but they do it anyways.
When you said

It's not a matter of personal belief, it's a matter of human freedom

I laughed, and now I'm telling you human freedom, the one you're talking about, is, indeed, a personal belief.

No, I dont support gays, and homsexuality.
You asked:

So you don't support other human being's rights to live their lives as they want just because you think it's wrong?


Why should I support them if I know what they're doing is wrong? Who are you to say human beings have rights? That's a man- made subjective idea. What about people born into slavery? They have no rights and they belong to other people. There is no magical 'human freedom'.

Whether I think it's wrong or not, it doesn't matter. I know God knows it's wrong, therefore it is wrong, and I will not support it. I lable homosexuality as wicked perversion and I put it along side beastiality, pedophilia, and other perversions.
You said:


What kind of sense does that make to you? It's their lives, not yours.

It's makes a lot of sense to me. I would be a hypocrite if I were to support homosexuals and thier cuase. A christian supporting perversion, that makes no sense at all. No, it's not my life. They do have free-will. They have the ability to make choices and do what they can possibly do, but I have free-will too. As you would put it I have the right to voice my veiws. Wouldn't you agree?


And when you say, they're just sexually aroused, you're basicly saying that homosexual orientation is just a fetish, not an actual orientation of attraction. You don't really belive that, do you?

As for the homosexual condition being a fetish, I'd say it's possible that homosexuals are born with a predisposition to develop a 'fetish' for gays. I dont believe babies are born gay, I know I wasnt thinking of anything sexual when I was 1, 2, 3, 4.... you get what I mean.
After reading what you posted, I could say that your a humanist. Humanism's goal: everyone be happy and get along.

Islam is derived from a word that means peace, but I'm a christian and Christ didnt come to make peace on earth.
http://carm.org/did-jesus-come-to-bring-peace-or-not
I dont care about people's feelings too much, that's why I'm not afraid to be politically incorrect. Serotonin isnt everything. http://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality

It's not over yet: Gay people need to realize, homosexuality is not good, and as I have said before "Love is caring, not sexual activities".
It is wrong to teach people that love is lust for the flesh. However, if a person repents and lays their sin at the cross, they will be forgiven, because they are sinners too. Homosexuality doesnt need to be replaced by heterosexuality, there's also celibacy, simple, no sex at all. I hope people aren't too offended by this. Hopefully, people will read this and think "oh, that's what christians believe" and hopefully people will look into christianity a bit more, maybe read the bible, and i hope there's a chance people will be saved.

Godspeed.
:lol:



It is true that freedom being a right is a man made idea. And while it technicly isn't, it is still valued as a right. And when it is valued as a right by the authorities, and most free thinking people, you have no business claiming it's not. Because even if you disagree, it is still the norm, and is therefore made into a right simply by the general point of view by the laws and moral values determined by the authorities and organizations like the UN. You disagreeing does not change that.


Because in a world where the existence of God is not undeniably true and impossible to even argue against, the whole "I know God thinks it's wrong" thing is your opinion. And in the eyes of the world, it will not be anything other than simply your opinion, no matter how much you belive that it is anything more than that.

It will be a sufficient reason to not condone the act of homosexuality, but it is not an excuse for bigotry and for not wishing happiness for other people.
Futhermore, if they choose to act out their homosexuality, then obviously they choose to not follow God's orders. And if so, then that is for them to decide, not you.

Besides, by saying that they shouldn't get the rights to marry, you're basicly saying that you want the laws and rules of society to be made from a religious point of view...


If homosexual orientation was nothing more than simply a fetish, all people who are attracted to other people of their own gender in any way, would also be attracted to people of their own gender. That is not the case.
There is a reason why the terms "gay" and "bi" have different meanings. Because those that are "gay" (or lesbian) are only attracted to their own gender. That would not happen if it was simply a fetish.

Add that to the fact that there are people out there (most of them christians) who are only attracted to their own gender (gay/lesbian), and who hate themselves for it. People who wish with all their might that they could be attracted to the opposite sex, but just aren't. And many of them does indeed choose to live in celibacy.
That would not happen if it was simply a fetish.


Seems kinda strage for a christian. Didn't Christ teach that you should love thy neighbour? Love your fellow man as you love yourself?
How about the golden rule? "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." Or alternatively the "silver rule"? "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."
And that goes for everything.
Are you just going to ignore that? Ignore the teachings that doesn't fit your perception of things?


Which is true, and it would've been a decent argument if gay people were only attracted to people of their own gender for sexual reasons.
But they're not. That's why gay people want to marry. That is why they want to be able to adopt. Because they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love, and maybe even raise a family together, just like straight people wish.
The ONLY difference between gay people and straight people, is that gay people are attracted to their own gender instead of the opposite gender. Both in terms of sexual attraction and genuine affection.
Posted 1/4/12


Here's your problem, you think the norm applies to everyone and everything. You believe rights are simply made by the general POV by laws and morals determined by the authorities and organizations like the UN.
Regarding LGBT 'rights' not everything is in your favor. You use the UN like it backs you every time, but the UN, in the end is just another non-magical organization with people agreeing on certain topics and concluding them with rights. There are also nations such as Syria, North Korea, Iran, along with the rest of the Arab League. You are excluding their authority because of your own personal belief of an idea known as human freedom. Are you telling me, back in the days before the UN, in countries where it was, and is still legal to punish gays and lesbians, is good and just? From what you're telling me, there is no inherent right given to people, and they are subject to the authorities and organizations such as the UN. The UN is not the only organization. The size of an organization does not grant it's authority over right and wrong, good or evil. It's mainly a battle of ideas in your thinking. The UN does not hold all the power in the world. Whoever holds the power, of their nation, city, town, household, or room decides the rules, the rights, the freedoms... and sometimes they are called privileges. It's similar to Federal Laws, State Laws, Local Laws, and mom and dad's rules. Mom and dad get to silence their children and take away their toys that they got for Christmas. That can't be legal, it belongs to the child. The biggest mistake you made, was excluding authorities and organizations that are not in your favor. Even the church is an authority, and so is God, he is the ultimate authority, whether you believe in him or not, that will not change. Your disagreeing does not change that. To you, freedom is an idea. To us Christians, God is ultimately, real. So, you can quit talking to me like God doesn't exist.
BTW here in my home country we, the majority believe in God: http://www.gallup.com/video/109111/Majority-Americans-Believe-God.aspx

Furthermore, if they choose to act out their homosexuality, then obviously they choose to not follow God's orders. And if so, then that is for them to decide, not you.
Besides, by saying that they shouldn't get the rights to marry, you're basically saying that you want the laws and rules of society to be made from a religious point of view
.
It is for them to decide whether or not to follow God's orders. I do not decide their fate or their decisions, that is true, I agree. However, I believe they are uninformed, and should receive the truth and then let them decide. I never said I was going to brainwash anyone into not committing acts of sin. I just wanted to say I don’t support it, I didn’t say, NO YOU CANT DO THAT!!!! GOD SAID SO!!!! It's more like, people, please listen, what you're doing is wrong, so I don’t give my vote to your cuase, Jesus is the way! It's my vote and I get to use it. Another one of your mistakes was talking to me like I don’t believe that God exists 110%, and thinking that I should support LGBT, and give the 'right' to marriage to gays, when I truly believe it is not their right at all. So tell me again, why I should support gay marriage for this broken perverted world?
To pair the two things together, if an authority decides something is not a right, it is not a right, do you agree?
In addition, I really hope your reading this part and I would like you to respond to this part the most....
As I was saying, I do not support gay marriage, or acts of perversions. Let me tell you something about me. I am a sinner. I have looked at a woman to lust after her with my eyes. I have committed adultery within my heart. The same goes for gays, and lesbians. They too have committed the sin that I have. However, they choose to continue to believe what they are doing is good and righteous. As I have said before, "celibacy". I never said anything about gays becoming heterosexual. It's quite possible that people are born to become gay or lesbian (not transsexual however, they were not born that way); it may be true because people are born sinners.

Seems kind of strage for a christian. Didn't Christ teach that you should love thy neighbour? Love your fellow man as you love yourself?
How about the golden rule? "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." Or alternatively the "silver rule"? "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."
And that goes for everything.
Are you just going to ignore that? Ignore the teachings that doesn't fit your perception of things?

Not strange at all. Christ did say love thy neighbor, and love thy enemies. Yes, the golden rule and silver rule apply as well, but not quite.
The problem here is you don’t see my reason for posting here. If I really wanted to hate on gays I would use harsh words like "faggot". I'm not trying to hate on them. If you had a brother who was going to commit suicide, would you want to help them commit suicide, or would you try to talk them out of suicide? It's the same thing here. Honestly, I have a gay cousin, I love the kid, because he's my cousin, but I don’t support him being gay. The same goes for everything, if a father loves his son, but his son steals videogames, the father needs to at least tell his son it's wrong, and ask him to stop. He still loves his son, but he won’t go join him steal or turn a blind eye. As for the golden or silver rule, if I have something that needs to be corrected, please help me out. If I did not know what I was doing was wrong, I would want someone to point it out. That's why I ask God to show me my hippocrazy (spelt it that way on purpose, or too lazy to check) and convict me, because out of that suffering, comes true joy, because we come back to Christ.
Like I said before, I don’t care too much about feelings. Feelings change all the time. My intent is not to make people cry, or rage. I'm not ignoring that at all... and btw I think you've ignored some of the links I gave you. Not supporting doesn’t mean hating or persecuting, not supporting means not with you guys on this one. It's that simple.

That's why gay people want to marry. That is why they want to be able to adopt. Because they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love, and maybe even raise a family together, just like straight people wish.The ONLY difference between gay people and straight people is that gay people are attracted to their own gender instead of the opposite gender. Both in terms of sexual attraction and genuine affection.

Here's where I agree and disagree with you. Gay people, like many people, have love, and they care about people. They love their parents and grandparents; sisters and brothers; and nieces and nephews, and friends. However, marriage is according to God, between a man and a woman, so they may belong to one another and become one flesh. That doesn’t happen in a gay marriage. That's why, as I have already stated "If gay marriage passes I would not recognize gays as married people anyways. You can use the term marriage, but I will only see the marriage as a false marriage, a pretend marriage. God does not recognize gay marriage as true marriage, so I don't support it". It's that simple, IF gay marriage does pass, I would NOT say, "wow, good for them, this is one step closer to a Godless nation YAY!" gay marriage passing is a bad thing, meaning this nation has lost its faith in God. It's the same for pornography on the internet... it's free too, which is a trap. How can you put things on the internet like that and not expect hormonally raged kids not to look.
Back to the topic, homosexuals adopting children, I don’t support that either, because I don’t support the indoctrination of children that is in favor of homosexuality, and THAT has already been put into effect 2012. However it's religious bigotry when conservatives try to teach their views in class, but for liberals it's perfectly fine... of course they'd (kids) think nothing was wrong with it, but I might be wrong, and the child may grow up to believe in the one true God, and learn homosexuality is indeed sinful.
Another one of my questions is why do homosexual people deem it necessary to speak to the govt about marriage? Honestly, I do not believe the govt. should play a role in marriage. It's not passing everywhere because of people. You're letting other people determine what marriage is, why not just say your married, is a certificate all you need? Again if gay marriage does pass so be it, the world is corrupt after all. I still dont support it though, why should I, and please take into great consideration of who I am and why I dont support the LGBT agenda.
I'm just here with a few conservatives trying to conserve whatever goodness there is left in the world. I really hope you get my point of view here. One of our main problems here is Christianity vs. Humanism. That's what we should be debating, but in the end, the one factor we would be debating would be the existence of God. Would you like to do that? I mean that stuff goes on and on forever, and I'm not expert.shockawenow.net click the chat, and ask questions around 6:30pm-8:00pm, and ask for Shock, he probably knows more than I do about this stuff.
BTW, this stuff is getting pretty long, back in high school; I wasn’t jumping for joy looking for things to write about.

3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/5/12 , edited 1/5/12

KnightofMayhem

Regarding LGBT 'rights' not everything is in your favor. You use the UN like it backs you every time, but the UN, in the end is just another non-magical organization with people agreeing on certain topics and concluding them with rights. There are also nations such as Syria, North Korea, Iran, along with the rest of the Arab League. You are excluding their authority because of your own personal belief of an idea known as human freedom. Are you telling me, back in the days before the UN, in countries where it was, and is still legal to punish gays and lesbians, is good and just? From what you're telling me, there is no inherent right given to people, and they are subject to the authorities and organizations such as the UN. The UN is not the only organization. The size of an organization does not grant it's authority over right and wrong, good or evil.


It is indeed true that there are nations that does not belong to the UN, where the values manifested (am I using that word right?) by the UN are not necessarily valued. However, the nations that are members of the UN have agreed to a certain set of rules and values to uphold. And when a country has agreed to these things, it is the nation's government who has agreed to make laws accordingly to what has been chosen by the UN.

Thus the values will obviously differ in countries that are seperate from these organizations, which is why these values and "rights", are not universal all over the globe. In those countries, which values that are to be treasured and which that are not to be valued is up to the government to decide. Because they have authority over their own country.
But that authority does only apply for that country and that country alone. Unless of course there are other countries under the rule of said country, like the case with Taiwan and China.

As for the days before the UN, no, I do not belive that it was just. But that is from an ethical and moral point of view, just like how I do not think the burning of "witches" was the right thing to do, even if the laws allowed it. Not only because it was a law based on ignorance, but also because I value the life and safety of innocent people, and I don't belive anyone should be punished for something they haven't done wrong.
And that goes for punishing gays as well.



KnightofMayhem
Even the church is an authority, and so is God, he is the ultimate authority, whether you believe in him or not, that will not change. Your disagreeing does not change that. To you, freedom is an idea. To us Christians, God is ultimately, real. So, you can quit talking to me like God doesn't exist.


It was never my intention to talk to you like God does not exist. And if I did, and have offended you, I apologize.
However, what is the case is that God can not be undeniably proven. So even if he does exist, there is no way to prove it absolutely, which in turn means that there will be people that does not belive in him, as is the case in today's society.


KnightofMayhem
In addition, I really hope your reading this part and I would like you to respond to this part the most....
As I was saying, I do not support gay marriage, or acts of perversions. Let me tell you something about me. I am a sinner. I have looked at a woman to lust after her with my eyes. I have committed adultery within my heart. The same goes for gays, and lesbians. They too have committed the sin that I have. However, they choose to continue to believe what they are doing is good and righteous. As I have said before, "celibacy". I never said anything about gays becoming heterosexual. It's quite possible that people are born to become gay or lesbian (not transsexual however, they were not born that way); it may be true because people are born sinners.


Of course. If one judges by the teachings of the Bible, everyone is a sinner.
As for them continuing to belive what they do isn't wrong, I don't belive that they do it out of spite or anything, but simply because they do not belive, and are not convinced. And surely if someone simply does not belive, you can't fault them for not beliving in all the same moral values as you, can you?




KnightofMayhem
It is for them to decide whether or not to follow God's orders. I do not decide their fate or their decisions, that is true, I agree. However, I believe they are uninformed, and should receive the truth and then let them decide. I never said I was going to brainwash anyone into not committing acts of sin. I just wanted to say I don’t support it, I didn’t say, NO YOU CANT DO THAT!!!! GOD SAID SO!!!! It's more like, people, please listen, what you're doing is wrong, so I don’t give my vote to your cuase.


Seems kind of strage for a christian. Didn't Christ teach that you should love thy neighbour? Love your fellow man as you love yourself?
How about the golden rule? "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." Or alternatively the "silver rule"? "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."
And that goes for everything.
Are you just going to ignore that? Ignore the teachings that doesn't fit your perception of things?


Not strange at all. Christ did say love thy neighbor, and love thy enemies. Yes, the golden rule and silver rule apply as well, but not quite.
The problem here is you don’t see my reason for posting here. If I really wanted to hate on gays I would use harsh words like "faggot". I'm not trying to hate on them. If you had a brother who was going to commit suicide, would you want to help them commit suicide, or would you try to talk them out of suicide? It's the same thing here.
Honestly, I have a gay cousin, I love the kid, because he's my cousin, but I don’t support him being gay. The same goes for everything, if a father loves his son, but his son steals videogames, the father needs to at least tell his son it's wrong, and ask him to stop. He still loves his son, but he won’t go join him steal or turn a blind eye

My intent is not to make people cry, or rage. I'm not ignoring that at all... and btw I think you've ignored some of the links I gave you. Not supporting doesn’t mean hating or persecuting, not supporting means not with you guys on this one. It's that simple.


It seems I misunderstood then. Thank you for clarifying.
But like you say, at the end of the day, it is up to them to choose their own path. And if they do choose to not follow the teachings of the Bible and that it will lead to them burning in hell (if that is what you belive, I don't really remember if you've said so), then why should we at least not, from an ethical point of view, wish them to live as happily as they can now?



KnightofMayhem

As for the golden or silver rule, if I have something that needs to be corrected, please help me out. If I did not know what I was doing was wrong, I would want someone to point it out.


What I had in mind here was for example if the situation was reversed.
For instance, if it was you who were gay, and was not a beliver. Just try and imagine that scenario hypotheticly.
Would you then not wish for others to have understanding and to wish for you to be as happy as you could be, even if they disagreed?



KnightofMayhem
IF gay marriage does pass, I would NOT say, "wow, good for them, this is one step closer to a Godless nation YAY!"
Gay marriage passing is a bad thing, meaning this nation has lost its faith in God.


I don't really see why being happy for others, even if you don't support it, and "one step closer to a Godless nation" have to be in the same sentence. But whatever.

From what I understand from reading this sentence, you feel like "a Godless nation" means a country where the laws are based on a secular base, rather than a christian base. Thus, it also seems to me like you feel like the laws of your country SHOULD be based on the christian faith. And if so, then that is where we have a very different opinion.

First of all, I don't concider a secular country as a "Godless country". "Godless country", the way I see it, would be a country where no one belives in God, which isn't going to happen in the US anytime soon.
Furthermore, I strongly belive that the laws of a country should not be based on a religious ground what so ever. And that goes for any religion.
A big reason for this is that if the laws in a country is based on religious beliefs, it will give a huge advantage to some people, but a massive dis-advantage for those who do not belive. And even when most people belive in God in a country like the US, with that big a population, the non belivers are still in great number.

And that would just not be fair. Making laws from a secular, non-religious point of view, is the only way everyone can be as happy as possible, and where no one will feel discriminated against by federal law.
And history shows that religious dominance and influence on politics has never brought anything good. Like the inquisition, which is just one of many examples where things would've been better, had the laws not been based on religion.

Besides, if I remember correctly, Christ said that his followers should not engage in politics. And in that case, christianity having influence on politics would be contradictory with the teachings of the Bible.



KnightofMayhem
It's the same for pornography on the internet... it's free too, which is a trap. How can you put things on the internet like that and not expect hormonally raged kids not to look.


Sexual curiosity is perfectly normal for children. There's a reason everyone knows what "playing doctor" means. Because everyone does it. And even in the US, kids have for several generations, (if not even longer, what do I know?) been making attempts at peeking at ladies, getting their hands on dirty magazines and all that other jazz that is a part of a child's sexual discovery. And it's perfectly normal.
I really don't think pornography will do as much damage as you imply it will...




KnightofMayhem
Back to the topic, homosexuals adopting children, I don’t support that either, because I don’t support the indoctrination of children that is in favor of homosexuality, and THAT has already been put into effect 2012. However it's religious bigotry when conservatives try to teach their views in class, but for liberals it's perfectly fine...

Well the case with this is that it's not just homosexuals that teach their children that homosexuality isn't wrong. All non-religious, free thinking people does that. So I don't really think that's a valid argument.

And christian parents will keep teaching their children that homosexuality is wrong. So there really isn't anything that has changed in that regard if homosexuals get the right to adopt.
And if I may, I must say I do think children should be taught in school that homosexuality is OK for those that are.
Because if a child is taught both in school and by their parents (which will happen anyway), it may become close minded and hostile against gay people. I have personally witnessed this happening several times in school.

Therefore, I at least think children should be taught to, at the very least, be tolerant towards others.



KnightofMayhem
Another one of my questions is why do homosexual people deem it necessary to speak to the govt about marriage? Honestly, I do not believe the govt. should play a role in marriage. It's not passing everywhere because of people. You're letting other people determine what marriage is, why not just say your married, is a certificate all you need?

I'm just here with a few conservatives trying to conserve whatever goodness there is left in the world.


As far as I understand, gay people do appeal to the general public as well, in order to spread awareness of their cause.
And as far as I also understand about how things work in the US, these things are passed with so called "bills", which are suggested by the government and for people to then vote for or against.
But if they don't appeal to the government, these bills won't even be concidered.

As for them not just saying they're married is for the same reason straight people don't. Simply living together is not being married. And they want that same privilage to be officially a married couple. And to also be treated equally. Because having different laws for homosexuals than for heterosexuals is discrimination.
So essentially, it is the same as how african americans fought for equal rights as well in the 20th century.

And I really don't think discrimination can, in any case, be called "goodness".



KnightofMayhem
I really hope you get my point of view here. One of our main problems here is Christianity vs. Humanism. That's what we should be debating, but in the end, the one factor we would be debating would be the existence of God. Would you like to do that? I mean that stuff goes on and on forever.


Indeed they do. And if there's one thing I've learned from observing religious debates on the internet, it is that no one are "victorious".
No matter what you say and what arguments you use, you will never get someone to change their religious point of view over the internet. And that goes both ways, so there's really no point in discussing that anyway.
Because in the end, no one will change their minds regarding the existence of God. For better or for worse.
(With "better" and "worse" depending on what oneself indivdually belives).


Sorry for making such a long response.
Posted 1/5/12
It's against my religion, and it sounds a little dirty but as long as I'm not involved in it, then whatever
Posted 1/5/12

KurroiRen wrote:

It's against my religion, and it sounds a little dirty but as long as I'm not involved in it, then whatever
For someone who claimed here that she knew just how bully victims feel like, you're really ignorant when it comes to how your religious faith are discriminating, oppressing, and down right abusing homosexuals through ex-gay ministry.

CHANGING GAYS AND LESBIANS: "EX-GAY" AND "TRANSFORMATIONAL" MINISTRIES

Note about terms:

The language in this essay may appear stilted. This is to avoid confusion. Different people assign various meanings to the terms "homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual." For example, conservative Christians generally define "homosexual" in terms of behavior. A homosexual is a person who is sexually active with member(s) of the same gender. Others define "homosexual" to be a person with a homosexual orientation. They are sexually attracted to members of the same sex; they may or may not act on these feelings.

Rather than use the ambiguous term "homosexual" we will often use the rather awkward but more specific phrase "person with a homosexual orientation."

Christian beliefs about changing homosexuals:

Because conservative and liberal Christians approach the Bible with different assumptions, they arrive at very separate beliefs about many social issues. The nature of homosexuality is one example:

Conservative Christians generally believe that Bible is inerrant. They conclude from the approximately six main biblical passages referring to homosexuality that God hates homosexual behavior. They also believe that God will often answer the prayer of a sincere, born-again believer. Thus they logically conclude that any saved Christian gay or lesbian who sincerely prays to be converted to heterosexuality will be able to successfully make the transition with God's help. Many see 1 Corinthians 6:11 as proof that saved homosexuals will be transformed and become heterosexual. Many conservative Christian "ex-gay" or "transformational" ministries have been established to help gays, lesbians, and bisexuals seek to become heterosexual. These ministries generally see homosexual behavior as abnormal, unnatural, chosen, changeable and hated by God.

It is important to realize that conservative Christians generally interpret terms like homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality differently from other groups. Behavior, not sexual orientation, is the key. Thus:

A bisexual person who was once involved in one or more same-sex relationships is considered to be a homosexual. That same person who goes to a Christian ex-gay ministry, remains a bisexual, but decides to stick with opposite-sex relationships is judged to now be a heterosexual. Such individuals are often cited as successfully having been cured of their homosexuality; they are "ex-gays."

A homosexual individual who was involved in same sex relationships and decided to become celibate is similarly regarded as having been cured -- as being no longer a homosexual.

Liberal Christians interpret the same biblical passages differently. Some see the Bible as condemning homosexual rape, ritual homosexual activities in Pagan temples, homosexual prostitution, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex, and men sexually abusing boys. But they see the Bible as essentially silent on same-sex committed relationships. They view a homosexual sexual orientation as normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable for a small minority of adults, and as accepted by God. They, like mental health therapists, gays, lesbians, human sexuality researchers, etc, interpret terms like homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality to be descriptions of a person's sexual orientation.

As a result of these diametrically opposed beliefs about sex and the Bible, conservative and liberal Christians typically take opposite views about programs of therapy, counseling and prayer which are intended to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality:

Many conservative Christian "ex-gay/transformational" ministries have been established to help gays, lesbians, and bisexuals seek heterosexuality. They promote these programs as effective and safe.

Some religious liberals have rejected all attempts to change people's sexual orientation, including reparative therapy, as being ineffective, frequently dangerous to clients' mental health, and potentially life threatening.

Since no meaningful long term studies on these ministries, there is little hope that this division of beliefs will ever be harmonized in the near future.(citation)

Ignorance is a bless only for people like you, who didn't know how their unjustified religious prejudice can ruin what otherwise innocent lives of homosexuals.
Posted 1/6/12
They should be allowed to do what they want, but it doesn't come without judgment and I admire some of them and their power to ignore these people who call them sinners and all sorts of mean things.
Posted 1/7/12

Chained_Angel wrote:

They should be allowed to do what they want, but it doesn't come without judgment and I admire some of them and their power to ignore these people who call them sinners and all sorts of mean things.


Is calling someone a sinner such a bad thing. I am a sinner, I have sinned. If you're human, you're a sinner. People just need a chance to be aware of their sin, because what they truly need is life everlasting through Christ. Is the power to ignore really that great when your ignoring your own nature. It's the human condition.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/7/12 , edited 1/7/12

KnightofMayhem wrote:


Chained_Angel wrote:

They should be allowed to do what they want, but it doesn't come without judgment and I admire some of them and their power to ignore these people who call them sinners and all sorts of mean things.


Is calling someone a sinner such a bad thing. I am a sinner, I have sinned. If you're human, you're a sinner. People just need a chance to be aware of their sin, because what they truly need is life everlasting through Christ. Is the power to ignore really that great when your ignoring your own nature. It's the human condition.


It depends on who you're talking to and how you're presenting it. For Christians, being called a sinner can often be something they see like an obvious thing, like you do. However, others may interpret it as belittleing and something intended to offend. I imagine non-believers in particular can interpret it as that (though I never did personally), since they know that in the eyes of theists, being a sinner is considered a bad thing.

And remember, in the eyes of a non-believer, there is no such thing as "sin". Only nature.
11266 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/8/12
I think it should not be up to the law, but up to the church. I'm not religious myself and I support gay people as much as straight people, but a religion is different to something like a hotdog stall. In a hotdog stall, anyone can buy a hotdog and there isn't any rule against it (unless you're allergic to hotdogs, or are a vegetarian), but in things like Christianity there are certain aspects that are different to your everyday thing.

Christianity is very old, unlike the hotdog stall. It teaches old values a lot of time, although some of it may be used in modern times, homosexuality is a relatively new thing that has only been accepted since around the 1970s(?) onwards. Christianity is around 2000 years old while the hotdog stall was put up last Friday.

Now, when marriage was created it was made for the bond and fellowship between two individuals. A women and a man. Not a man and a man, or a women and a women or a tranny and a tranny. This is what 'marriage' meant. Yes, a bond between two people, but a bond between two people of the opposite gender so they could carry on the will of god and populate the earth.

If nothing in the bible says homosexuals can't have this and can't have that, that is simply because back then homosexuality was basically unheard of. People were burnt at the stake for engaging in such affairs. The bible cannot be changed now, so it is stuck in the past, and not past 1970*.

This is why I do not think gay 'marriage' should be allowed. I think gay partnerships, gay civilian-ships or whatever they're called can be still allowed. Gay people should have the option to have some kind of bond between them, yet religion is outdated and cannot fend for everyone sadly enough. At the end of it all, due to having no preachings from 'god' or any word from the guy, I think it should be up to the Church and -not- the Law as the Law should only have limited contacts which such things.

I also want to say I do support gay people, don't get me wrong, but this is like putting a carrot in between a bun and selling it as a hotdog. The religion just hasn't recognized that carrots can be used as sausages yet.
3520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

PepperKillsPepsi wrote:

I think it should not be up to the law, but up to the church. I'm not religious myself and I support gay people as much as straight people, but a religion is different to something like a hotdog stall. In a hotdog stall, anyone can buy a hotdog and there isn't any rule against it (unless you're allergic to hotdogs, or are a vegetarian), but in things like Christianity there are certain aspects that are different to your everyday thing.

Christianity is very old, unlike the hotdog stall. It teaches old values a lot of time, although some of it may be used in modern times, homosexuality is a relatively new thing that has only been accepted since around the 1970s(?) onwards. Christianity is around 2000 years old while the hotdog stall was put up last Friday.

Now, when marriage was created it was made for the bond and fellowship between two individuals. A women and a man. Not a man and a man, or a women and a women or a tranny and a tranny. This is what 'marriage' meant. Yes, a bond between two people, but a bond between two people of the opposite gender so they could carry on the will of god and populate the earth.

If nothing in the bible says homosexuals can't have this and can't have that, that is simply because back then homosexuality was basically unheard of. People were burnt at the stake for engaging in such affairs. The bible cannot be changed now, so it is stuck in the past, and not past 1970*.

This is why I do not think gay 'marriage' should be allowed. I think gay partnerships, gay civilian-ships or whatever they're called can be still allowed. Gay people should have the option to have some kind of bond between them, yet religion is outdated and cannot fend for everyone sadly enough. At the end of it all, due to having no preachings from 'god' or any word from the guy, I think it should be up to the Church and -not- the Law as the Law should only have limited contacts which such things.

I also want to say I do support gay people, don't get me wrong, but this is like putting a carrot in between a bun and selling it as a hotdog. The religion just hasn't recognized that carrots can be used as sausages yet.


I'm confused... What exactly is your stance on religion and the church?
11266 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:

I think it should not be up to the law, but up to the church. I'm not religious myself and I support gay people as much as straight people, but a religion is different to something like a hotdog stall. In a hotdog stall, anyone can buy a hotdog and there isn't any rule against it (unless you're allergic to hotdogs, or are a vegetarian), but in things like Christianity there are certain aspects that are different to your everyday thing.

Christianity is very old, unlike the hotdog stall. It teaches old values a lot of time, although some of it may be used in modern times, homosexuality is a relatively new thing that has only been accepted since around the 1970s(?) onwards. Christianity is around 2000 years old while the hotdog stall was put up last Friday.

Now, when marriage was created it was made for the bond and fellowship between two individuals. A women and a man. Not a man and a man, or a women and a women or a tranny and a tranny. This is what 'marriage' meant. Yes, a bond between two people, but a bond between two people of the opposite gender so they could carry on the will of god and populate the earth.

If nothing in the bible says homosexuals can't have this and can't have that, that is simply because back then homosexuality was basically unheard of. People were burnt at the stake for engaging in such affairs. The bible cannot be changed now, so it is stuck in the past, and not past 1970*.

This is why I do not think gay 'marriage' should be allowed. I think gay partnerships, gay civilian-ships or whatever they're called can be still allowed. Gay people should have the option to have some kind of bond between them, yet religion is outdated and cannot fend for everyone sadly enough. At the end of it all, due to having no preachings from 'god' or any word from the guy, I think it should be up to the Church and -not- the Law as the Law should only have limited contacts which such things.

I also want to say I do support gay people, don't get me wrong, but this is like putting a carrot in between a bun and selling it as a hotdog. The religion just hasn't recognized that carrots can be used as sausages yet.


I'm confused... What exactly is your stance on religion and the church?


Agnostic. I don't belong to a religion, but i'm open to ideas. Although i'm not quite sure where this is relevant to my argument.

I support gay Christians, by the way, just not the marriage part. Nothing against gay people, it's just because of the religion itself.
First  Prev  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.