First  Prev  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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 Gay people should have the option to have some kind of bond between them, yet religion is outdated and cannot fend for everyone sadly enough.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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?

9262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/8/12 , edited 1/8/12

PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't belive that's a fair way to look at it.
First if all, a gay bar is a social gathering spot tailored and marketed to homosexuals specificly.
And these places are far more uncommon than regular bars, so unless they're planning on getting involved with the gay community, straight people have no business being there, and should respect the ones that go there by not butting in there.

Fact is, there is not ONE single law in society today that disfavor straight people and their right. There are plenty of laws disfavoring gay people, and from an ethical stand, and in a society that strives for equality, that is just not acceptable.
People and socuety should not have to bend or be hindered from evolving in order to fit the ways of the olden days of religion. That already happened once, and it set us back 600 years of progress and development. We could've been exploring the stars by now, had it not been for religion hindering development. We must not allow that to happen again. We must not allow history to repeat itself. To that, I'm sure you agree.

And while it may not be happening in the same extreme scale ad it did back then, it is still happening today. Only in a smaller scale. It's religion that must change alongside society. Not the other way around.
9262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't belive that's a fair way to look at it.
First if all, a gay bar is a social gathering spot tailored and marketed to homosexuals specificly.
And these places are far more uncommon than regular bars, so unless they're planning on getting involved with the gay community, straight people have no business being there, and should respect the ones that go there by not butting in there.

Fact is, there is not ONE single law in society today that disfavor straight people and their right. There are plenty of laws disfavoring gay people, and from an ethical stand, and in a society that strives for equality, that is just not acceptable.
People and socuety should not have to bend or be hindered from evolving in order to fit the ways of the olden days of religion. That already happened once, and it set us back 600 of development. We could've been exploring the stars by now, had it not been for religion hindering development. We must not allow that to happen again. We must not allow history to repeat itself. To that, I'm sure you agree.

And while it may not be happening in the same extreme scale ad it did back then, it is still happening today. Only in a smaller scale. It's religion that must change alongside society. Not the other way around.


Well, hey, maybe you're right with that using a gay bar wasn't really the best of things I could've used to compare my argument with religion. I, personally believe that religion will die out sooner or later and that we should create an alternative to marriage. Some form a bonding which is more then 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'partner' so that 'marriage' does not have to be christian or old valued.

If I was a homosexual who wanted a bond, I'd rather get some form a civil partnership with my partner rather then a marriage. Why? Because I believe Christianity to be very flawed, as well as I wouldn't be able to get the whole 'gay marriage' subject off my head and what other Christians thought of me when I went to church. This isn't me changing myself for others, it's merely a sense of self continence which I have all too much of. I wouldn't like to sit in a church with everyone mutting under their breath "hey, he's the gay guy" or anything like that. This is pretty much why i'm not a christian anyway, I just can't stand that stuff.

I think that modern gay people do not really 'fit' in the old, traditional Christianity marriage. It's like putting a plasma gun in a medieval setting.

Now that's how I see it anyway. As far as i'm aware, gay people can be wed if they want to, it doesn't really effect my life in the slightest and if they're happy then that's fine for them. It's just if I was christian and gay i'd wear a ring and get myself a civil partnership, not a marriage as i'd see myself beyond the old values of marriage. You don't have to be married to have a bond is what i'm trying to point out. You can have something equally as good as marriage just called something else. Hell, you could have a big party for the civil partnership as far as i'm aware. I just see it as like comparing quorn meat to real meat, still meat just different type. Still marriage just a different type.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't belive that's a fair way to look at it.
First if all, a gay bar is a social gathering spot tailored and marketed to homosexuals specificly.
And these places are far more uncommon than regular bars, so unless they're planning on getting involved with the gay community, straight people have no business being there, and should respect the ones that go there by not butting in there.

Fact is, there is not ONE single law in society today that disfavor straight people and their right. There are plenty of laws disfavoring gay people, and from an ethical stand, and in a society that strives for equality, that is just not acceptable.
People and socuety should not have to bend or be hindered from evolving in order to fit the ways of the olden days of religion. That already happened once, and it set us back 600 of development. We could've been exploring the stars by now, had it not been for religion hindering development. We must not allow that to happen again. We must not allow history to repeat itself. To that, I'm sure you agree.

And while it may not be happening in the same extreme scale ad it did back then, it is still happening today. Only in a smaller scale. It's religion that must change alongside society. Not the other way around.


Well, hey, maybe you're right with that using a gay bar wasn't really the best of things I could've used to compare my argument with religion. I, personally believe that religion will die out sooner or later and that we should create an alternative to marriage. Some form a bonding which is more then 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'partner' so that 'marriage' does not have to be christian or old valued.

If I was a homosexual who wanted a bond, I'd rather get some form a civil partnership with my partner rather then a marriage. Why? Because I believe Christianity to be very flawed, as well as I wouldn't be able to get the whole 'gay marriage' subject off my head and what other Christians thought of me when I went to church. This isn't me changing myself for others, it's merely a sense of self continence which I have all too much of. I wouldn't like to sit in a church with everyone mutting under their breath "hey, he's the gay guy" or anything like that. This is pretty much why i'm not a christian anyway, I just can't stand that stuff.

I think that modern gay people do not really 'fit' in the old, traditional Christianity marriage. It's like putting a plasma gun in a medieval setting.

Now that's how I see it anyway. As far as i'm aware, gay people can be wed if they want to, it doesn't really effect my life in the slightest and if they're happy then that's fine for them. It's just if I was christian and gay i'd wear a ring and get myself a civil partnership, not a marriage as i'd see myself beyond the old values of marriage. You don't have to be married to have a bond is what i'm trying to point out. You can have something equally as good as marriage just called something else. Hell, you could have a big party for the civil partnership as far as i'm aware. I just see it as like comparing quorn meat to real meat, still meat just different type. Still marriage just a different type.


So if I understand you correctly, you think they should be allowed to be together, but not call it marriage because that puts them in the position of a Christian couple? As a couple bonded together in a holy unity? Do people still view it that way?
9262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/8/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't belive that's a fair way to look at it.
First if all, a gay bar is a social gathering spot tailored and marketed to homosexuals specificly.
And these places are far more uncommon than regular bars, so unless they're planning on getting involved with the gay community, straight people have no business being there, and should respect the ones that go there by not butting in there.

Fact is, there is not ONE single law in society today that disfavor straight people and their right. There are plenty of laws disfavoring gay people, and from an ethical stand, and in a society that strives for equality, that is just not acceptable.
People and socuety should not have to bend or be hindered from evolving in order to fit the ways of the olden days of religion. That already happened once, and it set us back 600 of development. We could've been exploring the stars by now, had it not been for religion hindering development. We must not allow that to happen again. We must not allow history to repeat itself. To that, I'm sure you agree.

And while it may not be happening in the same extreme scale ad it did back then, it is still happening today. Only in a smaller scale. It's religion that must change alongside society. Not the other way around.


Well, hey, maybe you're right with that using a gay bar wasn't really the best of things I could've used to compare my argument with religion. I, personally believe that religion will die out sooner or later and that we should create an alternative to marriage. Some form a bonding which is more then 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'partner' so that 'marriage' does not have to be christian or old valued.

If I was a homosexual who wanted a bond, I'd rather get some form a civil partnership with my partner rather then a marriage. Why? Because I believe Christianity to be very flawed, as well as I wouldn't be able to get the whole 'gay marriage' subject off my head and what other Christians thought of me when I went to church. This isn't me changing myself for others, it's merely a sense of self continence which I have all too much of. I wouldn't like to sit in a church with everyone mutting under their breath "hey, he's the gay guy" or anything like that. This is pretty much why i'm not a christian anyway, I just can't stand that stuff.

I think that modern gay people do not really 'fit' in the old, traditional Christianity marriage. It's like putting a plasma gun in a medieval setting.

Now that's how I see it anyway. As far as i'm aware, gay people can be wed if they want to, it doesn't really effect my life in the slightest and if they're happy then that's fine for them. It's just if I was christian and gay i'd wear a ring and get myself a civil partnership, not a marriage as i'd see myself beyond the old values of marriage. You don't have to be married to have a bond is what i'm trying to point out. You can have something equally as good as marriage just called something else. Hell, you could have a big party for the civil partnership as far as i'm aware. I just see it as like comparing quorn meat to real meat, still meat just different type. Still marriage just a different type.


So if I understand you correctly, you think they should be allowed to be together, but not call it marriage because that puts them in the position of a Christian couple? As a couple bonded together in a holy unity? Do people still view it that way?


Nope, you've got me completely wrong.

I once again state that being gay and a christian is absolutely fine, yet the religion was built up and centered around -hetorosexuality-. It's a 2000 year old religion for the third damned time, 'marriage' as a word doesn't in my opinion fit with everybody because of that sole reason. You cannot change a religion because of the modern age we live in, that defeats the purpose of a religion.

Gay people may form bonds in a christian setting if they wish to, but I believe they should get a civil partnership instead of a marriage as it's incredibly flawed otherwise. You can still have a holy unity if you're faithful and blessed, right?

Please read over my last paragraph over once again, I think you may've missed a few points. However this is my opinion, I respect yours whatever it may be. Probably the opposite.


3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/8/12 , edited 1/8/12

PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't belive that's a fair way to look at it.
First if all, a gay bar is a social gathering spot tailored and marketed to homosexuals specificly.
And these places are far more uncommon than regular bars, so unless they're planning on getting involved with the gay community, straight people have no business being there, and should respect the ones that go there by not butting in there.

Fact is, there is not ONE single law in society today that disfavor straight people and their right. There are plenty of laws disfavoring gay people, and from an ethical stand, and in a society that strives for equality, that is just not acceptable.
People and socuety should not have to bend or be hindered from evolving in order to fit the ways of the olden days of religion. That already happened once, and it set us back 600 of development. We could've been exploring the stars by now, had it not been for religion hindering development. We must not allow that to happen again. We must not allow history to repeat itself. To that, I'm sure you agree.

And while it may not be happening in the same extreme scale ad it did back then, it is still happening today. Only in a smaller scale. It's religion that must change alongside society. Not the other way around.


Well, hey, maybe you're right with that using a gay bar wasn't really the best of things I could've used to compare my argument with religion. I, personally believe that religion will die out sooner or later and that we should create an alternative to marriage. Some form a bonding which is more then 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'partner' so that 'marriage' does not have to be christian or old valued.

If I was a homosexual who wanted a bond, I'd rather get some form a civil partnership with my partner rather then a marriage. Why? Because I believe Christianity to be very flawed, as well as I wouldn't be able to get the whole 'gay marriage' subject off my head and what other Christians thought of me when I went to church. This isn't me changing myself for others, it's merely a sense of self continence which I have all too much of. I wouldn't like to sit in a church with everyone mutting under their breath "hey, he's the gay guy" or anything like that. This is pretty much why i'm not a christian anyway, I just can't stand that stuff.

I think that modern gay people do not really 'fit' in the old, traditional Christianity marriage. It's like putting a plasma gun in a medieval setting.

Now that's how I see it anyway. As far as i'm aware, gay people can be wed if they want to, it doesn't really effect my life in the slightest and if they're happy then that's fine for them. It's just if I was christian and gay i'd wear a ring and get myself a civil partnership, not a marriage as i'd see myself beyond the old values of marriage. You don't have to be married to have a bond is what i'm trying to point out. You can have something equally as good as marriage just called something else. Hell, you could have a big party for the civil partnership as far as i'm aware. I just see it as like comparing quorn meat to real meat, still meat just different type. Still marriage just a different type.


So if I understand you correctly, you think they should be allowed to be together, but not call it marriage because that puts them in the position of a Christian couple? As a couple bonded together in a holy unity? Do people still view it that way?


Nope, you've got me completely wrong.

I once again state that being gay and a christian is absolutely fine, yet the religion was built up and centered around -hetorosexuality-. It's a 2000 year old religion for the third damned time, 'marriage' as a word doesn't in my opinion fit with everybody because of that sole reason. You cannot change a religion because of the modern age we live in, that defeats the purpose of a religion.

Gay people may form bonds in a christian setting if they wish to, but I believe they should get a civil partnership instead of a marriage as it's incredibly flawed otherwise. You can still have a holy unity if you're faithful and blessed, right?

Please read over my last paragraph over once again, I think you may've missed a few points. However this is my opinion, I respect yours whatever it may be. Probably the opposite.




I still don't get it. Last time I checked, atheists were getting married as well. Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with religion anymore. Those days are long gone. Many people want to marry because it's much more formal than just filing for civil partnership...
Besides, marriage has a lot of romanticism to it. Surely you don't think the reason little girls dream of their wedding day is for religious reasons?

9262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/9/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PepperKillsPepsi wrote:


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.


Well then if you are agnostic, how can you support the church and not secularization?



It's not like I support the church in a way that I believe it is the right thing to do. Infact, I believe the church has some very old values that we would be better without. However, a persons religion is their choice and a form of identity and part of religion is what you could say.. made us who we are today.

I would prefer secularization then a society build around a church. I don't really know how to say it well, but try to see it like this:

It's like someone going to a gay bar but not being gay, although having an interest in gay people and what they do etc and believe it to be a nice way of life. This person gets interested more and more into the gay bar and slowly the population of straight people in this gay bar increases. This gay bar has been up for ages and has always been gay, and now due to the increase of straight people in the gay people, they start demanding it to be just a bar.

It's not like I support this - i'm just trying to say it for how it is. The owners of this gay bar may prefer it to remain gay and not having hetrosexual people too and are finding issues with accepting the presence of this new population of straight people in the bar. They are basically having a hard time growing out of this and the introduction to a new, more advanced and diverse society. I think this is the issue the church are in at the moment, however the church is slightly different in the way that it is ALOT more difficult to change due to its 2000 year old history. Homos have only been accepted for 40 years or so, so it's a difficult matter for the church. I think in time the church may learn to accept gay marriage, yet if it's not in the bible..

.. well, it's not in the bible. There's no changing that now.


I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't belive that's a fair way to look at it.
First if all, a gay bar is a social gathering spot tailored and marketed to homosexuals specificly.
And these places are far more uncommon than regular bars, so unless they're planning on getting involved with the gay community, straight people have no business being there, and should respect the ones that go there by not butting in there.

Fact is, there is not ONE single law in society today that disfavor straight people and their right. There are plenty of laws disfavoring gay people, and from an ethical stand, and in a society that strives for equality, that is just not acceptable.
People and socuety should not have to bend or be hindered from evolving in order to fit the ways of the olden days of religion. That already happened once, and it set us back 600 of development. We could've been exploring the stars by now, had it not been for religion hindering development. We must not allow that to happen again. We must not allow history to repeat itself. To that, I'm sure you agree.

And while it may not be happening in the same extreme scale ad it did back then, it is still happening today. Only in a smaller scale. It's religion that must change alongside society. Not the other way around.


Well, hey, maybe you're right with that using a gay bar wasn't really the best of things I could've used to compare my argument with religion. I, personally believe that religion will die out sooner or later and that we should create an alternative to marriage. Some form a bonding which is more then 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'partner' so that 'marriage' does not have to be christian or old valued.

If I was a homosexual who wanted a bond, I'd rather get some form a civil partnership with my partner rather then a marriage. Why? Because I believe Christianity to be very flawed, as well as I wouldn't be able to get the whole 'gay marriage' subject off my head and what other Christians thought of me when I went to church. This isn't me changing myself for others, it's merely a sense of self continence which I have all too much of. I wouldn't like to sit in a church with everyone mutting under their breath "hey, he's the gay guy" or anything like that. This is pretty much why i'm not a christian anyway, I just can't stand that stuff.

I think that modern gay people do not really 'fit' in the old, traditional Christianity marriage. It's like putting a plasma gun in a medieval setting.

Now that's how I see it anyway. As far as i'm aware, gay people can be wed if they want to, it doesn't really effect my life in the slightest and if they're happy then that's fine for them. It's just if I was christian and gay i'd wear a ring and get myself a civil partnership, not a marriage as i'd see myself beyond the old values of marriage. You don't have to be married to have a bond is what i'm trying to point out. You can have something equally as good as marriage just called something else. Hell, you could have a big party for the civil partnership as far as i'm aware. I just see it as like comparing quorn meat to real meat, still meat just different type. Still marriage just a different type.


So if I understand you correctly, you think they should be allowed to be together, but not call it marriage because that puts them in the position of a Christian couple? As a couple bonded together in a holy unity? Do people still view it that way?


Nope, you've got me completely wrong.

I once again state that being gay and a christian is absolutely fine, yet the religion was built up and centered around -hetorosexuality-. It's a 2000 year old religion for the third damned time, 'marriage' as a word doesn't in my opinion fit with everybody because of that sole reason. You cannot change a religion because of the modern age we live in, that defeats the purpose of a religion.

Gay people may form bonds in a christian setting if they wish to, but I believe they should get a civil partnership instead of a marriage as it's incredibly flawed otherwise. You can still have a holy unity if you're faithful and blessed, right?

Please read over my last paragraph over once again, I think you may've missed a few points. However this is my opinion, I respect yours whatever it may be. Probably the opposite.




I still don't get it. Last time I checked, atheists were getting married as well. Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with religion anymore. Those days are long gone. Many people want to marry because it's much more formal than just filing for civil partnership...
Besides, marriage has a lot of romanticism to it. Surely you don't think the reason little girls dream of their wedding day is for religious reasons?



I suppose it's kind of an 'area thing'. Where I live, Marriage is more of a christian thing which atheists don't really tend to do so I guess my view has been shaped around that.

If you're getting married and you're homosexual, however, you're not really doing it for the christian stuff and merely want some kind of bond.. well, I don't really see a problem with that I guess if it's some kind of dream you've had since you was young. I was more looking towards the religion and how it is accepting gay marriages rather then 'what people do anyway'.

Posted 1/24/12


I removed all of my old quotes to make this shorter, and ommitted a few things.


Syndicaidramon wrote: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...



As you say, in the days before the UN, or in places where homosexuality is punished severly, you do not believe those things are right from a moral or ethical pov. I've heard plenty of people say morals and ethics come from the authority of a certain population, not God, so homosexuality in some areas is wrong and in other areas it isnt. I cant look at it that way, since it is always wrong, but you disagree with it being wrong in some, and okay in others. You believe it is always 'okay'. So, according to societies that punish gays, they are justified when they do so, and we have no right to prevent them from practicing their punishing even if we believe punishment is wrong. Therefore we cannot declare to them "you're wrong stop that, we believe punishing homosexuals is wrong, and we will stop you because we disagree" because that would be out of character since seperate societies have different beliefs and that contradicts a society that believes rights and morals come from a society. To conclude that, we are not justified in any case when we provide aid to people oppressed in a cruel regime. A good example is of the jews in WW2 concentration/death camps. We were not right to help them if morals and ethics were purely subject to societes, such as the nazi empiric society. So, if you believe it's wrong, then that's just a personal belief that you and others share, and a belief others may not share.
I also dont believe the number of people who believe in something makes it greater. That's reminds me of Noah. He believed the world would flood, God told him so. At that time, the world was evil, and corrupt. People worshipped false gods, and were fornicating in the streets, killing babies... it was just him and a few others that believed in the one true God. The rest of the world did not. If that huge mass of people, almost all of them believed in the 10 horned dragon God, that would not make it true, or right. If they all believed homosexuality was a great quality in people, that would not make it good, that would simply mean, a majority of people, or people in power believed it's good. To conclude the issue of what defines right and wrong, we cannot look to people to tell us what right and wrong is. People are not perfect, they are the opposite of perfect. Imperfect beings making imperfect laws, morals, they are indefinite, and wrong in many cases. When people do not look to God's word for these things, they look to themselves thinking they're gods. They might as well be nihilists/ antirealists, instead of being urged by their feelings and emotions.




Syndicaidramon wrote:then why should we at least not, from an ethical point of view, wish them to live as happily as they can now?
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?
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.


The thing is, I get what you mean, but that kind of thinking is wrong. I dont not wish happiness for people for doing something that is wrong. I understand people get happy off of drugs, but that's bad for them. Just like porn, and homosexuality. It's bad for the soul, even if you dont believe they have souls. It has less to do with happiness, and more to do with why they are happy. Watch porn makes people 'happy' but I dont wish they'd watch more porn. I'd rather have them be happy without it. For me, God comes before my own selfish happiness. I already have the joy that comes from the Lord, so I dont need to let myself sink into the worldy idea of happiness that comes from sin. Here's a question for you, if you were me, a christian, wouldn't you want to introduce people to the Lord, or would you deny them the grace of God and let them, the blind, the ones who believe thier sins are good, walk into the pit? I'm betting you'd tell them to open thier eyes, and say "hey, the lord is that way".

A few other things: A secular nation, is not an athiest nation. The government has already started teaching kids in school of homosexual rights. That is biased. From what I can tell, you're saying there might or might not be a God, but since we cant prove that there is one, we'll act like there isnt one, and we'll base our laws on our own 'imperfect, and corrupt logic'. On the otherhand, people do believe in God, and the way I see it, God does exist, and we should shape our laws around his logic. Im not too sure which country you're from, but in the US, laws were based around Judeo-Christian principles. I also believe a person at the constitutional convention stated, the first amendment was not to prevent religiously based ideas in govt, but to implement tolerace in order to preserve peace.



Syndicaidramon wroteSexual 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...


As I've said before, just because it's normal doesnt mean it's good, or even okay. My Heavenly Father would probably say, " that's called being lost to the world". BTW, when Jesus died for us, in our place, we were forgiven. He payed the price for us, and we can now called God, our Father.
He isnt just our Saviour, He's our Lord. When you accept him as your saviour, you also accept him as the Lord. A lot of people dont know this but, he is the sheppard, the Lord of our lives. We have to follow him. He is the one that leads of away from hell.
You see, I have to put happiness aside for the Lord. I dont want anyone to go to hell, because I love them, meaning, I care.


Syndicaidramon wrote...is that no one is "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.

Well, there is a point. I dont believe I can convert people. That's the holy spirit. We might not always be vitorious, but we do always get a foothold. I'd say your just wrong about people believing in christ. Some poeople get introduced to him through the internet. Satan is on the internet all the time.
The Lord is there too, silencing the trolls, with his awesome powers of conviction, forgivness, and change.
I know a guy who knows a guy who knows what I'm talking about: shockofgod... I think he knows a lot more on that specific subject, and he knows lots of people who freinded Christ on Facebook. You're probably not interested but he's on YouTube, he usually has a chat where he answers questions for people who dont read the bible. shockawenow.net http://www.gvolive.com/conference,89538844
There's also this I found, about humanism and christianity:http://www.aboundingjoy.com/humanism_chart.htm

yes, i know, this was a late reply
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/25/12

KnightofMayhem


Syndicaidramon wrote:then why should we at least not, from an ethical point of view, wish them to live as happily as they can now?
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?
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.


The thing is, I get what you mean, but that kind of thinking is wrong. I dont not wish happiness for people for doing something that is wrong. I understand people get happy off of drugs, but that's bad for them. Just like porn, and homosexuality. It's bad for the soul, even if you dont believe they have souls. It has less to do with happiness, and more to do with why they are happy. Watch porn makes people 'happy' but I dont wish they'd watch more porn. I'd rather have them be happy without it. For me, God comes before my own selfish happiness. I already have the joy that comes from the Lord, so I dont need to let myself sink into the worldy idea of happiness that comes from sin. Here's a question for you, if you were me, a christian, wouldn't you want to introduce people to the Lord, or would you deny them the grace of God and let them, the blind, the ones who believe thier sins are good, walk into the pit? I'm betting you'd tell them to open thier eyes, and say "hey, the lord is that way".


I WOULD indeed want to introduce people to the Lord if I were in your shoes.
However, if they said "no" and made it clear to me that they did not want anything to do with it, I would say "okay, have a nice day" and let them go about their business.
If they had made it clear and are determined to not wanting anything to do with christianity, then there's nothing I could've done to change that. And if they're not gonna follow the Lord no matter what, I would've wished for them to live as happily as they could in this life at least.

Or what do you say?


KnightofMayhem
A few other things: A secular nation, is not an athiest nation. The government has already started teaching kids in school of homosexual rights. That is biased. From what I can tell, you're saying there might or might not be a God, but since we cant prove that there is one, we'll act like there isnt one, and we'll base our laws on our own 'imperfect, and corrupt logic'. On the otherhand, people do believe in God, and the way I see it, God does exist, and we should shape our laws around his logic. Im not too sure which country you're from, but in the US, laws were based around Judeo-Christian principles. I also believe a person at the constitutional convention stated, the first amendment was not to prevent religiously based ideas in govt, but to implement tolerace in order to preserve peace.


Absolutely not!
And I'm gonna ask you, can you think of a reason as to WHY I disagree with you on that?



KnightofMayhem

Syndicaidramon wroteSexual 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...


As I've said before, just because it's normal doesnt mean it's good, or even okay. My Heavenly Father would probably say, " that's called being lost to the world".


I really don't think you have a solid argument about that.
It's not like children exploring their sexuality is something that has come only recently.
Children are not influenced by the modern media or the ways of the world. They don't pay attention to any of that stuff.
Sexual exploration is something that comes naturally to all children. And that has been the case since forever. Because it is natural.



KnightofMayhem
BTW, when Jesus died for us, in our place, we were forgiven. He payed the price for us.

I've always wondered about this.
If he died for our sins... if our sins were forgiven by his sacrifice...
Why are we still going to hell? If the outcome of being a sinner that doesn't follow God is the exact same as before he died for us, then his sacrifice seems rather useless to me...





KnightofMayhem
BTW, when Jesus died for us, in our place, we were forgiven. He payed the price for us, and we can now called God, our Father.
He isnt just our Saviour, He's our Lord. When you accept him as your saviour, you also accept him as the Lord. A lot of people dont know this but, he is the sheppard, the Lord of our lives. We have to follow him.


So what about his good ol' father, Jehovah? What about him? What position does he hold if he is no longer God?


Posted 1/26/12


You can't just wish them to be happy. I'd wish them salvation.
Porn isnt the same thing as being curious. It can become obsessive and destructive. I know from experience. I know some people who dont even think it's wrong, and that is quite sad. Man is a sinner, that is normal, but it doesnt mean it's good. Perversion leads to many things. Beastialty, homosexuality, pedophilia...

John 10:30 I and the father are one.
They are God, son, father, holy spirit.

in order to be saved, believe in him, and follow him. be born again
44348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / New Ameri...
Offline
Posted 1/26/12 , edited 1/26/12
Knight of Mayhem, you define a person without God as...
Someone who refuses to accept His existence

But generally don't define someone with God as...
Someone who refuses to accept god doesn't exist.

Right?

So let me ask you this. Does the condescending side of it become apparent when you realize...
Non-believers define themselves as...
Someone who refuses to accept God's existence,

and ALWAYS define believers as...
Someone who refuses to accept god doesn't exist?


Sooo... the point of that question was to clarify that the "matter of factly" way Christians typically speak of extending their compassion to "save" others is actually quite off-putting to current non-believers. Which is why you experience so little success with it, and that is only 1st base if you are trying to tell someone their sexual interests, orientation or self-identified sexuality is somehow wrong, a "sin" or perverted. That would be Home Run if you did that, except you've shown up to the game with a hockey stick instead of a baseball bat. Ooops!



1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 1/26/12 , edited 1/26/12

KnightofMayhem wrote:



You can't just wish them to be happy. I'd wish them salvation.
Porn isnt the same thing as being curious. It can become obsessive and destructive. I know from experience. I know some people who dont even think it's wrong, and that is quite sad. Man is a sinner, that is normal, but it doesnt mean it's good. Perversion leads to many things. Beastialty, homosexuality, pedophilia...

John 10:30 I and the father are one.
They are God, son, father, holy spirit.

in order to be saved, believe in him, and follow him. be born again


Why do Christians always tie homosexuality and sex together? Is is that important that Christians know what two people are doing in their bedrooms? That's some perverted shit.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 1/27/12
Has anyone trotted this one out for the 'Against god's will' crowd?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
Posted 1/27/12

angrierchick wrote:


KnightofMayhem wrote:



You can't just wish them to be happy. I'd wish them salvation.
Porn isnt the same thing as being curious. It can become obsessive and destructive. I know from experience. I know some people who dont even think it's wrong, and that is quite sad. Man is a sinner, that is normal, but it doesnt mean it's good. Perversion leads to many things. Beastialty, homosexuality, pedophilia...

John 10:30 I and the father are one.
They are God, son, father, holy spirit.

in order to be saved, believe in him, and follow him. be born again


Why do Christians always tie homosexuality and sex together? Is is that important that Christians know what two people are doing in their bedrooms? That's some perverted shit.


...if I'm not mistaken, am I, a Christian, allowed to post things on CR forums about Gay Marriage? Even if I do believe they are true? Can Christians speak without being attacked? From your reply, I could tell you were probably trying to intentionally trying to offend me, and or spread a negative message about Christians...
I get mad sometimes, I say things I wish I could take back. One time, I said something about the bible and I was half wrong about it because I was confused about the difference between the law the Jewish government at the time, the commandments... it was in a Christian chatroom, too many people at once, including atheists, muslims. One guy, taking some words I said, pairing them with responses to other people about the relationship of man and woman, then he said, for some random reason, “that means you're allowed to kill God.” At times I think I'm a super-bible-know-it-all-expert, but I'm not, and I’m not the best speaker. Someone came to the conclusion that I hated Asian people. Here’s some unrelated stuff you can read:

Hey, I'm not perfect okay. I used to watch porn. I've been tempted to go back to it on bad days sometimes, even though I know it's wrong. It twisted my thinking, and now that I look back at what I used to be, I'm quite sickened, but I'm glad and joyful to know I'm going to heaven.
To answer your questions, "Why do Christians always tie homosexuality and sex together?" The two things are related, let me elaborate.

Well, sex, isn’t at all a bad thing. My parents had sex, and they made me. I assume you had parents that had sex as well, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe, a homosexual lifestyle is perverse; it's sinful, like how I used to watch porn, pretty much the same. So you could say I was as sick, as a homosexual, who is indeed a sinner. I'm still a sinner, but I've found redemption in Christ. I turned away from my sins and I'm glad to be alive. No, I don’t think Christians should know what two, or three, men, and/or women are doing in their bedrooms. They should have privacy and they should not spread it all over the internet or make huge giant parades in San Fransico. I know it was my choice to look those things up (porn), many times, and I was tempted, and I fell into temptation. I was as guilty of sin as much as the people in those destructive videos. Kind of like how the drug demand in the US has a direct connection to the drug wars, and cartels, along with murder, south of our border. Yes, they way you described it, "Christians trying to know exactly what two people are doing in their bedrooms" is perverted shit, right? That's not the same thing as saying a homosexual lifestyle, as well as any perverse lifestyle in general is sinful. I believe they need to know what I know, or at least hear it. My own uncle died, he was gay, and he was in the military. He died, he was shoot by his gayfriend who was drunk, His friend killed himself. I don’t want to say he was hell bound or his friend. I'm not the judge of that, and I'd like to say they went to heaven.
I'm not sure if you hate Christians, or hate our belief in God, or hate the God that is mentioned in the Bible, or just hate the idea. I don’t know if you believe in redemption through Christ, but you... can have it too.

Why dont you just tell me what's wrong with me? With reasons attached if you dont mind, since (hulk voice) "me, no, un-der-STAN, uh, tings bery wall" Why can't we do this without trying to burn eachother? I'm guilty of playing with fire, I bet if you see some older stuff I posted, you'll see some pretty rude comments, where I intentionally try to WIN, and make people feel like like shit, for the sake of winning.

Edit: I'm sorry if you're offended if you find some things that I believe offensive, but I'm not sorry I said them. For all of the parts where I intentionally meaninglessly try to make you feel bad, I'm the asshole, especially if I try to make myself sound smart while being an ass. I still have an anger problem which results in me being stupid. I'm not even a good apologist, I think I suck at it.

One more thing, this christian a'int afriad to kill a man to defend his life.
Too many people, including christians, think 'thou shalt not kill' means, you cant kill, anyone... if you took that literally it would mean, you cant kill, any living thing, including ants. it's actually thou shalt not murder, which is true. You can kill animals for food, kill a plant, kill bugs... kill a murderer, or kill serial rapist.
I see things with ChristLight, meaning, I dont have a secular humanist view. That means I'll be bombarded with attacks from secular humanists. Not saying, you are one. So, that's pretty much all I can think of saying right now. What can you do? What can I do? I can try...

Yes, I know I was off topic on serval occasions. I have too much time on my hands, and I need to get a job. I'm thinking of becoming a Starbucks Barista. (i bet the part where I say, i can try, kinda confused/or threw you off a bit) Peace be with you, I wish you the best. No.... I pray for you to have the best. meaning having everlasting life, if you want... but you dont have to if you feel like that's too much, but I'm guessing you do want everlasting life, so... goodluck with that... no, wait, christians dont believe in luck... uh... Godspeed!

Peace
First  Prev  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.