|
On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting.
Not really non-religious people could just as easily claim 'marriage' for their own and tell religious people to find their own word for it. The word marriage had no significant tie to religion at one point in time, it's just another word Christians dusted off and claimed for their own.
|
On July 28 2012 10:53 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting. Not really non-religious people could just as easily claim 'marriage' for their own and tell religious people to find their own word for it. The word marriage had no significant tie to religion at one point in time, it's just another word Christians dusted off and claimed for their own.
I'm not doubting you, just wondering if you happen to have some sourcing for this within quick reach of memory. No biggy if not
|
On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. Show nested quote +fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia
The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery.
Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior.
...research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
|
On July 28 2012 11:07 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior.
Not that I care either way of these gay vs religion arguments lately. I would like to say this though. What if god doesn't exist? And the animals in nature that are gay are just a product of genetic defects?
|
On July 28 2012 04:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. That's a no true scotsman fallacy. You're not a true christian according to the more crazy ones, that's not useful. It's easy to make yourself look good if you deny that there are bad apples in your camp. But no, bad Christians exist, good Christians exist, you don't get to pick and choose which ones are Christians - they believe in your God and interpret the scripture in their own way. And sometimes, that means hatred of gay people. That's just how it is.
Why do you equate not agreeing with gay people being able to get married legally with HATRED OF GAY PEOPLE? Christians are also generally against divorce. But does that mean they hate people who have gotten divorced? Christians are also generally against any kind of sexual immorality. Does that mean they hate all people? Because no one is beyond sexual temptation.
Sure there are always radicals, as you said. But what is radical about what CFA did? The fact is Christians believe what they believe. You want freedom of speech only when you like what you hear but are not willing to hear what someone else has to hear (a la Bloomberg's statement)? How fucking ridiculously hypocritical is that shit?
If you're pro-gay marriage, pro whatever-the-fuck-you-want, go lobby for it. That's what the government is for. But don't be fucking surprised if someone else opposes you and tries to lobby against it. Or God forbid (see what I did thur) some chicken mogul guy decides to finally confirm what should've been obvious as fuck. If Christians, or any religion for that matter, decides to lobby for gays not being able to vote at all or something crazy like that, then maybe you should get mad. But when they are just practicing what you're crying about -- freedom of speech -- *shrug* I don't even know how dumb that is.
I basically see all this cry-baby non-sense as "they're doing what we're doing so let's cry about it and discriminate against them instead."
BTW, I am not a "Christian"; not everyone who is anti-gay marriage or a bigot or a hater or whatever you like to call it is a "Christian." I know of even gay people who think it's ridiculous to legalize gay marriage.
|
On July 28 2012 11:07 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Show nested quote +...research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.
racist is not the same as xenophobic
|
On July 28 2012 11:10 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:07 overt wrote:On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Not that I care either way of these gay vs religion arguments lately. I would like to say this though. What if god doesn't exist? And the animals in nature that are gay are just a product of genetic defects?
That's cool. But why are we putting down humans for genetic defects? If homosexuality is a genetic defect (I don't believe it is at all) then why would we discriminate against humans with a genetic defect when there is nothing else "wrong" with them. Gay people are not any less capable of holding down a job, expressing love, writing, art, or anything else essential to being 'human.'
What would even be the point to deny gay people the same rights of straight people in your scenario?
On July 28 2012 11:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:07 overt wrote:On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. ...research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. racist is not the same as xenophobic
And yet xenophobia in the Bible is often used to justify racism throughout history. I don't see your point.
I mean the very notion of "gentiles" in Judaism is xenophobic as fuck.
|
On July 28 2012 11:05 Lumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 10:53 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting. Not really non-religious people could just as easily claim 'marriage' for their own and tell religious people to find their own word for it. The word marriage had no significant tie to religion at one point in time, it's just another word Christians dusted off and claimed for their own. I'm not doubting you, just wondering if you happen to have some sourcing for this within quick reach of memory. No biggy if not
"From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.[54] However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[55]"
In b4 "OMG WIKIPEDIA U NO SOURCE", sources can be found at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage.
|
On July 28 2012 11:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:07 overt wrote:On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. ...research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. racist is not the same as xenophobic
I googled Racial Phobia and you'll never guess what the first result was.
|
On July 28 2012 11:16 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:05 Lumi wrote:On July 28 2012 10:53 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 03:44 Jisall wrote:
In return i don't understand why people are making such a big deal about having "marriage" written on a paper. Get a domestic partnership written on a paper. You could call it a protest or better then a marriage, it doesn't matter to me. Stepping on religious traditions for a word choice is what is upsetting. Not really non-religious people could just as easily claim 'marriage' for their own and tell religious people to find their own word for it. The word marriage had no significant tie to religion at one point in time, it's just another word Christians dusted off and claimed for their own. I'm not doubting you, just wondering if you happen to have some sourcing for this within quick reach of memory. No biggy if not "From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.[54] However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."[55]" In b4 "OMG WIKIPEDIA U NO SOURCE", sources can be found at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage.
Sweet, thanks
|
care to share some of these xenophobic passages? people keep saying it, but it appears you guys just dont know how to use the word correctly. the bible contains homophobia for sure, it contains racism for sure, but xenophobia i have not seen.
|
On July 28 2012 11:14 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:10 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:07 overt wrote:On July 28 2012 10:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 28 2012 10:16 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 10:13 dAPhREAk wrote:
you should say homophobia. No I shouldn't. Xenophobia was used correctly, both in being specific to hatred of gays and to the broader use of the Bible to hate anything different (which is the premise of the post I was responding to). You latched onto a word just to be pedantic about semantics and you're not even really right to be so. you used the term incorrectly, and you're being incredibly over-inclusive, which does not seem to be your intent. the bible certainly promotes homophobia, it does not promote xenophobia--indeed, quite to the contrary, most religious institutions promote missionary work that is anti-xenophobic. fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/xenophobia The Old Testament is incredibly xenophobic and Old Testament passages were used to deny blacks civil rights and prevent interracial marriage. I don't think it's incorrect at all to say the Bible is xenophobic. I think even the most fanatical and conservative Biblical scholars will agree that the Bible is xenophobic but they'll try to justify it one way or another. Or else claim that we cannot understand why God did what he did. I mean, God kills off entire tribes because they aren't Jewish and forbids the Jews from marrying with other peoples. These xenophobic passages were used to view blacks as inferior and justify slavery. Homosexuality is rampant in nature. If God hates homosexuality so much and it's so wrong then he did a really shit job designing everyone. Tons of animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Not that I care either way of these gay vs religion arguments lately. I would like to say this though. What if god doesn't exist? And the animals in nature that are gay are just a product of genetic defects? That's cool. But why are we putting down humans for genetic defects? If homosexuality is a genetic defect (I don't believe it is at all) then why would we discriminate against humans with a genetic defect when there is nothing else "wrong" with them. Gay people are not any less capable of holding down a job, expressing love, writing, art, or anything else essential to being 'human.' What would even be the point to deny gay people the same rights of straight people in your scenario?
I was just throwing out ideas ^^ on the topic though I would believe that I wouldn't want to allow specific people with genetic defects to marry. Most of them would be in the neurological areas. I am unsure of how I feel about gay marriage, I do know both sides fight hard for what each believes is right and wrong.
However though haven't the first steps through history always been fighting for near equal rights or one step closer to equality in life and then trying to upgrade to the whole package as the whole world never seemed to be ready to just completely change? I would find it silly to expect to turn everyone's eyes on how they feel about this and just settle for a domestic marriage or something close and then in the future inch your way forward. It's easier to accept and approve smaller steps then larger.
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there.
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem.
If, however, The Home Depot, Starbucks, Pepsi, and Frito Lay (none of which just stands for coffee, tools, soda...) were all banned from London for being pro-political in the same manner (which I find unlikely, but that's the bias of our time, and they all donate much more than chick fil a in support) you would see it as a hilarious outrage. My hometown didn't ban In-N-Out, and I live in Palm Springs.
Thank God for that, most locals would say  . They have John 3:16 under every cup. Problem with too many Christians is they hate people for what they do rather than reasoning with people peacefully like the Bible commands- "speak the truth in love"- so... Hate crime from Christians is also hypocrisy. Fwiw.
And fwiw, not everything any gay calls hate crime is actually hate crime.
Such a dumb issue.
|
On July 28 2012 11:19 dAPhREAk wrote:
care to share some of these xenophobic passages? people keep saying it, but it appears you guys just dont know how to use the word correctly. the bible contains homophobia for sure, it contains racism for sure, but xenophobia i have not seen.
No passage will outright say "Hate people if they are different from you in appearance, culture, or nature in a way you deem strange," but passages that say to hate people for being gay, or for eating gross things like shellfish, or for wearing clothes god hates because they're mixed are all things xenophobes can use as ways to hate people different and strange from them. Saying that Jesus is the one true son of god and the one true savior let's people latch onto that to hate Muslims for being Muslim, even if the Bible outright says not to hate people for not accepting Christ. The interpretation is the problem, not specifically the passages themselves, as they're just your bog standard arbitrary nonsense mythology.
I think the problem you're having is you think Xenophobia is only "hatred and fear of foreigners," when that's not the case.
|
On July 28 2012 11:19 dAPhREAk wrote:
care to share some of these xenophobic passages? people keep saying it, but it appears you guys just dont know how to use the word correctly. the bible contains homophobia for sure, it contains racism for sure, but xenophobia i have not seen.
The entire Old Testament, where the Jews are murdering and raping and pillaging entire civilizations simply because they are different. And all of this is ordained by God. Read Numbers or Deuteronomy.
I mean, the term Gentiles just means foreigners. It was everyone who wasn't Jewish in the Bible. And the Jews didn't like the gentiles. Even Jesus tells his disciples not to enter the Gentile cities (Matthew 10:5).
|
On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there.
Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all.
|
On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all.
I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce?
|
On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce?
How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction?
|
On July 28 2012 11:13 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 04:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:38 jacosajh wrote:On July 28 2012 02:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote:On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote:On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote:
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread.
My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. So basically you have a problem with people who call themselves Christians but really aren't? Real Christians have a problem with them too. That's a no true scotsman fallacy. You're not a true christian according to the more crazy ones, that's not useful. It's easy to make yourself look good if you deny that there are bad apples in your camp. But no, bad Christians exist, good Christians exist, you don't get to pick and choose which ones are Christians - they believe in your God and interpret the scripture in their own way. And sometimes, that means hatred of gay people. That's just how it is. Why do you equate not agreeing with gay people being able to get married legally with HATRED OF GAY PEOPLE? Christians are also generally against divorce. But does that mean they hate people who have gotten divorced? Christians are also generally against any kind of sexual immorality. Does that mean they hate all people? Because no one is beyond sexual temptation. Sure there are always radicals, as you said. But what is radical about what CFA did? The fact is Christians believe what they believe. You want freedom of speech only when you like what you hear but are not willing to hear what someone else has to hear (a la Bloomberg's statement)? How fucking ridiculously hypocritical is that shit? If you're pro-gay marriage, pro whatever-the-fuck-you-want, go lobby for it. That's what the government is for. But don't be fucking surprised if someone else opposes you and tries to lobby for it too. Or God forbid (see what I did thur) some chicken mogul guy decides to finally confirm what should've been obvious as fuck. If Christians, or any religion for that matter, decides to lobby for gays not being able to vote at all or something crazy like that, then maybe you should get mad. But when they are just practicing what you're crying about -- freedom of speech -- *shrug* I don't even know how dumb that is. I basically see all this cry-baby non-sense as "they're doing what we're doing so let's cry about it and discriminate against them instead."
1- You said that I equate "being against gay marriage" to "hatred of homosexuals". Maybe it came off like that - and hatred is a strong word. But I'd definitely say that being against gay marriage is disrespectful and unfair. Being disrespectful and unfair is alright sometimes, when there's something to gain out of it. However now, they're just disrespectful and unfair over some bullshit semantics.
2- I'm not really sure that the government should fiddle with that shit as it is. Their CEO is a dick, oh well. So the rant in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs don't really apply. Especially where you suggested that I was "crying". The hell was that?
BTW, I am not a "Christian"; not everyone who is anti-gay marriage or a bigot or a hater or whatever you like to call it is a "Christian." I know of even gay people who think it's ridiculous to legalize gay marriage.
I'd argue that everyone who is anti gay marriage and cares enough to express that opinion is misguided. And as individuals, they're taking a very powerful stance against a very mundane equality issue. I couldn't give less of a fuck about marriage, but it bothers me that people are willing to put so much time and effort to keep others from something that they want. Why do people work so fucking hard to grief people who want something so simple and inconsequential?
And I know of white men who are so deep into feminism that they hate themselves for being white men, and go so far as to say that "the human brain is a female brain that has been damaged by testosterone". So that was kind of like the "I have black friends" token you used there.
|
On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce?
Having bad eye sight is not good for evolution either. Doesn't mean we should kill off or subjugate or oppress everyone who has poor eye sight.
Evolution seeks to transmit the best traits to the next generation. This happens because the creatures with the bad traits do not survive as well as the creatures with the good traits and as such creatures with good traits reproduce more and the species is kept alive by bad traits going away and good traits flourishing.
Being gay isn't a negative trait though. It doesn't effect an individuals chances of survival in the wild nearly as much as poor eye sight does.
edit:
And, because I think I missed my point, humans don't even live in the wild. Most of us live in what might as well be described as a controlled environment. Being gay or bad eye sight or brown hair isn't going to make us prey nor is it going to shorten our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
