If people want to use religious beliefs to justify discrimination and oppression, then they should expect those beliefs to be examined and criticized. To insist otherwise is absurd. Under the constitution you have the right to freedom of religion. You don't have the right to be free of criticism for your beliefs and actions. The problem I find with many Christians is that they've used their majority status to push their beliefs on others for so long, they've come to think they're entitled to do it. They're not and they never have been. Now that the groups that they've oppressed are fighting back and demanding their rights, many Christians want claim they're being persecuted and having their freedoms taken away. They aren't. They've merely confused their freedom of religion with the ability to push their views on everyone else. The most curious thing I find about it is that many of these religious persons fail to see the hypocrisy in their actions. They loudly complain about losing their rights and freedoms while actively trying to deny others their rights. They also seem confused about their religion and what it's about. As Christians, they're supposed to be following the teachings of Christ. Christ spent a great deal of time feeding the poor, healing the sick, and preaching that everyone should love their neighbors as they love themselves. Christ spent zero time persecuting homosexuals. In fact, Christ never said a single word about them. Why so many Christians spend so much time and effort on issues that Christ himself wasn't concerned about, while ignoring the main teachings of Christ is beyond me. I can only surmise it's a lot less about religion and a lot more about simply being bigots.
Allow me to make it clearer for you. The ones whom were making jokes about repenting and punishment - The ones I referring to as taking pot shots The one whom are not - I was not referring to you. Thus, I was not referring to you. I have never said I disagree with the supporters arguments. In a previous post, I have even said I support civil union for all. All I was trying to tell you is that this is why the bible is incomplete. Because five people can read it and pull five different answers out of it. Question the bible all you want. You will not get the same answer each time. That is why there is no unity among the Christian religion on this. I was just informing you that this is the fault of the religion. If you can't see where I am somewhat agreeing with you, welll..... And you answered the wrong question again. Allow me to put it in Bold/Italicize and underline it for you: The real question I want to know is how will the LGBT community react if it gets shot down? Thoughts? Those type of Christians are called, "Christias" in my neck of the woods. They sit in church every sunday and know what others should be doing. They think they are holier than thou. When in all cases, isn't true. Sadly, they are the face of the religion.
I say yes, but I really hate all those people that go around wearing rainbow flags and acting super gay and ****, saying" give us rights we're important." I respect the quiet gay people that just want to get married.
A bit off topic, but... Why are homosexuals called "gay," if that term means... Ohhh, it's because they're actually happy, isn't it?
I did some research on this a long time ago and it turns out that gay has meant homosexual longer than it has meant happy. I dont remember how it became happy but it has been used for homosexual for longer @Black_Dragon I completely agree with what you're saying <3 preech on brother
Sadly, I think you're right. I think both Islam and Christianity are being hijacked by extremists. And I don't see it stopping until moderates start kicking the extremists to the curb and disavowing them, loudly.
I can agree with that statement. In fact I think it is generally understood that it is just those people that spout the arbitrary verses as their justification for hatred, especially here. Which is why the opposition to the cherry-picked verses are not attacks on religion itself.
I think you'd see what happened in Indiana happen on a wider scale. They'd start targeting States that prohibit gay marriage with economic boycotts and negative publicity campaigns. I don't think they're going to get shot down though. Legally, it's indefensible, and I don't think the Court wants to go on record as being on the wrong side of history.
It seems my posts just go over your head. That's what I'm basically saying besides the Potshot point. Allow me to explain that further for you: Your posts and Black-Dragons are examples of posts that aren't taking pot shots. Posts like the one Silverbullet and that vampire chick made are pot shots. Pot shots = Comments that are used to just take hits at something, but, not explaining why they feel it is a discrepancy. Do note, I will call BS on all sides of an argument. Don't assume I'm just staunchly a support or non-supporter. The question is within the OP. Allow me to explain that for you too. It is asking IF the supreme court shoots Same-Sex marriage down, how do you feel the LGBT will react? It's ok if you just choose not to answer. Just give me a better reason on why you don't.
That's actually one thing I don't like about the LGBT campaign. The economic boycotts and negativity campaigns. I feel like they try to bully people into helping them and if you don't, they shame you for being a bigot. But I doubt the SC will knock down aswell. Just a hypothetical
I think I read somewhere that people who engage in homosexual acts are more likely to get an STD than those who don't. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I also heard the average gay male lives to be about 45 or so, and if one engages in homosexual acts, studies show that he has a 2% chance of reaching the age of 60. I think I got the percentage wrong though. I'll edit it if I'm wrong. Just a thought. But live and let live, right?
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Look at Baltimore. Few in the media covered the protests until buildings started getting burned. Then it was 24/7 coverage nationwide. Meanwhile in Cleveland, 12 year old Tamir Rice was shot and killed 6 months ago by police, and the officers involved haven't even been questioned yet by investigators, let alone charged with anything. Hell, they couldn't even bury the kid until last week. To add insult to injury, the Rice family had to pay $75 per day to keep the body refrigerated all that time. You didn't hear anything about it on the news though, did you? How long do you think it would have taken to get things moving if people had started rioting and few buildings got burned down?
Is anyone going to answer my question? Why are the Amish allowed to marry their underage family members? They are in our country but are not forced to adhere to our laws.
Let's be frank about this post it's basically horse manure with a side of ignorance. Frank you've chucked a few numbers and sentences at forums and hoped to make a valid argument you'd have done better using crayons and the contents of your nose. Couple of questions .. What's a homosexual act ? Dancing in a pride parade ? Kissing someone of the same gender ? Wearing a pink triangle ? Flying the Rainbow flag ? Not sure how any of them lower life expectancy well unless the parade comes near some every so angry little homophobes. If you mean sodomy you'll find that happens in heterosexual relationships too and it's not a part of every homosexual relationship either. Guess who gets most STD's people who engage in unprotected intercourse with multiple partners your orientation doesn't matter. What's an average gay male ? And where is this average gay meant to be ?
It appears you are too myopic to understand what you are doing and saying. You characterized one whole side's arguments as "taking pot shots," thus attempting to delegitimize the actual arguments. That was incorrect, and I pointed it out. I am glad you are now limiting your previous statement to include only some posts and not others. However, if you truly would call BS on faulty arguments of any side, you would have said the same thing about many of the non-supporters' arguments. You didn't. You allowed one side (presumably the side you are on as per your stated position) to get away with all the hatred and "pot shots" they could muster, and chastised the other side for their use of the same or similar tactics. Worse, after the blatant mischaracterization, in which you conspired to assign a tepid victory to one side (the side whose rationalizations was foundering), you then attempted to end the conversation by switching the topic. I have no qualms about talking about your hypothetical (i think the real question is what will the non-supporters do if the Supreme Court declares equal rights for gay people). But I do take exception to your attempt at leaving the main discussion raised by the OP, as 'religion-haters' vs. 'people who aren't a unified group.'
As far as I know, they're required to follow the laws of the state they live in. I'm not aware of any exemptions for them regarding marriage laws.
Hello good sir. It seems you need further assistance. Here is the original statement I made: That is a direct quote. Then, I changed part of that here: That means I was not talking about ALL THE SUPPORTS. Is that clear? I even explained to you whom I was referring to and you're still unable to see what I'm talking about. In multiple posts. What more do you want? Do you want a mailed letter saying I didn't put one word in showing that I meant certain people and not all? Let me know. I have called BS on both sides. Pay close attention. I directly said the reason that there is no unity among the Christians. It is do to the many ways of interpretation. I haven't seen more than two people saying that on this thread. I don't see any pot shots from the chrisitan side. If I saw one, I would have mentioned it. How is a question, on the topic, about the topic, not on topic? If you had no qualms about it, you would have answered it like Black-Dragon did and we can move on with the conversation. yet, you want to use it as an arguing point. "How am I using it as a arguing point?" Because you keep saying I'm trying to throw the topic off, when really, if you can multitask, shouldn't be a problem. I don't recall labeling the discussion as that. Even though I typed this up for you, you'll probably ignore this and focus on something two pages back in which I said, "I should have put the word 'some.' Another problem with this debate is that it can't really be hashed out over the internet from my perspective. I dislike necessary evils. I didn't hear about that case though. I'm going to look into it.