Advertisement
by The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:42 am
by Deus Malum » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:46 am
BNPs Britain wrote:The Tofu Islands wrote:BNPs Britain wrote:aswell because you cant be gay and Christian that makes you a hypocrite.
Why?
You cant be gay and Christian and I cant stand how they love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, yet I have yet to meet one who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree. Their willful ignorance of the Bible combined with their two faced idealism to preach it, makes me sick. For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality, yet they are gay. They quote Jesus profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism. The problem with their approach lies not only in failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches. Gay Christians practice what can only be described as 'selective morality'. What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats and what they don’t like, they ignore. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all, while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself 'Christian' is in question.
by The Tofu Islands » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:49 am
Deus Malum wrote:So you don't wear clothing of mixed textiles, you don't eat shellfish or pork, and you stone unruly children to death? Or are you just as much of a hypocrite as the people you're speaking out against?
by Natural Law for All » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:51 am
by Deus Malum » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am
The Tofu Islands wrote:Deus Malum wrote:So you don't wear clothing of mixed textiles, you don't eat shellfish or pork, and you stone unruly children to death? Or are you just as much of a hypocrite as the people you're speaking out against?
Actually, wouldn't it be more of a hypocrite seeing as ey argues that we should obey all the rules?
by Enadail » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:57 am
Natural Law for All wrote:Marriage is a religious institution
Natural Law for All wrote:The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
Natural Law for All wrote:We have been conditioned to believe that if we want to do something, it is our RIGHT to do it. This is wholly untrue.
by The Cat-Tribe » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:58 am
Natural Law for All wrote:Okay, just to give my input AS a homosexual:
I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian Angelo-Catholic Christian homosexual male. I do not believe in federal legislation regulating marriage, either gay or straight. So yes, I am opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage," but I am also opposed to Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, it should be a decision of each respective religion whether or not they solemnize gay unions. Conversely, I believe that all consenting adult couples should be offered equal protections under the law in a civil agreement vis a vis our separation of church and state. The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
It is not homophobic to oppose gay marriage; it does not mean you HATE gay people. For too long, we have been the United States of the Offended and cannot fathom the thought that anyone believes in consequences and rules. We have been conditioned to believe that if we want to do something, it is our RIGHT to do it. This is wholly untrue.
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:58 am
Iron Chariots wrote:So if somebody said "I hate the KKK" or "people who support Segregation are fucking racists," would you feel the same way? Would you say that said people are intolerant cultists?
Iron Chariots wrote:If not, why the difference?
by The Tofu Islands » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:59 am
Natural Law for All wrote:Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, it should be a decision of each respective religion whether or not they solemnize gay unions.
Natural Law for All wrote:The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:00 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sorry, buds, but almost everyone that is a Christian is selective as to what parts of the Bible they feel need to be enforced or lived by. Believing in the main themes of Jesus's teachings and ignoring every petty rule of Leviticus doesn't make you a hypocrite or a bad Christian.
by Deus Malum » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:04 pm
DMistan wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sorry, buds, but almost everyone that is a Christian is selective as to what parts of the Bible they feel need to be enforced or lived by. Believing in the main themes of Jesus's teachings and ignoring every petty rule of Leviticus doesn't make you a hypocrite or a bad Christian.
I doubt they understand the context of the Book of the Levites. If they did, they would not be so eager to govern from it.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:07 pm
Natural Law for All wrote:Okay, just to give my input AS a homosexual:
I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian Angelo-Catholic Christian homosexual male. I do not believe in federal legislation regulating marriage, either gay or straight. So yes, I am opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage," but I am also opposed to Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, it should be a decision of each respective religion whether or not they solemnize gay unions. Conversely, I believe that all consenting adult couples should be offered equal protections under the law in a civil agreement vis a vis our separation of church and state. The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
It is not homophobic to oppose gay marriage; it does not mean you HATE gay people. For too long, we have been the United States of the Offended and cannot fathom the thought that anyone believes in consequences and rules. We have been conditioned to believe that if we want to do something, it is our RIGHT to do it. This is wholly untrue.
by Prusland » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:15 pm
Natural Law for All wrote:Okay, just to give my input AS a homosexual:
I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian Angelo-Catholic Christian homosexual male. I do not believe in federal legislation regulating marriage, either gay or straight. So yes, I am opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage," but I am also opposed to Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, it should be a decision of each respective religion whether or not they solemnize gay unions. Conversely, I believe that all consenting adult couples should be offered equal protections under the law in a civil agreement vis a vis our separation of church and state. The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
It is not homophobic to oppose gay marriage; it does not mean you HATE gay people. For too long, we have been the United States of the Offended and cannot fathom the thought that anyone believes in consequences and rules. We have been conditioned to believe that if we want to do something, it is our RIGHT to do it. This is wholly untrue.
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:18 pm
Deus Malum wrote:DMistan wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:Sorry, buds, but almost everyone that is a Christian is selective as to what parts of the Bible they feel need to be enforced or lived by. Believing in the main themes of Jesus's teachings and ignoring every petty rule of Leviticus doesn't make you a hypocrite or a bad Christian.
I doubt they understand the context of the Book of the Levites. If they did, they would not be so eager to govern from it.
...Ok, now I'm confused. I thought you were against gay marriage.
by Muravyets » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:19 pm
Natural Law for All wrote:Okay, just to give my input AS a homosexual:
I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian Angelo-Catholic Christian homosexual male.
I do not believe in federal legislation regulating marriage, either gay or straight. So yes, I am opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage," but I am also opposed to Defense of Marriage Act.
Marriage is a religious institution,
and as such, it should be a decision of each respective religion whether or not they solemnize gay unions.
Conversely, I believe that all consenting adult couples should be offered equal protections under the law in a civil agreement vis a vis our separation of church and state.
The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
It is not homophobic to oppose gay marriage; it does not mean you HATE gay people. For too long, we have been the United States of the Offended and cannot fathom the thought that anyone believes in consequences and rules. We have been conditioned to believe that if we want to do something, it is our RIGHT to do it. This is wholly untrue.
by Deus Malum » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:19 pm
DMistan wrote:Deus Malum wrote:DMistan wrote:
I doubt they understand the context of the Book of the Levites. If they did, they would not be so eager to govern from it.
...Ok, now I'm confused. I thought you were against gay marriage.
Dude? Will you guys stop it with the kool-aid?
Lemme axe you a question: What do you know about me? Nothing?
Then do not assume. It makes an ass out you and me.
Now then, I happen to think that many of the arguments in support of same-sex marriage are weak.
That does not mean I want my country governed from Leviticus. Do you guys even know what that book is all about?
by Farnhamia » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:21 pm
Prusland wrote:Natural Law for All wrote:Okay, just to give my input AS a homosexual:
I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian Angelo-Catholic Christian homosexual male. I do not believe in federal legislation regulating marriage, either gay or straight. So yes, I am opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage," but I am also opposed to Defense of Marriage Act. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such, it should be a decision of each respective religion whether or not they solemnize gay unions. Conversely, I believe that all consenting adult couples should be offered equal protections under the law in a civil agreement vis a vis our separation of church and state. The government should not be able to force a church to marry the gays.
It is not homophobic to oppose gay marriage; it does not mean you HATE gay people. For too long, we have been the United States of the Offended and cannot fathom the thought that anyone believes in consequences and rules. We have been conditioned to believe that if we want to do something, it is our RIGHT to do it. This is wholly untrue.
i never though itd agree with a gay person :I ...
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:33 pm
Deus Malum wrote:Jesus. I was working off of memory and was wrong. My bad.
by Deus Malum » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:38 pm
DMistan wrote:Deus Malum wrote:Jesus. I was working off of memory and was wrong. My bad.
No worries. And besides, your side has little to worry about. I think it is very likely that same-sex marriage will get the support it needs through the legislature thus giving the courts the laws they need to impose it on the last hold-outs. And by the democratic process, all reasonable points of view will get a chance to be heard, a compromise or bargain shall be reached, and then a happy ending for all (or at least the vast majority).
I'd guess after the 2010 midterm elections, you'll see more anti-discrimination laws. No one wants a repeat of 1994.
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:45 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:*between mouthfuls* The bottom line is that nobody opposes same-sex marriage. They support their own ability to decide what other consenting adults can and can't do.
by Lunatic Goofballs » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:51 pm
DMistan wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:*between mouthfuls* The bottom line is that nobody opposes same-sex marriage. They support their own ability to decide what other consenting adults can and can't do.
I thought the question was to whom subsidies, tax breaks, and other "social goodies" would be granted? I dislike handing out "social goodies," especially if I'm not one of the recipients.
As for those who want to control what others do, they lost that fight when "Divine Right" became laughable.
The rest of us are more concerned with the distribution of tax-credits, loans, subsidies, health benefits, real estate, etc...
EDIT: I support the democratic process, in that we find the "best path" for all involved.
I can be reasoned or bargained with.
That Taco sure looks tasty...
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:52 pm
Muravyets wrote:DMistan wrote:Muravyets, do you understand that the quotes denote irony?
What I understand is that you always do the exact same thing in every thread: *snip*
Muravyets wrote:You have presented nothing to back up your claims and accusations other than your made-up bullshit faux rules.
Muravyets wrote:Bottom line: You're wrong. You're irrelevant. I'm done with you.
by DMistan » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:56 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:DMistan wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:*between mouthfuls* The bottom line is that nobody opposes same-sex marriage. They support their own ability to decide what other consenting adults can and can't do.
I thought the question was to whom subsidies, tax breaks, and other "social goodies" would be granted? I dislike handing out "social goodies," especially if I'm not one of the recipients.
As for those who want to control what others do, they lost that fight when "Divine Right" became laughable.
The rest of us are more concerned with the distribution of tax-credits, loans, subsidies, health benefits, real estate, etc...
EDIT: I support the democratic process, in that we find the "best path" for all involved.
I can be reasoned or bargained with.
That Taco sure looks tasty...
I use a soft flour tortilla, pan fry it a bit, add in some diced grilled chicken seasoned with pesto, tomatoes and onions, monterey jack cheese and for these, I decided to go with spinach because I have some extra spinach. It's quite nice.
by No true scotsman » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:48 pm
Enadail wrote:Prusland wrote:Omg the pope is against gay marriage!!!!! and to the guy who was christian what i meant to say about i hope your not christian is that you mistook jewish custom for christian. and you guys are contexting me alot. and i messed up. i didnt mean to say if you think gays can be married your not a christian i meant to say your denomination isnt.
No True Scotsman huh? You're the final authority on who's Christian? Given some of Bible's best teachings are "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" and that no one may judge except God, you seem to be doing an awful lot of judging... are you God? Frankly, I think the open minded denominations are a lot more Christian then your view of it.
by Grave_n_idle » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:56 pm
Prusland wrote:im a follower of C H R I S T pal. i dont hate anybody so stop saying i do. i have no problem with gays in particular and i support their state mariiage. i just FOllow my religion unlike yo other hypocrites. i dont hate gays but i dont want my religion turning into something its not.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Bienenhalde, Big Eyed Animation, Corporate Collective Salvation, Cyptopir, Dimetrodon Empire, Elejamie, Floofybit, Foxyshire, Kreigsreich of Iron, Lanansia, Likhinia, Port Carverton, Suriyanakhon, The Black Forrest, The Mexican, The Xenopolis Confederation, Tycerian Empire
Advertisement