|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
A couple of thoughts & comments... Rob if it was a case of legal gay marriages being OK with everybody but not forcing any churches to do them this wouldn't be a zillion pages long. Wednesday's latest post goes to show this isn't going to happen soon. Lots of time & money is going to be spent on this issue that should really only concern those who want to step up & make a commitment to their spouse. Dave, really enjoyed what you had to say. Some really thoughtful intelligent stuff. Far better than I could come up with. If only this was some how Legion Trivea ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) Batwoman if your going to slander me, a suggestion. Try to use MK's style I think it's more entertaining & you have to keep in mind that we've had pages of gay people (me) going to hell, leading everyone else into hell, spreading disease, faking scientific results & being categorized as a fetish & so on. Being called a druggie, while original, doesn't really register on the insultameter. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) Samuel revisited, minus the insults you guys did provide some insights I hadn't considered. Thanks Pig Iron for taking the time & sticking with a nice clear response. Now to be honest I'm still stuck on the line about loving each other more than their own souls. Love is a really abused word these days as well as soul to a lesser extent. So reading it in a 21st century frame of mind I could just figure their love for each other is just being overstated. But it is the Bible & this is where we're finding out just how good of friends these two guys are. OK so what's a soul in the Bible? I figure we're talking that immortal thing that we have that either goes to heaven or hell. It's more important than your own life. In fact it's such a big thing that I can't imagine loving somebody more than what the Bible is saying these two guys did. OK so where I need a little help with is if that's just a good friendship how could a love any mightier between a man & woman? I honestly can't top a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
It might just be me, but your last 2 questions weren't clear. Could you rephrase them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
Batwoman if your going to slander me, a suggestion. Try to use MK's style I think it's more entertaining & you have to keep in mind that we've had pages of gay people (me) going to hell, leading everyone else into hell, spreading disease, faking scientific results & being categorized as a fetish & so on. Being called a druggie, while original, doesn't really register on the insultameter.
I wasn't competing with MK, nor do I want you to compare me to him in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Well it was just a suggestion for any future personal attacks on my character. If you don't like the comparison maybe skip the personal attacks?
As for what I was getting at, friends might love each other but it's always been a love that is less than what I have for my partner. So the line in the Bible to me is expressing a sort of ultimate love that would be hard to top. If two friends loved each other that much how could they love their spouses more?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Oh, so you can say anything you want to whomever, but they can't say anything to you? And in justifying this you compare them to mk?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Uh I don't think I attacked you personally or your character. I have commented on scripture not you. Also didn't say you couldn't insult me personally. Just pointing out if your going to do it, it might as well be spetacular. Again I refer you to the list a couple of posts above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,609 |
HOW ABOUT A HETEROSEXUAL GROUP HUG for some
and A HOMOSEXUAL GROUP HUG for others?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
In any event, I think Dave has said that he sees no reason why a gay legal marriage shouldn't be allowed, just not a Christian gay marriage.
which, i think, is the best point (cuz its mine, from page 1!)
a religion is a private club -- they're allowed to make up the rules of their organization like that. somethings bad? ... god says so! pork is the devil? ok! pray on this mat 11 times a day? sure! whatever. if thats what they think god said, so be it. its their choice.
One thing wrong with that: its discriminatory. You have a private golf club which won't let black guys play? The government can intervene - its discrimination, isn't it? Or a private restaurant which won't allow women? Government can step in and compel them to let in female patrons.
You have a church which won't let gay guys get married? Why, here is the government with a key to that particular door.
All pissing in the wind - as if any government is going to upset the Christian heartland - but still, that's what it boils down to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
Well said Dave. This is indeed comparable to Dave's cracker golf club analogy. It's saying that this particular group of people (blacks, gays, midgets, etc) is not equal to you, and does not have the same rights as you, because of one aspect of them. One aspect that is in no way morally wrong, but simply how they are. quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
HOW ABOUT A HETEROSEXUAL GROUP HUG for some
and A HOMOSEXUAL GROUP HUG for others?!?
Franta touched my arse!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
HOW ABOUT A HETEROSEXUAL GROUP HUG for some
and A HOMOSEXUAL GROUP HUG for others?!?
Oh no! we're down to segregated hugs!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Dave & Danny it might be discrimination but it would certainly fall under Freedom of Religion. And it should but likewise the government doesn't/shouldn't have the right dictating to churches that they can't marry gays.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
[QUOTE]
a religion is a private club -- they're allowed to make up the rules of their organization like that. somethings bad? ... god says so! pork is the devil? ok! pray on this mat 11 times a day? sure! whatever. if thats what they think god said, so be it. its their choice.
One thing wrong with that: its discriminatory. You have a private golf club which won't let black guys play? The government can intervene - its discrimination, isn't it? Or a private restaurant which won't allow women? Government can step in and compel them to let in female patrons.
No, the government can't. Not always. I'm assuming that you are talking specifically about the American government? The government can only intervene if there is federal or state funding going to a particular group/club, i.e, it's one of the reasons that VMI and the Citadel were forced to open their doors to women, but why the government could not force that golf club (can't remember the name, don't follow golf) to admit women. Both discriminate, but under different circumstances. One is an institution using public funds, the other a private club using private funding. There's more to it than that, but that is a big component that is considered.
Also, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that, "no state shall ... deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." The topics usually dealt with when regarding constitutional violations like this are: race discrimination (highest level of scrutiny given by the courts), sex discrimination and socio-economic discrimination (least level of scrutiny). I haven't heard of a case where religion has come under the gun (legally, not morally or under negative public opinion, which are separate issues). It may get scrutiny if a class (ex. women, African-Americans) brings a case under the 14th against a religious institution, but I think the Supremes would be loathe to touch it because of the whole separation of church and state issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
In any event, I think Dave has said that he sees no reason why a gay legal marriage shouldn't be allowed, just not a Christian gay marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
which, i think, is the best point (cuz its mine, from page 1!)
a religion is a private club -- they're allowed to make up the rules of their organization like that. somethings bad? ... god says so! pork is the devil? ok! pray on this mat 11 times a day? sure! whatever. if thats what they think god said, so be it. its their choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
One thing wrong with that: its discriminatory. You have a private golf club which won't let black guys play? The government can intervene - its discrimination, isn't it? Or a private restaurant which won't allow women? Government can step in and compel them to let in female patrons.
You have a church which won't let gay guys get married? Why, here is the government with a key to that particular door.
All pissing in the wind - as if any government is going to upset the Christian heartland - but still, that's what it boils down to.
I find this argument flawed. Homosexuality is not a racial or physical feature that can be singled out to exclude someone from a club. A club is just a group of people who have shared beliefs.
You can't bust up every group of people with individual beliefs, just because other people don't share those beliefs.
It's like if heterosexuals were to enter a gay organization and say We're heterosexual, but we have the right to call ourselves gay, and form our own version of homosexuality.
We all know plainly what homosexuality is, and such an act would be deliberately disruptive of the gatherings and beliefs of homosexuals.
Similarly, Christianity is clearly defined. Christian beliefs ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY are clearly defined in the Bible, and Christianity views homosexuality with clear disfavor.
So Christians have the right to those teachings, which have existed for 2,000 years in the New Testament, and far longer than that in the Old Testament.
It's interesting, though, Dave, because the argument you're pressing is what you previously dismissed as an unproveable "slippery slope" argument, alleging that legalizing gay marriage does not lead to an avalanche of other decadent legislation.
But here you are arguing that the Christian ability to publicly teach that homosexuality is immoral, IS DISCRIMINATORY, and should therefore BE BANNED. Because it excludes gays. Which is precisely the direction that gay activists are headed, if they can make gay marriage legal, and push it to the next level. Gay activists themselves say they will not stop with legalizing gay marriage, but will push on for further legislation. As will other fringe groups who will ride on the coat-tails of gay legislation.
As I've said since this topic began:
As laws stand at the moment, gays have a right to their lifestyle, and Christians (and others who disagree with gay marriage) have a right to their lifestyle. Neither one is banned from practicing their own beliefs.
I advocate maintenance of that balance, not legislation that will stomp on religious freedom of Christians to follow the Old and New Testaments as they were written, and a maintained balance that will allow Christianity to maintain their own clear perspective of homosexuality. Despite what homosexuals and liberals think, that is the right of Christians under the law, and that right should be maintained.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I might add that I already answered these points on page 15 of this topic: quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I disagree with all these points. To answer them:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I think many people's problems with conservative Christianity is that its a closed shop to "alternative" (but increasingly mainstream) lifestyles: it concentrates more on orthodoxy (the "close-midedness" you refer to) than the pragmatic reality that there are gay Christians...
1. Christianity is open to all who will believe. Those who violate Biblical teachings are, by definition, non-believers. It's the choice of those who break the Biblical law of Christian behavior, not the Christians or the God who live by them.
Your example is like saying that it's society's fault that an armed robber is in prison for 25 years, not the fact that he held up a liquor store and shot someone. "Society is hateful for putting him in prison, why do they have to enforce the laws?" Because those are the rules of society, and if you do not obey those rules, you are excluded for the good of all who believe in and obey the rules. Those who don't obey destroy it with actions and counter-ideology. Every organization and culture has to have rules and a standardized ideology to preserve itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
In marginalising honorable and decent members of the community, it [the Christian church] will eventually become marginalised itself, if indeed this has not already happened.
4. I don't think the Christian church marginalizes anyone. It is open to all who will believe, as I said.
If you change the rules of a volleyball club to rules of basketball, you no longer have a volleyball club. It has become a basketball club, by any other name.
The same thing with Christianity.
It should not be expected to change its teachings which have worked just fine for over 2000 years, just because non-Christians want to re-make it in their own secular humanist image.
Using the example of gays:
It is HATEFUL of Christianity to expect gays to change, to Biblical laws of morality.
And yet it is NOT hateful for gays to expect Christianity to change, to conform to the gay concept of "morality".
That's quite a double standard.
Another example of my logic being ignored, and the same false allegations being pointlessly resurrected again and again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
And answered previously again, on page 14 of the topic: quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
What has surprised me though, throughout the four pages of this thread that I have read (the last four, BTW), is that quite a few times "Christian values" have been brought up as something that people should follow as if there are no other moral codes that people follow. And that's fine, if you are a Christian. You want to follow your beliefs, go right ahead, but to judge everyone by your rules and moral code is inevitably going to lead to a debate if those people don't follow your rules.
But again, as I've said endlessly, gays have a right to their beliefs, OUTSIDE of Christianity. But to attempt the idea of gay marriage, under the facade that Christianity endorses it, is to warp the meaning of Christianity out from under the Christians who practice it.
It is a violation of Christian ideology and teaching.
To me, it's like a black guy trying to join the Klu Klux Klan.
Or a Klansman trying to join the N.A.A.C.P.
Or a bunch of Christians getting together and creating a new denomination "Islam".
Or a bunch of radical Palestinians getting together and forming a new denomination, calling it "Judaism".
The polar difference in ideology in all of these examples would make any of these occurrences justifiably threatening to the given pre-existing organizations and religions.
Again, gays have a right to their lifestyle. They do NOT have the right to distort the meaning and traditions of Christianity.
Raising the same allegations doesn't make them any less flawed than the first time they were raised.
The argument seems to be that Christianity is a club whose rights can be violated, while homosexuality is a club whose rights cannot.
I know it bothers a lot of people here, but Christians DO have a right to follow the Bible as it is written.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Thanks for the new info, MEM and harley. Maybe things are settling down in here? ![[gulp!]](gulp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
quote:
a religion is a private club -- they're allowed to make up the rules of their organization like that. somethings bad? ... god says so! pork is the devil? ok! pray on this mat 11 times a day? sure! whatever. if thats what they think god said, so be it. its their choice.
One thing wrong with that: its discriminatory. You have a private golf club which won't let black guys play? The government can intervene - its discrimination, isn't it? Or a private restaurant which won't allow women? Government can step in and compel them to let in female patrons.
No, the government can't. Not always. I'm assuming that you are talking specifically about the American government? The government can only intervene if there is federal or state funding going to a particular group/club, i.e, it's one of the reasons that VMI and the Citadel were forced to open their doors to women, but why the government could not force that golf club (can't remember the name, don't follow golf) to admit women. Both discriminate, but under different circumstances. One is an institution using public funds, the other a private club using private funding. There's more to it than that, but that is a big component that is considered.
Also, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states that, "no state shall ... deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws." The topics usually dealt with when regarding constitutional violations like this are: race discrimination (highest level of scrutiny given by the courts), sex discrimination and socio-economic discrimination (least level of scrutiny). I haven't heard of a case where religion has come under the gun (legally, not morally or under negative public opinion, which are separate issues). It may get scrutiny if a class (ex. women, African-Americans) brings a case under the 14th against a religious institution, but I think the Supremes would be loathe to touch it because of the whole separation of church and state issue.
Fair enough. My knowledge of US constitutional law is certainly haphazard.
quote:
I find this argument flawed. Homosexuality is not a racial or physical feature that can be singled out to exclude someone from a club.
No, its a type of behaviour. Why do you draw an arbitrary difference?
quote:
A club is just a group of people who have shared beliefs.
You can't bust up every group of people with individual beliefs, just because other people don't share those beliefs.
I'm sure the Klan agrees with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Raising the same allegations doesn't make them any less flawed than the first time they were raised.
I agree, but probably not in the same way you think.
quote:
The argument seems to be that Christianity is a club whose rights can be violated, while homosexuality is a club whose rights cannot.
Strawman argument. Where is the homosexual "club"? How does it exclude Christians, in the same way Christians exclude homosexuals?
quote:
I know it bothers a lot of people here, but Christians DO have a right to follow the Bible as it is written.
Sure: but gays also have a right to be Christian, while still living a gay lifestyle. That is what you won't accept.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
It is HATEFUL of Christianity to expect gays to change, to Biblical laws of morality.
And yet it is NOT hateful for gays to expect Christianity to change, to conform to the gay concept of "morality".
That's quite a double standard.
With respect, that's a false distortion of the facts.
Gays will accept Christians. That's tolerance. Gays have no problem with Christians being gay.
Christians won't accept gays. Christians have a problem with gays being Christian. That's intolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
It is HATEFUL of Christianity to expect gays to change, to Biblical laws of morality.
And yet it is NOT hateful for gays to expect Christianity to change, to conform to the gay concept of "morality".
That's quite a double standard.
With respect, that's a false distortion of the facts.
Gays will accept Christians. That's tolerance. Gays have no problem with Christians being gay.
Christians won't accept gays. Christians have a problem with gays being Christian. That's intolerance.
I love the way you try to reverse my own use of the word distortion, when it is your interpretation that is clearly liberally biased and distorted.
Gays, having no ideology beyond what rationalizes their lifestyle, can make that claim. But PROVE to me that homosexuality is inborn. YOUR OWN argument is based on a fallacious logic by consensus argument that blindly accepts the gay notion that their behavior is inborn, when there is not scientific evidence to back that up.
That, again, is bias.
Homosexuality is a belief system. With no scientific evidence to back it up. But you accept it whole as absolute fact in your argument.
Christianity is a belief system, with a number of characteristics that confirm its truth, despite the fact you keep trying to circumnavigate, dismiss or otherwise dodge my point about the Bible as the only valid cornersone for Christianity (a point VERY RELEVANT to your attempts to dismiss the validity of the Bible's verses about homosexuality being an enduring standard for Christians today) :
- a Bible that (Old and New Testaments) were written over a 1500-year period, from the time of Moses to about 100 A.D., that have remarkably consistent themes, despite the wide range of men --rich and poor, highly educated and shepherds, soldiers, kings, rabbis, peasants, Jews and Gentiles, who wrote these books, "God breathed" inspired by God (as I already confirmed with scripture).
- The fact that 40 different authors wrote 66 books of the Old and New Testaments (over a 1500-year period) with the thematic consistency that it has, the historical facts that cannot be disproven, fulfilled prophecies of ancient times (the destruction of the ancient capital of Babylon, for example, the many conditions foretold of the coming Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus being the most cited fulfilled prophecies), as well as the foretold Babylonian captivity of the Jews, to more modern prophecies about the rebirth of Israel in modern times, and other prophecies that are being fulfilled in modern times.
- a Bible where about 60,000 manuscripts exist for comparison, and as I said, is more verifiable than any other ancient document(the distortions of scripture in this topic by gays are obvious, but you choose to ignore them in your arguments, Dave )
If the Bible COULD be disproven, the secular humanists and other cynics would have done so by now. It is CRYSTAL clear that gays are attempting to warp scripture, to whitewash the gay lifestyle, despite what scripture clearly says in opposition to this.
Your having an opinion otherwise is fine, you don't have to agree with me. But you clearly are a liberal, and clearly dismiss the Bible as evidence, despite the overwhelming evidence of scripture I began posting on page 4 of this topic, that proves BEYOND ANY DOUBT that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
You allege that there are "other interpretations" but Bible scholars are in total agreement that THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. Even most liberal churches (who do not follow scripture, I might add) will not deny that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but (against scripture) they will argue that it is time to "modernize" scripture to gel with the times (despite that the Bible repeatedly says never to change "a mark or a letter" of scripture, and evidence over millenia indicates tremendous care to preserve its accuracy).
I dislike how you throw out phrases like "slippery slope" argument, or "logic by consensus" or similar rhetorical labels, but beyond the high-sounding phrase, you frequently don't detail precisely HOW my argument is fallacious by these standards. So ultimately, again, they are just dismissive labels, that fail to address the issues I've raised. This is pseudo-objectivity. Dismissive labels, not clear arguments.
I could just as easily go through your arguments and slap dismissive labels on them, either using your own legal argument terms (one example in the above paragraph ) or other dismissive terms. But I've endeavored to more precisely address the issues.
I also dislike how you occasionally take a cheap shot at me, while maintaining a veneer of neutral objectivity and politeness.
With all due respect, you've clearly rejected the Bible as evidence out of hand, refused to acknowledge that the Bible CLEARLY condemns homosexuality.
And that based on Christian belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God (with considerable internal literary, historical, and prophetic evidence, and vast numbers of manuscripts to base that belief on), Christians have VALID REASON not to have that Bible scripture distorted, and to not allow marriage, as the Bible describes it, to be perverted.
Gays do NOT accept Christians' right to practice Christianity as it is Biblically written. Gays seek to undermine it, and as I've said repeatedly, pervert the Bible's very meaning. (If I felt the need, I could describe gay pressure to impose gay marriage on the church as contemptuous of Christianity, deliberately disruptive, and ultimately hateful. But I've preferred to simply say this is a double standard that gays and liberals have argued here. )
Your argument distorts the issue.
Bible-believing Christians are not hateful, they are truthful: True to the Bible as it is written and verifiable, even at the highest levels of Bible scholarship.
I resent this "hate" characterization, and fail to see it as anything other than a cheap shot based in your own liberal bias.
I've been polite, Dave, and I've only made sharp statements to you about liberal misrepresentation and bias after my words and arguments have been paraphrased and distorted over and over. It is not a charge I make lightly.
I feel you've consistently taken one side in this discussion, and while for the most part polite, I resent your arguing the liberal side, and then claiming to objectively evaluate my arguments, essentially appointing yourself the status of neutral judge in this topic.
Your "judgements", are not neutral. And even in your just arguing the liberal side, there have been too many points where I've been paraphrased, and my clear and valid points ignored by you.
Particularly on scripture related to homosexuality, and its indisputable literal meaning.
And your ignoring the fact that Christianity is open to all who believe, and that one who practices homosexuality is clearly not following Biblical teachings. And continuing to argue that Christian idiological objection to homosexuality is "hateful". What the hell kind of objective argument is that. "Hateful" is an emotional label, not an objective argument.
If we were debating the issues, okay, I'd be glad to discuss it in a friendly fashion, however much we might disagree, but for many pages, I've just been repeating myself, clarifying what I actually said, in the face of repeated distortions of my true arguments. And many of your comments have made it too personal. I'm sick of it.
I think we're done here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I find this argument flawed. Homosexuality is not a racial or physical feature that can be singled out to exclude someone from a club.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave :
No, its a type of behaviour. Why do you draw an arbitrary difference?
Because gambling is a type of behavior. Bestiality is a type of behavior. Incest is a type of behavior. Why do we render illegal any of these activities?
And pedophilia, and murder, and rape, and adultery, all are behaviors the Bible condemns.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
A club is just a group of people who have shared beliefs.
You can't bust up every group of people with individual beliefs, just because other people don't share those beliefs.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave :
I'm sure the Klan agrees with you.
This was your final cheap shot.
I mentioned the Klan in my above examples. For the second time, I might add. I don't condone the Klan, but similar to homosexuality, while I disagree with them, I grudgingly acknowledge that in a free country they have a right to believe what they want to.
When it doesn't step on and threaten my own rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
My comment about the Klan was designed to show you how wrong your argument was. It is an argument the Klan could use: "A club is just a group of people who have shared beliefs." Secondly, of course I'm partisan in my arguments. I have never said otherwise - in fact, I think I've said just the opposite at least once, if not twice. I think you mistake "a veneer of neutral objectivity" for sheer politeness. The only veneer here is the one over my incredulous disbelief that an obviously educated person can be so misconceived. In relation to my comments on your slippery slope arguments and the use of other terminology which you clearly do not understand, I realise that you are I are talking a different language here. If you have no appreciation or understanding of principles of logic, I really don't feel the need to take you through the syllogisms backing them up. I think it was sufficient that I provided you with links to a basic explanation of the terms. But, especially your slippery slope "We let the gays have rights to get married, who knows what sort of perversion we'll spawn" is just a classic fallacy. A slippery slope is just never true of itself. You can never prove it to be so. At best, its speculation. Next, quote:
I love the way you try to reverse my own use of the word distortion, when it is your interpretation that is clearly liberally bised and distorted.
Gays, having no ideology beyond what rationalizes their lifestyle, can make that claim. But PROVE to me that homosexuality is inborn. YOUR OWN argument is based on a fallacious logic by consensus argument that blindly accepts the gay notion that their behavior is inborn, when there is not scientific evidence to back that up. That, again, is bias.
When did I say homosexuality is "inborn"?
In fact, I think I've said on at least 3 occasions that homosexuality is a choice. "Choice" is not an "inborn" characteristic.
You aren't reading what I say, Dave. You're subsitituting what you think I'm saying, based upon my "liberal biases".
Next,
quote:
a Bible where about 60,000 manuscripts exist for comparison, and as I said, is more verifiable than any other ancient document(the distortions of scripture are obvous, but you choose to evade them in your arguments, Dave )
"Verifiable" for what? Verifiable against what? Truth?
"Distortions of scripture"? I evaded what?
Next,
quote:
If the Bible COULD be disproven, the secular humanists would have done so by now.
Oh, yes. It makes perfect sense that a large omniscient being created the Earth in seven days. Much more sense than the earth being the debris of creation of the sun. Pardon my sarcasm. If you choose to believe this, then fine. Its a belief choice you make, and I won't challenge it. But is it objective truth? Not a chance.
quote:
It is CRYSTAL clear that gays are attempting to warp scripture to whitewash the gay lifestyle, despite what scripture clearly says in opposition to this.
I think more to the point Christian gays choose to ignore it as obsolete, but anyway.
quote:
And the fact that Christianity is open to all who believe, and that one who practices homosexuality is clearly not following Biblical teachings.
And that is intolerance. If someone believes Jesus died for our sins, and that he is the son of God, its a disgrace that any person who honestly believes that can be ostracised by the Church.
quote:
Because gambling is a type of behavior. Bestiality is a type of behavior. Incest is a type of behavior. Why do we render illegal any of these activities?
And pedophilia, and murder, and rape, and adultery, all are behaviors the Bible condemns.
Gambling is not illegal in many parts of even your own country.
I think I'm arguing in circles. I could now say, "How is homosexuality a sin?" and you'd say, "Because the Bible tells me so."
Anyway, Dave has said he's had enough. Personally, I feel I've come away from this argument more vindicated than ever. The only reason Christians ostracise gays from their church is because it is specifically mentioned in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin, and because the promiscuous gays spread disease (as do the promiscuous straights). If the Church prevented promiscuous people regardless of their seuxal gender choice entry into the Church, and didn't pick on gays in particular, I'd feel some sympathy for their position. But in barring relationship-committed gays because its an arbitrary sin according to the Bible, I have no sympathy at all.
The Earth isn't fixed (setting Dave's disingenuous arguments to the contrary aside) and homosexuality isn't immoral.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I feel vindicated in my conservative views as well, by your own posted views, and those of other gays and liberals here. I feel you evade the issues, and dismiss contemptuously the Bible's authenticity. Meanwhile, it is the cornerstone of Christianity, and also of American Democracy. Despite the best attempts to hide the fact that "ignorant" Christianity is the basis of our government and freedom and Western culture, and the foundation of America's public schools and universities.
Your views of Christianity are dismissive of its freedom, compassion, and enlightening aspects, despite arguments clearly made by myself, Captain Sammitch and a few others.
So be it. You're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you didn't have to paint me as ignorant in order to voice your own perspective.
My views are as thought out as yours. You just choose to ignore that perspective, and slap labels on me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Cowgirl Jack:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Look out, gang--- Batwoman is getting pissed.
Here's my imitation of Batwoman throwing a hissy fit (just think of Ned Flanders and his family from "The Simpsons" and you'll be pretty close):
"Fiddlesticks!"...
No, I think Batwoman will just kick your ass. In fact, I'll help. Hosing everyone off failed, now it is time for violence.
Batwoman, perhaps we should teach Matt (who needs to change his sig) the other meaning of 'turing the other cheek[/i]. Just a thought. ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Sounds like fun!
But I think pre-marital spanking would be against Batwoman's religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I feel vindicated in my conservative views as well, by your own posted views, and those of other gays and liberals here. I feel you evade the issues, and dismiss contemptuously the Bible's authenticity.
I don't dismiss it with contempt. I dismiss it with the utmost respect. But, at the end of the day, you are right in observing that I do dismiss it.
That is the nature of belief. You choose to believe that it is the word of God. I choose instead to believe that it is a valuable manuscript containing many life-guiding principles. I also choose to believe that it is fallible - it must be, as it was edited by men - whereas you do not.
quote:
Meanwhile, it is the cornerstone of Christianity, and also of American Democracy. Despite the best attempts to hide the fact that "ignorant" Christianity is the basis of our government and freedom and Western culture, and the foundation of America's public schools and universities.
Now you raise an interesting point. While I agree it is the fundament for Western culture, I hesitatingly doubt it is the fundament of Western freedom. But that is an argument for another day.
quote:
Your views of Christianity are dismissive of its freedom, compassion, and enlightening aspects, despite arguments clearly made by myself, Captain Sammitch and a few others.
No, I've no doubt that Christianity possesses those values, which is why its all the more sad that some Christians cannot extend those to gays.
quote:
So be it. You're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you didn't have to paint me as ignorant in order to voice your own perspective.
My views are as thought out as yours. You just choose to ignore that perspective, and slap labels on me.
A shame that your failure to convince me of the merits of your argument have led you to that conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Batwoman:
Oh, so you can say anything you want to whomever, but they can't say anything to you? And in justifying this you compare them to mk?
Awww. You know that you love me, Churchy!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Danny:
quote:
Originally posted by THE Franta:
HOW ABOUT A HETEROSEXUAL GROUP HUG for some
and A HOMOSEXUAL GROUP HUG for others?!?
Franta touched my arse!
He touched mine, too! Or maybe it was Wonder Boy? (It's so dark in here that it's hard to tell...
:) )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
Date: 1526
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : DISCIPLE 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2 : the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress
A Fundamentalist Christian is not the same as a Methodist or a Catholic. Lots of different churches using one book as it's source material. Each believe they are correct.
America was founded on Christian ideals yes but not Fundamental Christian ideals. That's not an attack on that religion just pointing out the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16 |
dang...smart faggott! :lol:
LOVE,
blondgod
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by blondgod:
dang...smart faggott!
LOVE,
blondgod
Thanks buddy :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I feel vindicated in my conservative views as well, by your own posted views, and those of other gays and liberals here. I feel you evade the issues, and dismiss contemptuously the Bible's authenticity.
I don't dismiss it with contempt. I dismiss it with the utmost respect. But, at the end of the day, you are right in observing that I do dismiss it.
That is the nature of belief. You choose to believe that it is the word of God. I choose instead to believe that it is a valuable manuscript containing many life-guiding principles. I also choose to believe that it is fallible - it must be, as it was edited by men - whereas you do not.
quote:
Meanwhile, it is the cornerstone of Christianity, and also of American Democracy. Despite the best attempts to hide the fact that "ignorant" Christianity is the basis of our government and freedom and Western culture, and the foundation of America's public schools and universities.
Now you raise an interesting point. While I agree it is the fundament for Western culture, I hesitatingly doubt it is the fundament of Western freedom. But that is an argument for another day.
quote:
Your views of Christianity are dismissive of its freedom, compassion, and enlightening aspects, despite arguments clearly made by myself, Captain Sammitch and a few others.
No, I've no doubt that Christianity possesses those values, which is why its all the more sad that some Christians cannot extend those to gays.
quote:
So be it. You're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you didn't have to paint me as ignorant in order to voice your own perspective.
My views are as thought out as yours. You just choose to ignore that perspective, and slap labels on me.
A shame that your failure to convince me of the merits of your argument have led you to that conclusion.
Fuckin' beautiful, man! All joking aside, I just have to tip my hat to T-Dave for the way he has handled himself in this little "debate". You blew (oops! Bad choice of words ) ol' Davey away and still managed to be completely respectful/civil. Very well done, counselor.
I may be a vile, ad hominem asshole myself, but at least I WAS pretty entertaining. :lol: (Thanks for the props back on page 18, Matter-Eater Man! :) )
And I'm ready for that "spanking" now Cowgirl, Harpie, and Batwoman! Bring it on, ladies!!! ![[humina humina]](graemlins/love.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
quote:
Originally posted by blondgod:
dang...smart faggott!
LOVE,
blondgod
Thanks buddy :)
I see chemistry here...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Having Matt Kennedy defend Dave's position is hardly an affirmation of any kind.
I made my arguments, they were bypassed in favor of labels and namecalling. I feel no need to pursue this any further.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Why the hell is this thread still open?!? ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Having Matt Kennedy defend Dave's position is hardly an affirmation of any kind.
I made my arguments, they were bypassed in favor of labels and namecalling. I feel no need to pursue this any further.
You were arguing that two people of the same sex getting married somehow infringed upon your rights. You went ahead & presented a case that it offended your religious views. And you win that one. But you didn't have anything else to support your real claim.
If it's any consolation I'm sure if the tables were turned & your rights were in danger of being diminished MK would be insulting that side. Same thing here. I just want what's fair, no more no less.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Um...can I just say EVERYONE on the thread has been flinging mud? Whatever. Everyone hear has made two or three good points. And then mud-slining. Well screw it all, I'll join in. quote:
Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
And I'm ready for that "spanking" now Cowgirl, Harpie, and Batwoman! Bring it on, ladies!!!
Oh I don't spank. I prefer long-distance weapons. SIG, S&W, crossbow, bow and arrow. You saw the gun thread. Your big head is a big enough target. 'Wabbit season' indeed...
Oh by the way...here's some info on the rabbit behind your avator. Dakota hates guys. Any guy that comes over and annoys me has been attacked in the jewels but this two-pound furball (they never call back at least...). So maybe me and Batwoman will stand back and let him rip you apart and make you cry home to momma.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,230 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Having Matt Kennedy defend Dave's position is hardly an affirmation of any kind.
I made my arguments, they were bypassed in favor of labels and namecalling. I feel no need to pursue this any further.
You were arguing that two people of the same sex getting married somehow infringed upon your rights. You went ahead & presented a case that it offended your religious views. And you win that one. But you didn't have anything else to support your real claim.
A pretty accurate summation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
20 pages......... ![[eh?]](images/icons/confused.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Exactly. 20 pages.
I made the points I wanted to make, my perspective is clear, Dave's perspective is clear, klinton's perspective is clear, Matter Eater Man's perspective is clear, Captain Sammitch's perspective is clear. And Cowgirl Jack's, and Batwomanamy's, and harleykwin's, and Pig Iron...
I don't think several pages of having my clear statements paraphrased and redirected represents my views accurately, or is at this point productive.
You're all welcome to continue. The floor is open to anyone else who wants to voice the conservative viewpoint, or liberal, or any voice of moderation in between.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
This is from page 4..I'm gonna bow out of this one and leave my thoughts again.... I think these succinctly show my opinion... quote:
Originally posted by Pig Iron:
Oh boy, where to start...???
First, let me say I'm a very horrible Christian..I'm not good at it but I try. This is where my opinions are coming from...
While, I understand the words seperation of church and state have become a cliche in our culture that has been falsely propagated...I also know that our country is a secular one at heart and always has been. Yes, we have practiced various religions, mostly christian, from the onset and were basically created out of Christian ideals. We still do not, and have never had a state sponsored religion. Our leaders have always been vague about GOD, and what GOD they were talking about. They never mentioned Jesus in the Constitution, nor did they mention Jahweh. They couldn't because there is a thing called freedom of religion. That also falls to people who are agnostic or atheistic or satanist.
Many states have sodomy laws, prostitution laws, and age consent laws...but mostly they are state laws..not federal laws. I do not believe or agree with the practice of homosexuality, but that is my belief and opinion, and I believe one shared by my Bible and God. That said, there are many other practices that my bible does not agree with as well. And I'm sure these practices are looked upon just as sharply. After all, even if you like calling homosexuality an abomination or a desolation or whatever...It's still a sin. And I can only remember 1 unforgivable sin..that's calling a work of the devil a work of god, and debatably suicide.
A sin is a sin folks. And most people here are probably all sinners with a capital S. Do you honestly believe God sits upstairs and thinks... " AAh, those two guys can't ever get into Heaven because they had sex with each other."?? No, only if they never repent of it. And that's strictly from a judeo-christian viewpoint. I'm sure God looks on 98% just as disdainfully...Those of us who are always watching R rated movies, watching porn, lusting after women, drinking beer, having sex freely, commiting adultery, stealing, envying, being back-stabbers, gambling, wasting money, not tithing properly, lacking faith, being mean-spritted, etc, etc, etc, etc...... Let him/her who is without sin cast the first stone... yes, God hates homosexuality, but he hates almost everything else about western lifestyles as well...
Sins aren't weighted..you're forgiven or you aren't. Any pastor, rabbi, clergyman, or reverand worth his salt would never marry 2 homosexual men or women...so can there ever truly be a godly sponsored wedding..no, because the person performing the ceremony couldn't really be a Christian.
I don't like the idea of same sex partners being able to get married, but this is 21st century secular America. A place where all traditional "christian" values have become distorted and ramrodded. The thing I find most shocking is that after all the desensitizations we have endured is that people actually seem to be shocked by the idea of same sex marriage. I for one am the last person to sit here and say exactly what 2 free adult citizens can do and what rights the state affords them. I wish Christians would worry more about telling and showing homosexual people how they should live rather than demanding it of them. I wish people would quite thinking of the Bible as hate literature, because basically it disdains us all- not exclusively homosexuals. We cannot change what is wrong or evil in the eyes of God to suit our own wishes. We have to recognize the wrong we are commiting and ask forgiveness for it.
Never forget that we are indeed living in a secular nation as much as christians want to claim it is a christian one. So we should try to live a holy life and live by example. After all, if we can't be responsible for ourselves how can we help to be instruments to help others? Gay marriage in the US will happen and it will happen sooner rather than later. So be responsible for yourself and your family. And try to be a positive example and influence for everyone else and help when you can. Yes, a person can oppose this and oppose that and try to ban this or ban that, but most laws don't modify behavior..they may limit it, but they don't stop it.
Quite honestly, the only thing I am concerned about is that Pedophiles are always riding on the coat tails of the homosexual movement...as they are doing marvelously at in Canada. I'm fearful that the legitimaztion and recognition of homosexual marriage will lead to the recognition of pedophiles as a legitimate group as well. You think it won't happen.You might laugh at me now, but wait 8-10 years and you'll see the cultural changes and the lawyers, psychiatrists, lobbyists and politicians all seeking to protect this "misunderstood" group. So my advice is to take the energy you have against homosexual marriage and start early on the pedophilia movement and age of consent laws. There you may be able to make a difference, and protect something that the "christian" God holds so dear..namely children.
Klinton and anyone else. I have several homosexual acquantances and often hang out with them and have an interesting time. While I won't lie and say they are my best friends I do like them and am glad to know them. So I hope that makes me just a little less of a Bastard...
|
|
|
|
|
