Quote:

Dave said:
That is cute.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Your emotionally charged stereotypes of anyone who opposes gay marriage is just so much posturing pretentious drivel, Dave.




Attacking the man, not the argument..... again.



You attack me with an off-topic emotional stereotype argument.
And then you attack me for stating that you attack with an emotional stereotype argument ?!?

T-Dave, you are the king of strawman argument attacks, non-sequitor attacks, name-calling, and other emotional lowbrow tactics, that completely divert from the real issue.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder boy said:

I don't believe what Animalman posted above. That is a distortion by advocates of gay marriage, I'm sure.



Quote:

Dave said:

Back up your belief with facts.



You apparently are immune to the facts, as are other liberals here. I've already posted a response to that in the last few pages. In a non-sequitor, liberals here have made the comparison of the black civil rights movement to the push for gay rights, and specifically, 'gay marriage".

But as I posted documentation of, a majority of black Americans, and many black leaders, have vocally expressed their outrage at the comparison of black civil rights to the "gay marriage" push. Which black Americans themselves call a deceit, which they do not endorse.

And I think black Americans are infinitely qualified to determine whether their own black civil rights movement is comparable to gay rights, and the push for gay marriage. As I quoted, blacks have voiced their outrage at the comparison of gay marriage to black rights.
And it is your denial of these facts that is ill-informed.

Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

I fail to see how civil unions as an alternative creates "an apartheid".
Since gays retain all the rights to insurance, health benefits, spousal estates, etc., under proposed civil unions.

As I've said endlessly, if gays really need or deserve these rights, civil unions gives them those rights to benefits, without urinating on religious freedom, and outlawing the ability of Christians and other groups to teach the real moral standard their Bible teaches. Instead of a politically correct gayed-down repression of the truth.

That is my major distaste with gay rights.

And I notice in your arguments, that you ignore and don't give a flying crap about lost religious freedom in Canada that I've described above. Which is a precursor for what is planned for the United States.




I missed Canada. What has happened there?

"Urinating on religious freedom"? How does gay marriage urinate on your ability to practice as a Christian?



You asked this question again below, where I answered it:

Quote:

[Dave the Wonder Boy said:
.
True freedom allows Christians to practice their religion in the scriptural form God gave it to them (and I've posted earlier several times about the historical evidence for scripture being accurately preserved for 2000 years, with at least 60,000 handwritten manuscripts in existence from within 100 years of Christ's death and resurrection.)
.
True freedom doesn't proclaim "freedom" for gays, while taking freedom of religion from the 33% of the U.S. population who attend church weekly, and the larger 80% of the U.S. population who mostly don't attend church but still describe themselves when polled as "Christian".
And Jewish. And Muslim. And Hindu. And Buddhist. Or agnostic, who just don't approve of the gay lifestyle, and don't want their goverment to force it on them.
.
If civil unions didn't offer this alternative in the first place (equal rights, but within a secular framework, that doesn't outlaw religious teachings that homosexuality is immoral, or change the definition of marriage out from under Christians and others), then why would liberals suggest it at all? It's not like civil unions are the idea of conservatives. Howard Dean's state (New Hampshire) already has civil union as its legal standard.
.
In any case, I fail to see the need for rude stereotypes of any dissenters of your oh-so-superior-and-enlightened views on the subject of gay rights.
.
As a wise man said on the DC boards: You have an opinion. I have and opinion. Let's learn to deal with it.
.
And as I've said elsewhere:
.
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Originally posted by Dave:
.
I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".


.
I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.


.
I read the "bigot" label the same way.

.
--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."








Quote:

Dave said:
.
Lets analyse your logical process.





Oh yes. Let's.




Quote:

Dave said:
.
Allowing gays to get married doesn't impinge at all upon your rights as a Christian anymore than allowing Jews or Muslims or atheists to get married does.
.
The Bible may say that homosexuality is a sin. I'm sure it also says that not believing Jesus is the Son of God is also a sin.
.
So, because it is a sin, gays should not get married.
.
By this logic, Jews, Muslims and atheists should also not get married, because it impinges upon your relgious freedom.
.
Your flaw in thinking, with respect, is that you view marriage as a solely religious institution, when it is not.
.
If any compromise between us is possible on this issue, then it would be if "marriage" was the sole and unique preserve of Christians and only Christians, and everyone else had a civil union under law which gave them equal rights as marriage.
.
But it doesn't work like that - I am an atheist, and I was married by a civil celebrant (both my wife and I had enough respect for churches and people's religious beliefs to avoid being hypocritical, and not to get married in a church.)
.
As for my stance on your position... if someone came in here and said that blacks should not have equal rights, he'd be treated with the respect he deserves. I see no difference between your view on gays and a racist's views on blacks. I have no respect for it at all, and see it as offensive as any other form of bigotry.
.
I know you're married to someone from a minority ethinic group. Open-mindedness on that front doesn't give you any wiggle room on your opposition to equal rights for gays.



Again with the argument that: If there is the slightest dispute of the jay-walking law, then the law regarding murder and rape are null and void as well, and all murderers and rapists should be set free argument.

But as explored multiple times in the previous 38 pages, that's a flawed rationalization for circumventing what the Bible clearly says, about marriage (one man/one woman), and homosexuality ( a form of adultery, Biblically forbidden in the absolute harshest and clearest of terms).

And again, the state endorsement of "gay marriage" (an oxymoron) does not just allow secularist gays to marry without affecting Christians. It renders Christians' belief and statement that homosexuality is wrong and condemned by God in the Bible illegal. Which clearly infringes on Christians' ability to practice Christianity in its true form.

There is no mutual preservation of rights. Gays gain the right to marry, and Christians instantly lose their rights in the same instant.


Again, civil union is a secular alternative to changing the definition of marriage, that allows the same rights to gays in a secular framework, without taking a first step toward outlawing the practice of Christianity in its true form and Biblical standards, without turning public reading of Genesis 18 and 19 (Sodom and Gommorah) and similar verses into a "hate crime" as it is now in Canada.

If that Canadian example is not clear establishment that gay rights is done at the expense of religious freedom and the free practice of Christianity, then I don't know what is.