Another win for marriage equality

[EagleKeeper]

Using the bible as justification is
1) cherry picking
2) the Bible has many contridictions within it.
3) The Jesus related STORIES within the New Testiment were recorded by word of moiuth for over 100 years before being committed to the written form - who knows how much interpretation was done within that time.

The Christian derived religions are based on the bible and you are welcome to it.

There are other religions out there that are not.

The government does not have the right to insist that the Christian derived religions are the ones that must be used.

The laws should carry NO religious bias - as stated within the Constitution, yet you are insisting that the government shoiuld follow the STORIES within the bible.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

All these Biblical arguments are quite interesting (I have not read the Bible nor studied it, but I find conversations about its content fascinating). But in a debate about a proposed law, bringing up the Bible as an argument is, at best, academic, and at worst, unAmerican. It violates the first clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. Let's review:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

An argument born out of a religious text is fundamentally tied to religion. As soon as you start using religious dogma to craft laws, you are respecting an establishment of religion. That is not Congress' job; it's spelled out in plain English in the Bill of Rights.

So, please, provide one non-religious reason why the government should recognize heterosexual marriages but not homosexual ones.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
All these Biblical arguments are quite interesting (I have not read the Bible nor studied it, but I find conversations about its content fascinating). But in a debate about a proposed law, bringing up the Bible as an argument is, at best, academic, and at worst, unAmerican. It violates the first clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. Let's review:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

An argument born out of a religious text is fundamentally tied to religion. As soon as you start using religious dogma to craft laws, you are respecting an establishment of religion. That is not Congress' job; it's spelled out in plain English in the Bill of Rights.

So, please, provide one non-religious reason why the government should recognize heterosexual marriages but not homosexual ones.

You have to understand that bigots are caught in an endless closed loop of blind reasoning. Gay marriage is bad because homosexuality is bad and that is true because it says so in the Bible. Once you know the truth, gay marriage is bad. You don't need to reason or ask why because it is a fact and facts determine what is true. The Bible can't be questioned because it is the word of God. Bigotry is religious fanaticism, an a priori certainty that is beyond question. The bigot cannot see his fundamental irrationality.

That is why "you can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much".

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Harvey

Or are you just venting as a blowhard bigot? :roll:

Originally posted by: Corbett

Not at all, but very mature of you.

Sorry if the truth hurts. :roll:

You of all people here should know better than to flame people by calling them names for their beliefs, especially in this forum.[/quote]

I didn't call you "a name" for "your beliefs." I said:

If the only reason you would deny those rights and benefits to them is because YOU don't like what THEY do, you are indeed a freaking BIGOT! :thumbsdown:

Merriam-Webster definition

Main Entry: big-ot
Pronunciation: \'bi-g?t\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
? big·ot·ed] \-g?-t?d\ adjective
? big·ot·ed·ly adverb

In this case, you have shown irrational intolerance for gays to the point that you would deny them their Constitutional right to the words inscribed above the main entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

• Equal Justice Under Law

As American citizens and the citizens of the cities and states in which they live, gays have as much right to the same rights, protections and privileges as heterosexual couples.

As an American citizen and a citizen of the city and state in which you live, you have the right not to like their lifestyle, but your right stops at the point where you would impose your beliefs on their civil rights, protections and privileges, including the right to marry.

Renaming the same event as a "civil union" doesn't change anything. All it does it hang a a"scarlet letter" of differentiation on their marriages that separates and distinguishes them from others. The Supreme Court long ago held that "separate but equal" is NOT equal in the eyes of the law.

I don't care how you try to dodge the issue, your intolerance defines you as a bigot.

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

(swoosh) --------------------- my post ------------------ (swoosh)








Corbett's head

Not at all. I just prefer to stay a bigot.

Fixed it for ya. No need to thank me.

Originally posted by: Corbett

Equating slavery and race issues to choosing a homosexual lifestyle is disingenuous and degrades the accomplishments blacks have gone through over the years to get where they are today.

< gags at the utter bullshit >

To the contrary, the effects of the oppression suffered by African-Americans in our nation stands as an excellent example of the damage we do to our entire society by allowing bigots like you to deny the rights of others based on your personal, irrational views, and their courageous struggle to gain equal opportunity and equal protection under the laws of our nation stands as a model for other oppressed groups to do the same.

The only sad thing is that, after over 200 years of our Constitutional government, we still have so far to go to attain the ideals announced in the Preamble to our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If it isn't equal, it isn't justice.

Originally posted by: Corbett

If Jesus did not promote sin, how can I promote homosexuality?

This is where we completely disagree. Sure we are to love everyone equally; however, that doesnt mean we let everyone do whatever they want.

I never said "I dont like their lifestyle", what I said was I believe the Bible explicitly states their lifestyle is a sin, and therefore I will not promote it.

Religious wingnuts who use their beliefs as a weapon against others are one reason I'm glad I'm an atheist

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: OrByte
Jesus lifted the broken and the sick, he comforted the sinner. he didn't care about the sins they have committed?

How many times did Jesus say, "Go, and sin no more"

Originally posted by: OrByte
and listen, jump to conclusions all you want here is a partial list of sins good luck trying to follow all of them. The bible is convenient for condemning people for their sins, its happened all throughout history and something tells me that future generations will allow this to continue to happen. But try to reconcile that with the teachings of Jesus from the bible and you realize the many contradictions. Because ultimately you can't love someone and simultaneously put them down. And that is what you are doing.

Again, I'm not putting gays down. Just show me where Jesus promoted someone continuing to sin and I will concede my entire argument.

Originally posted by: OrByte
To love everyone like Jesus loved us is to love everyone equally, even though they hate, even though they oppress, even though they sin. That is not promoting sin, that is promoting the type of love we need in this world. And you only hope that someone learns to love that way. You can't love like that by oppressing people. You can't just say "oh those people are sinners to hell with them, they don't deserve what I deserve. " You are WRONG, they do deserve what you deserve, and that is a life lived in the love of God and Jesus Christ.

Try doing that.

And again, of course we are to love everyone, no matter what sins they have. Thats obvious. I'm not saying "To Hell with them", thats for God to decide. What I am saying is that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, so therefore, there is no way that Jesus would defend it. He consistently throughout the New Testament tells sinners to "Go and sin no more", even though he loves them completely.

I'm so close to just leaving this post alone because we will never agree.

The Bible associates homosexuality with lust, prostitution and sin. But from my link you can see that the Bible says that there are MANY things that are sins, are you condemning these things too? You say you aren't putting gays down but you are, you don't wish gays to enjoy the same life that you enjoy. You label them sinners and then you walk away. That isn't right.

I can't show you anywhere in the bible where Jesus promotes sin because he doesn't. But Jesus was not all about sin! he didn't walk the earth pointing out everyone's sin, He already knew we were all sinners! He knew all about the bad stuff humanity was into and what humanity will become. He instead called on us to love one another. He only cared about the faith in your heart, he only cared if you believed in him, and he always gave us the chance for redemption because NO sin was too great to keep man from the love of God, well there was one sin, and that was to not believe.

We can't follow his example by creating this heirarchy of who deserves salvation. I guess you believe its OK, but I dont think it is. I can't just label homosexuals sinners and leave them behind because #1 I don't think loving someone/anyone is a sin and #2 most references in the bible to homosexuality is tied to lust, not loving nurturing relationships and #3 I do not agree with homosexuality for myself because I know in my heart and mind that I am not built that way. But I cant speak for anyone else, so I have to believe that when a person is in love with someone of the same sex that they are being truthful with themselves. If not, I have to believe that God's love will help them find their way to who they really are. After its all said in done, I do believe in treating them with equality and love, and I do believe that they have the right to find the love of God. Saying things like Gays shouldn't be married or Gays can't use the term "marriage" is very PETTY in light of what I believe.

you say you don't condemn them or you are not, "putting gays down" but you are.

Jesus says, "go and sin no more" but prior to that, he also says, "I do not condemn you."

But most importantly.

We are ALL created in the image of God. We are all created and worthy of Gods love, we are not to make ourselves worthy of God's love. It's unconditional love. We lost the meaning of these two words. RELIGION lost the meaning of these two words.

Jesus will never condemn anyone to live a life that is less than what we all deserve. The religious groups out there wish to do exactly that. Gays are only the latest minority group that is suffering from this persecution from the religious.

Edit:

And one last thing.

There is alot of thought in what people are trying to tell you, mainly because some people might think it is worthwhile for you to listen. But up to this point I think you have been sitting there with your hands over your eyes repeating the religious mantra that the Bible is always right.

I think myself and others like me (Craig234 especially) go thru great lengths to explain our individual positions and what we believe in. By simply responding to these positions with one-liner quibs like, "its obvious that you aren't willing to see anyone's opinion as valid if it differs from you." or "What I am saying is that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin" over and over again begins to show me that you aren't open to an honest discussion, and also maybe you are not being honest with yourself.

You should try going with what your heart tells you what is right and not the Bible. The Bible was written by man, some men were guided by the hand of God, others weren't. We will never really know. I choose to listen to my heart, and follow the example of Jesus Christ the best way I know how....which sometimes (actuallly alot of times) isn't all that great, but I try.

That is all I am going to say about the issue.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: OrByte
The Bible associates homosexuality with lust, prostitution and sin. But from my link you can see that the Bible says that there are MANY things that are sins, are you condemning these things too?

Absolutely. I don't support sin in any way. And if I sin, I repent and thank God for His forgiveness.

Originally posted by: OrByte
You say you aren't putting gays down but you are, you don't wish gays to enjoy the same life that you enjoy. You label them sinners and then you walk away. That isn't right.

Gays can enjoy every bit of the life I enjoy, and though I may believe they live a sinful lifestyle, that doesn't mean I somehow label them and walk away. I'm friends with quite a few gay people.

Originally posted by: OrByte
I can't show you anywhere in the bible where Jesus promotes sin because he doesn't. But Jesus was not all about sin!

Jesus' entire purpose was to come to Earth to take our sins for us. His very being was to bare out sins.

Originally posted by: OrByte
He didn't walk the earth pointing out everyone's sin, He already knew we were all sinners! He knew all about the bad stuff humanity was into and what humanity will become.

What "bad stuff" would you be referring to here? Homosexuality for one?

Originally posted by: OrByte
He instead called on us to love one another. He only cared about the faith in your heart, he only cared if you believed in him, and he always gave us the chance for redemption because NO sin was too great to keep man from the love of God, well there was one sin, and that was to not believe.

Can't argue with you there, though, I wouldn't say he "only" cared if you believed in Him.

Originally posted by: OrByte
We can't follow his example by creating this heirarchy of who deserves salvation. I guess you believe its OK, but I dont think it is.

Where did I suggest this? I believe you can be gay and go to Heaven.

Originally posted by: OrByte
I can't just label homosexuals sinners and leave them behind because #1 I don't think loving someone/anyone is a sin and #2 most references in the bible to homosexuality is tied to lust, not loving nurturing relationships and #3 I do not agree with homosexuality for myself because I know in my heart and mind that I am not built that way. But I cant speak for anyone else, so I have to believe that when a person is in love with someone of the same sex that they are being truthful with themselves. If not, I have to believe that God's love will help them find their way to who they really are. After its all said in done, I do believe in treating them with equality and love, and I do believe that they have the right to find the love of God. Saying things like Gays shouldn't be married or Gays can't use the term "marriage" is very PETTY in light of what I believe.

See above. I don't believe in leaving ANYONE behind. But thats their decision. What they do after they make Jesus Lord of their life is irrelevant to me. I believe you CAN be a homosexual and still go to Heaven. Heck, we all sin in some sort of way from time to time.

Originally posted by: OrByte
you say you don't condemn them or you are not, "putting gays down" but you are.

How so?

Originally posted by: OrByte
Jesus says, "go and sin no more" but prior to that, he also says, "I do not condemn you."

Nor do I condemn them. Jesus said Himself to not point out the spec in someone eye when you have a log in your own.

Originally posted by: OrByte

But most importantly.

We are ALL created in the image of God. We are all created and worthy of Gods love, we are not to make ourselves worthy of God's love. It's unconditional love. We lost the meaning of these two words. RELIGION lost the meaning of these two words.

I agree 100%.

Originally posted by: OrByte
Jesus will never condemn anyone to live a life that is less than what we all deserve. The religious groups out there wish to do exactly that. Gays are only the latest minority group that is suffering from this persecution from the religious.

If you think I'm somehow "religious" you have another thing coming. Religion is what makes up everything that is wrong with Christianity. I prefer a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by: OrByte
Edit:

And one last thing.

There is alot of thought in what people are trying to tell you, mainly because some people might think it is worthwhile for you to listen. But up to this point I think you have been sitting there with your hands over your eyes repeating the religious mantra that the Bible is always right.

Again, see above.

Originally posted by: OrByte
I think myself and others like me (Craig234 especially) go thru great lengths to explain our individual positions and what we believe in. By simply responding to these positions with one-liner quibs like, "its obvious that you aren't willing to see anyone's opinion as valid if it differs from you." or "What I am saying is that the Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin" over and over again begins to show me that you aren't open to an honest discussion, and also maybe you are not being honest with yourself.

You have gone through great lengths to explain your positions, and so have I. The difference is, people like Craig, Harvey, and Robor automatically through out the word Bigot. Which then automatically puts me in a defensive position, in which case, I'm not going to repond to his 3 page diatribe on how misguided of a person I am.

Originally posted by: OrByte
You should try going with what your heart tells you what is right and not the Bible. The Bible was written by man, some men were guided by the hand of God, others weren't. We will never really know. I choose to listen to my heart, and follow the example of Jesus Christ the best way I know how....which sometimes (actuallly alot of times) isn't all that great, but I try.

We completely disagree here. I belive the ENTIRE Bible is the Inspired Word of God.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr
Marrige is also an institution of religious significance that predates the state in question. I can understand the sensitivity that people of various faiths have with the issue based on their traditions. If gays were only interested in equal legal rights and benefits via the civil union process we wouldn't be having this debate. Admit it or not, this is about gays wanting their relationships to be legally recognized as "legitimate" in the same way that heterosexual relationships are.

It's funny how you think that's a a revelation or even a bad thing. In other words, no shit sherlock. Let's take gay out of the verbiage and use neutral terminology to argue for or against the same point. You're expressing a desire to regulate a behavior of people that harms no one in any way and has literally nothing to do with you. It's akin to someone saying you can't buy alcohol on Sunday because it's not proper Christian behavior, you can't mow your lawn on the Sabbath because it doesn't abide by the Torah, or eat meat or have sex during the day on Ramadan because the Koran forbids it.

Despite the attempt of a certain group of people trying to force our country into a new american theocracy, our nation was founded upon and fostered with a secular government that should preclude the enactment of theocratic law like that which prevents two law abiding adults from legally joining in marriage. You can't just pick and choose what dogmatic crap you feel total strangers should abide by anymore than I can require you to pull your head out of your ass.

I, frankly, don't care either way. It rings as a bit self conscious on the part of gays to be so concerned about what everyone else thinks by forcing the issue down everyone's throat via the legal system over essentially a matter of vocabulary.

It's hard for me to convey what a ridiculously trivializing and ignorant statement this is. Not much more than a generation ago people like you would've been using the term "colored" in place of "gays" in that sentence. Take a second to put yourself in that situation, I know it's difficult but it might teach you how to be a little less disingenuous in the future. Think you'd be a bit peeved if the roles were reversed and the gay majority passed law preventing you from marrying the woman you love just because they don't like you or what you represent

like why the fuck I can't buy beer on Sundays or why I can't see a sweet pair of knocks on network TV yet I can watch a guy getting his arm ripped off and beaten with it any time of day. At least give a guy the choice while I'm drinking my beer 7 days a week...

I'm sure this was mostly meant to be humorous, at least it came across that way (partially because it's somewhat incoherent in the context it was used in and disjointed.) Tell you what, I'll be the first guy in the picket line behind you railing to get the ignorant as piss/annoying as hell blue laws abolished across the board.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Craig, this is why I end up eventually dropping these arguments with you. You obviously have waaaaay too much free time to sit there and write something so long, and I do not. Besides, its obvious that you aren't willing to see anyone's opinion as valid if it differs from you.

And again, color me shocked that you ignore the Bernie Ward thread.

That's why I'd rather you not eventually drop these arguments, but not start them, because I waste the time writing something, and you then fail to respond, like here.

You make your false little cheap shot to try to feel better I guess.

As for the Ward thread, I posted at length in it, pointed out your dishonest statement about what I'd said (you falsely claimed I "promised" to post more), and offered to answer specific questions if you had things not yet answered but what I already posted. All you did was bump and this, complain but not say one specific question you are asking.

It's really a waste of time. You show not one bit of interest in learning a thing.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
As for the Ward thread, I posted at length in it, pointed out your dishonest statement about what I'd said (you falsely claimed I "promised" to post more), and offered to answer specific questions if you had things not yet answered but what I already posted. All you did was bump and this, complain but not say one specific question you are asking.

It's really a waste of time. You show not one bit of interest in learning a thing.

1 - I never said you "promised". Though you did somehow suggest I was a hypocrite for calling you out in the Ward thread but ignoring you here. Funny how once I responded you went back to "I never promised"

2 - I have nothing to learn from you, don't flatter yourself. You're one of the most liberal people here on ATPN, and thefore I've made it a rule that pretty much anything I say that you make a fuss about, I'm on the right track.

3 - The main problem with debating you is that you go waaaaaay off on bunny trails like you did in your last post to try to prove a point. Talking about different sins and suggesting I somehow "pick and choose". Craig, you don't know the first thing about me or what I believe (obviously, because you believe I am a bigot). Debating what the Bible says with someone who doesn't believe what the Bible says or even that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God is just stupid. Because, in the end, you just believe its a "good book" and I believe its what God has left us with on this earth after sending His Son. In fact YOU are the one picking and choosing snippets from the Bible to try to prove somehow that I use the Bible as an excuse to be a bigot.