President Obama announces support for gay marriage

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Why do you hate the First Amendment?

Do you believe all sins should be illegal?

Not all, no.

You cannot simultaneously believe that same-sex marriage should be illegal and that men and women should have equal rights.

Certianly I can.

I think he simply believes that America isn't a theocracy. Only fools and bigots believe that the rule of law in our country should align perfectly with the rules of their personal religion.

Christianity only promotes a theocracy when Jesus returns.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The key to forgiveness is be sincere about attempting to stop the action which requires forgiveness. If one has no intention of stopping the action which requires forgiveness then forgiveness is not granted. No one says you must succeed, but you must make an honest attempt.

This then moves to the discussion about sinning unto death...where your life is shortened due to not being willing to stop doing whatever sin it is that is being purposefully and repeated committed. It does not list a sin for it covers all of them.
I am making the assumption here that a gay Christian does not think his behavior is offensive to G-d, nor necessarily a sin. I suppose it's possible that one can be an active gay Christian and still think that behavior is a sin. I don't find that assumption unreasonable though - gay behavior is not offensive to me and I'm pretty sure I have thinner skin than does G-d since I'd have been smiting us long ago.

EDIT: As far as equal rights - giving a lesbian the right to marry only a man is like giving me the right to marry only a man; it's effectively removing our right to select our own marriage partner while paying lip service to equal rights. It's like interracial marriage; if the only woman I want to marry is another race, disallowing me that choice is effectively making me property of the state, asserting that the state's interests in whom I marry come ahead of my own. Unless there can be shown a very compelling public interest that can only be achieved in this manner, this is an evil thing to do.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Generally speaking, the Christian part of the Bible (the New Testament) is G-d's instructions on how the Christian should act, not how the Christian should force others to act.

There are surely gay Christians, and how they reconcile their gay behavior with Christ's teachings is frankly none of my business. If being gay offends G-d (not something I'm willing to concede OR argue), I'm pretty sure that can be forgiven. It's not like we all don't do things that offend G-d, and it's not something Jesus addressed.

Yeah, sins can and are forgiven by God. I do things that I am sure offends God.

Look - I am not trying to condemn anyone for anything. If I am reading from the Bible about a certain condemning act, who's doing the condemning? Me or God? I'm simply acting as a means of communication, not the source of that communication.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
Why do you hate the First Amendment? <--- answer this.

Not all, no.
Then there really shouldn't be an issue with Obama maintaining that same-sex marriage should be legal, and you're obviously just trying to manufacture an issue. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. :rolleyes:

Certianly I can.
Not without inconsistency.

Christianity only promotes a theocracy when Jesus returns.
That's not what Dominionists will tell me.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yeah, sins can and are forgiven by God. I do things that I am sure offends God.

Look - I am not trying to condemn anyone for anything. If I am reading from the Bible about a certain condemning act, who's doing the condemning? Me or God? I'm simply acting as a means of communication, not the source of that communication.
Understood - I'm merely asserting that forcing someone to do what we think is best for them, even up to abiding with G-d's word, is not doing them any favors. Except where it materially harms others, freedom of religion demands that one's relationship with G-d (or lack thereof) be a personal thing.

Although if being an active homosexual condemns one to Hell, I suspect we're all in for an unpleasant shock about something or other. I'm really not looking forward to explaining all those cotton-poly shirts . . .
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
No, he brought the Bible into by going the cesears law route and how it says we must follow it. I countered by agreeing and stating further that Gods law supercedes it. My point is that don't half-use the bible to fit a belief and disregard the rest. This isn't about my god or his god if we are reading from the same book and quoting from it. How is it my god is saying that about homosexuality, and his bible says the exact same thing?

The post you quoted did not speak to Caesar's world unless I missed that bit. I read him saying that, well... what I said he said. Or at least how I understood it...
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,025
2,593
136
freedom of religion demands that one's relationship with G-d (or lack thereof) be a personal thing.

Precisely a personal thing, not the law. If opposition to a law stems solely from religious belief, then you are in effect imposing your beliefs on others. Get enough people in your group, and you can effectively ensure that your beliefs are the dominant law.

However, such is exactly what the founding fathers sought to avoid, that is a large majority of religious individuals via simple majority imposing religious law on everyone. Thus there is the doctrine of the separation of church and state, which regardless of the will or wants of the majority, always must be kept.

Preventing gay marriage based solely on religious belief goes against what the founding fathers wanted. To adequately block it, you'd need to provide some sort of practical reason as well. The most common practical reason is some nonsense about the dissolution of families and kids doing poorly. Such nonsense has been proven to be untrue by numerous studies.

All this discussion about God and hell, homosexuality and the biblical definition of marriage are all moot points. Talk to a hindu and he'll have a different definition of God, marriage and sexuality. Talk to a greek and you'll get the same. Talk to a catholic another set of thoughts, and talk to an atheist yet another. Religion belongs in the home, not in politics. We instead need to discuss what is the practical definition of marriage and whom to exclude based on practical reasons.
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Yeah, sins can and are forgiven by God. I do things that I am sure offends God.

Look - I am not trying to condemn anyone for anything. If I am reading from the Bible about a certain condemning act, who's doing the condemning? Me or God? I'm simply acting as a means of communication, not the source of that communication.

So, Rob, the rational basis you'd apply to the denying of the Fundamental Right of Marriage to a segment of society is that 'God said'.
When you're a member of his heavenly city then you and me will both abide by that proclamation.
In the mean time though, how about considering that what is rational in one situation or venue is not always rational in another. This USA place provides for you the Right to conduct your behavior according to your belief subject to the laws we've enacted which means; to the extent it does not infringe upon another's similar Right.
When you apply 'God said' you apply an irrational basis because your God may not be the God of others or the dictator of the US and it is not rational to act as if she is. It seems you'd be quite content to have the Pope or whoever it is that leads your particular religious belief become the dictator of the US... like in Iran or places there about.
How about extending to all citizens the same Rights subordinated to the compelling needs of the State? What do you care how folks enjoy them... you enjoy yours as you see fit.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
So, Rob, the rational basis you'd apply to the denying of the Fundamental Right of Marriage to a segment of society is that 'God said'.

Well, if I am to believe that what the Bible says is of primary importance to me, for example, what else should I go by? My own personal views?

In the mean time though, how about considering that what is rational in one situation or venue is not always rational in another. This USA place provides for you the Right to conduct your behavior according to your belief subject to the laws we've enacted which means; to the extent it does not infringe upon another's similar Right.

Well, each to their own.

When you apply 'God said' you apply an irrational basis because your God may not be the God of others or the dictator of the US and it is not rational to act as if she is. It seems you'd be quite content to have the Pope or whoever it is that leads your particular religious belief become the dictator of the US... like in Iran or places there about.
How about extending to all citizens the same Rights subordinated to the compelling needs of the State? What do you care how folks enjoy them... you enjoy yours as you see fit.

Well, true, we don't all serve the same God, but we read the same Bible - that's my whole point. And the passages I quoted in Acts 5:29 and Romans 1:23-32 read the same in EVERY Bible in circulation. There's no way to spin that by saying: "that's what YOUR God says". No, it's the Bible that says it.

Pope? No, nothing to do with him
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Well, if I am to believe that what the Bible says is of primary importance to me, for example, what else should I go by? My own personal views?



Well, each to their own.



Well, true, we don't all serve the same God, but we read the same Bible - that's my whole point. And the passages I quoted in Acts 5:29 and Romans 1:23-32 read the same in EVERY Bible in circulation. There's no way to spin that by saying: "that's what YOUR God says". No, it's the Bible that says it.

Pope? No, nothing to do with him

Your own personal views are what the bible provides... you have adopted the bible to be your view and that is just fine... laudable actually... For you this is your view and you should follow it in the conduct of your behavior... But, don't forget Moonbeam has done the exact same thing but his 'bible' is not your 'bible'... The Indian in Arizona don't necessarily read your bible nor do the Muslim or the Hindu... All might be citizens of the US... I recall being told the Non Catholic won't go to heaven... and who knows what happens to the Atheist... Now we've folks going around trying to save everyone and bring them into the flock... well... fine by me but when you go too far and want to control me based on your religious belief and not confine your actions to my soul... you've become the Taliban of your locale.

I understand your bible says what it says and assuming we agree on what the Greek or Latin or Hebrew or what ever it is written in meant we can discuss that... We can debate the divinity of Jesus or how many wives he had or what ever else they discussed at Nicea but all of that is to do with the eternal nature of mankind and not the temporal nature of the US and its diverse citizenry.

I submit that your bible commands you to Love God and to Love your fellow person and from that bit all the rest of the stuff God said flows. But again that is to do with you and God.. not you me and God.

I want you to be happy and if being Gay and being married makes you happy then I will help you... Don't expect me to try and find ways to make you unhappy because my bible says I shouldn't be Gay and If I can't be Gay then you can't either.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
Rob M: Ok - you wanna act like you're so big on the Bible regarding Ceasers Law, sure, we are subject to the Laws of the land. Only if they don't not conflict with God's law according to Acts 5:29 "obey God as ruler rather than men".

M: That's what I said. God said obey Caesar and so that's what you do.

R: As regards homosexuality, you want to see how the Bible comments on that? Romans 1:24-32, God called homosexuality "disgraceful sexual appetite" and even explained how those practicing that among other things are "deserving of death".

M: I know Caesar was a Roman so that part of the Bible can't be true because Caesar had a couple of men wives or so I hear. Also it can't be true or else God would have to be a bigot and I believe that God is beyond imperfection. And in my religion I know more about perfection than you do. Your God is out the window. I like my God much better. My God doesn't pay any attention to what it says in books especially ones written by humans. They get everything all fucked up.

R: Read those verses for yourself to see. So before you selectively use the Bible on someone like myself, you'd need to get the whole story of the Bible before selectively using it to justify something you already want to believe in despite what the Bible may say on it.

M: Why? You are selectively using it on me. You are quoting stuff that says God is a bigot or that the earth is 6000 years old or other nonsense, when both of those are lies and could never have been said by a real God.

You believe in the god you were taught is God according to words in a book, but God is much better than anything that can be written. Heck, even I am better than your god and God is much better than me. Nope, your God is finite, limited by words in a book, but my God is infinite love. Infinite love and bigotry don't mix. But I defend your right to your small god so I can proclaim one Who is so much better. No real lover of God can be held back by a book.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Rob M: Ok - you wanna act like you're so big on the Bible regarding Ceasers Law, sure, we are subject to the Laws of the land. Only if they don't not conflict with God's law according to Acts 5:29 "obey God as ruler rather than men".

M: That's what I said. God said obey Caesar and so that's what you do.

R: As regards homosexuality, you want to see how the Bible comments on that? Romans 1:24-32, God called homosexuality "disgraceful sexual appetite" and even explained how those practicing that among other things are "deserving of death".

M: I know Caesar was a Roman so that part of the Bible can't be true because Caesar had a couple of men wives or so I hear. Also it can't be true or else God would have to be a bigot and I believe that God is beyond imperfection. And in my religion I know more about perfection than you do. Your God is out the window. I like my God much better. My God doesn't pay any attention to what it says in books especially ones written by humans. They get everything all fucked up.

R: Read those verses for yourself to see. So before you selectively use the Bible on someone like myself, you'd need to get the whole story of the Bible before selectively using it to justify something you already want to believe in despite what the Bible may say on it.

M: Why? You are selectively using it on me. You are quoting stuff that says God is a bigot or that the earth is 6000 years old or other nonsense, when both of those are lies and could never have been said by a real God.

You believe in the god you were taught is God according to words in a book, but God is much better than anything that can be written. Heck, even I am better than your god and God is much better than me. Nope, your God is finite, limited by words in a book, but my God is infinite love. Infinite love and bigotry don't mix. But I defend your right to your small god so I can proclaim one Who is so much better. No real lover of God can be held back by a book.

May I ask you a question then? Does you religion use the Bible that contains the books Genesis through Revelation? Yes, no, partly? Just asking...

I'm assuming you and/or your religion reads the Bible since you quoted "obey Caeser's Law" from it.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
Well said...
" [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]The truth is that Christian theology, like every other theology, is not only opposed to the scientific spirit; it is also opposed to all other attempts at rational thinking. Not by accident does Genesis 3 make the father of knowledge a serpent -- slimy, sneaking and abominable. Since the earliest days the church, as an organization, has thrown itself violently against every effort to liberate the body and mind of man. It has been, at all times and everywhere, the habitual and incorrigible defender of bad governments, bad laws, bad social theories, bad institutions. It was, for centuries, an apologist for slavery, as it was the apologist for the divine right of kings. " [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1] [SIZE=-1]-- H L Mencken[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

Nope. That's just the religion of sick humans. Real religion was exemplified by perfect people to inform them of a world they can't believe, that all their hate and sin is an illusion that we are all and have always been perfect. The serpent is that we do not believe it, that we ate of the tree of knowledge, which is duality, the belief that good and evil are real. There is no good or evil. There is only being, what you were before you had words that create thought that creates time, thought, and division, this is one thing and that another, I and thou when there is only I am. The religious mind is empty of content, thoughts and ideas, and filled fully with love.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
So what?

No, it isn't.

Only in the confused and deluded right-wing mind could financial obligations be conflated with violations of bodily integrity. :rolleyes: What a flock of morons.

So it is ok to force a man to be a father, because he has sex, but it is not ok to force a woman to be a mother if she does. :hmm: smells like inequality.

Oh is bodily integrity another left-wing euphemism for abortion :\

I mean what is worse a woman wasting a day or 2 getting an abortion, or a man being forced to be responsible for a child for 18 years?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
May I ask you a question then? Does you religion use the Bible that contains the books Genesis through Revelation? Yes, no, partly? Just asking...

I'm assuming you and/or your religion reads the Bible since you quoted "obey Caeser's Law" from it.

I believe that God is the ground of our being, that God is what man is when the ego is not. I believe that all the great religions were founded by men who had ceased to exist an normal human beings, and that Jesus was a particular fine example of this. I came to this understanding via Christianity, that is to say, my loss in my belief in it.

I set out to prove that the good exists because I loved the good like life itself. But I failed. I could not prove there is any Love out there in the universe only the cold dead depths of space. So I died of a broken heart and suffered misery beyond belief. My life went black.

I happened to find some stuff on Zen, folk who also didn't believe in anything but told the story of a man chased off a cliff by a tiger, and with a tiger also at the bottom of the cliff and weakening muscles, found a strawberry growing there that tasted so good. I knew all about that but the strawberry. What I read told me that my vision of truth made me miserable and them happy and that was like a pry bar, that popped something loose. And one night, deep in thought something happened. One minute I was lost at the deepest recesses of thought and the next I entered the present and knew what I had always been seeking. Love isn't out there in the universe except when it's in me. Then it's everywhere and that's all there is. The need for meaning is as meaningless as everything else. When I am I am everything there is to be. Everybody who is is the same.

I see the same message in every religion. When the self is not, God is. Truth isn't a book, it's a state of being. People of any or no faith are and can discover it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
So it is ok to force a man to be a father, because he has sex, but it is not ok to force a woman to be a mother if she does. :hmm: smells like inequality.

Oh is bodily integrity another left-wing euphemism for abortion :\

I mean what is worse a woman wasting a day or 2 getting an abortion, or a man being forced to be responsible for a child for 18 years?

It's like having only one X chromosome that has a baldness gene. Way way more men are bald than women. If the woman has the child she will be responsible for 18 years too if she keeps it. The inequality is all in your head. Women are women only by chance. You don't get fucked by inequality but by the luck of the draw.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
It's like having only one X chromosome that has a baldness gene. Way way more men are bald than women. If the woman has the child she will be responsible for 18 years too if she keeps it. The inequality is all in your head. Women are women only by chance. You don't get fucked by inequality but by the luck of the draw.

You mean if the woman CHOOSES to have the child she will be responsible, whereas the man will be responsible whether he chooses to or not.

The inequality should be obvious.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,202
4,401
136
I'm simply acting as a means of communication, not the source of that communication.

I disagree. You are acting as far more then just the means communicating, you are analyzing it, interpreting it, and making assumptions about what is and is not metaphor, even deciding what version and translation to read, and then communicating all that.

So it is ok to force a man to be a father, because he has sex, but it is not ok to force a woman to be a mother if she does. :hmm: smells like inequality.

Oh is bodily integrity another left-wing euphemism for abortion :\

I mean what is worse a woman wasting a day or 2 getting an abortion, or a man being forced to be responsible for a child for 18 years?

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, and no matter what side is right in the woman's/man's reproductive rights argument, it in now way makes discriminating against a different group acceptable.

For the record I think the laws concerning women's vs. men's rights in abortion and parental responsibility is unfair. I also think that every other system we have come up with is even more unfair. It is a case of choosing a path of least harm.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I believe that God is the ground of our being, that God is what man is when the ego is not. I believe that all the great religions were founded by men who had ceased to exist an normal human beings, and that Jesus was a particular fine example of this. I came to this understanding via Christianity, that is to say, my loss in my belief in it.

I set out to prove that the good exists because I loved the good like life itself. But I failed. I could not prove there is any Love out there in the universe only the cold dead depths of space. So I died of a broken heart and suffered misery beyond belief. My life went black.

I happened to find some stuff on Zen, folk who also didn't believe in anything but told the story of a man chased off a cliff by a tiger, and with a tiger also at the bottom of the cliff and weakening muscles, found a strawberry growing there that tasted so good. I knew all about that but the strawberry. What I read told me that my vision of truth made me miserable and them happy and that was like a pry bar, that popped something loose. And one night, deep in thought something happened. One minute I was lost at the deepest recesses of thought and the next I entered the present and knew what I had always been seeking. Love isn't out there in the universe except when it's in me. Then it's everywhere and that's all there is. The need for meaning is as meaningless as everything else. When I am I am everything there is to be. Everybody who is is the same.

I see the same message in every religion. When the self is not, God is. Truth isn't a book, it's a state of being. People of any or no faith are and can discover it.

Oh, ok. I was just wondering since you don't believe in, what you insultingly refer to as a "book", yet, you're quoting from it as a basis as to why you accept not just homosexuality, but other secular laws.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
Oh, ok. I was just wondering since you don't believe in, what you insultingly refer to as a "book", yet, you're quoting from it as a basis as to why you accept not just homosexuality, but other secular laws.

I felt justified in insulting the part of the book that insults reason since you insult the part of the book where you will not love your neighbor by denying him or her equal rights. I am forced to do so because it is you who takes his morality from the Bible according to bigotry. Bigots may feel insulted when their bigotry is pointed out, because they are insulted by the fact of being a bigot and being forced to see it. I showed you who you are with a mirror. Mirrors do not insult. The insult is all in how you take what you see. I know you can't be other than you are because, unlike me, you have no need to prove the good. You accept your belief irrationally. I couldn't do that. You believe what you believe because you think you know what is in the Bible and you believe it's the word of God because it says it is. I couldn't circular reason but you can.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
You mean if the woman CHOOSES to have the child she will be responsible, whereas the man will be responsible whether he chooses to or not.

The inequality should be obvious.

No inequity found. Men can't give birth so they can't choose. As soon as women can impregnate men the shoe will be on the other foot. There is no inequity but only the luck of the draw.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I felt justified in insulting the part of the book that insults reason since you insult the part of the book where you will not love your neighbor by denying him or her equal rights. I am forced to do so because it is you who takes his morality from the Bible according to bigotry. Bigots may feel insulted when their bigotry is pointed out, because they are insulted by the fact of being a bigot and being forced to see it. I showed you who you are with a mirror. Mirrors do not insult. The insult is all in how you take what you see. I know you can't be other than you are because, unlike me, you have no need to prove the good. You accept your belief irrationally. I couldn't do that. You believe what you believe because you think you know what is in the Bible and you believe it's the word of God because it says it is. I couldn't circular reason but you can.

All I said was I don't accept the notion that gays should marry, I never said I would FIGHT AGAINST IT, which would, by your definition, constitute bigotry. I wouldn't fight against it. What law makers want to do is there business.

I will make my feelings known on the matter. And if you, or anyone thinks that people who don't accept it are bigots, well, you are welcome to calling me one.

I can call you a religious bigot for the stance you take on rejecting my beliefs, right?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,333
6,040
126
Rob M: All I said was I don't accept the notion that gays should marry, I never said I would FIGHT AGAINST IT, which would, by your definition, constitute bigotry. I wouldn't fight against it. What law makers want to do is there business.

M: Well that's good news but I still call your opinion bigotry because it is an irrational opinion. There is no rational reason for you to feel that way. But there is no point in us arguing about this because if you are a bigot you will not be able to see it. The opinions of bigots automatically self justify. That is what a bigot is because it's what he does. You are not evil if you don't act on it but it's still irrational

R: I will make my feelings known on the matter. And if you, or anyone thinks that people who don't accept it are bigots, well, you are welcome to calling me one.

M: I would much rather call you somebody who was once lost but is now found.

R: I can call you a religious bigot for the stance you take on rejecting my beliefs, right?

M: Of course, but I am not a religious bigot because I don't judge you as a bigot for some irrational religious reason. I judge you as a bigot because you can't show that what you believe is rational. To you rational always comes back to being circular. You believe in the Bible as authority and I believe in logic. If you believe on the basis of some text that says in the text that it is authoritative and you buy that argument, you are irrational and it is logical to say so.

You see, your bigotry is anchored in the fact that you love the good but you can't prove what it is. You know that you are right because of the love you feel. I also know the love you feel, but I feel it without any reason. So you believe in love because you love God and would die without your belief. I died to belief like you have and believe anyway. And I wouldn't even say I believe. I know. If you lose everything that can be taken love is what is left. I lost a ton of garbage and gained the universe. What a surprise. hehehehehe