Support for same-sex marriage reaches record high

[shira]

We have had at least 3 threads on the topic that I can think of

Obviously the best bang for your buck is to go after high profile people. To make it clear that engaging in counter revolutionary thought will not be tolerated.

In other words, you have zero data on the "liberals" who are destroying the lives of everyday Americans simply for holding a view against SSM? Zero data.

Thanks for playing.

 

[SlickSnake]

Apparently liberal idea of arguing is to repeat falsehoods enough times until the other side gives in so they don't have to listen to you anymore.

This idiot wrote this sentence with absolutely no sense of irony.

I had the same exact thought. Just substitute conservative (nehalem256) for liberal.

 

[Atreus21]

Hey, thats great - thanks.

Tell me, what did Jesus say that was against homosexuality?? Oh, we've been over this already,.. nothing. There was no direction from Jesus to oppress and hate homosexuals. He did speak about love, acceptance and peace though.

If it comes to that, what did Jesus say that was against group sex? Or against any number of sexual or nonsexual acts that perfectly secular people might consider immoral?

An act is not made moral by an absence of denunciation. One would think it'd be more incumbent on you to prove He did approve of homosexuality, rather than on us to prove He didn't.

 

[Retro Rob]

Hey, thats great - thanks.

Tell me, what did Jesus say that was against homosexuality?? Oh, we've been over this already,.. nothing. There was no direction from Jesus to oppress and hate homosexuals. He did speak about love, acceptance and peace though.

So, it can't be religion,.. ergo,.. it's just pure hate.

If you oppose something and feel it is truly just, have the balls to at least be honest about it, instead of hiding behind a dark skinned, kinky haired Jew that showed up 2,014 years ago.

Now, this isn't directed at you, but, please don't feed us the line that it's a religious thing - because it is clearly not.

Actually, Jesus didn't say anything about a lot of things, yet he didn't tell us to support gay marriage either.

Anyone who's remotely familiar with the Bible knows its doesn't support homosexuality period, but I agree with you -- nowhere are we told to oppress people, and since we as straights can marry, so should tax paying gay people too.

In short, the US's support of SSM has NOTHING to do with scripture. This is not a Christian nation.

Bigots should understand that by now.

 

[Retro Rob]

If it comes to that, what did Jesus say that was against group sex? Or against any number of sexual or nonsexual acts that perfectly secular people might consider immoral?

An act is not made moral by an absence of denunciation. One would think it'd be more incumbent on you to prove He did approve of homosexuality, rather then on us to prove He didn't.

Extremely well said.

 

[mikeymikec]

An act is not made moral by an absence of denunciation. One would think it'd be more incumbent on you to prove He did approve of homosexuality, rather then on us to prove He didn't.

It's interesting that assumption seems to pass off as 'truthy' as Holy Scripture, and even more interesting that you apparently think it's OK for people to denounce the behaviour of others as immoral and marginalise them based on that assumption.

Wouldn't (or shouldn't) God get mad at you for making such an assumption? That strikes me as an extremely arrogant attitude for one of his followers to adopt, and a one-way ticket to Hell if your assumption was incorrect.

 

[Atreus21]

It's interesting that assumption seems to pass off as 'truthy' as Holy Scripture, and even more interesting that you apparently think it's OK for people to denounce the behaviour of others as immoral and marginalise them based on that assumption.

Wouldn't (or shouldn't) God get mad at you for making such an assumption? That strikes me as an extremely arrogant attitude for one of his followers to adopt, and a one-way ticket to Hell if your assumption was incorrect.

So...because Christ didn't explicitly denounce rape means we can't call it immoral based on an extrapolation of his teachings?

 

[mikeymikec]

So...because Christ didn't explicitly denounce rape doesn't mean we can't call it immoral based on an extrapolation of his teachings?

Your point only aids the argument I put forward against mindless assumptions.

 

[Atreus21]

Your point only aids the argument I put forward against mindless assumptions.

I edited my last response. I said doesn't when I meant does.

Regardless, I don't understand what you mean. Newell said:

Christ not denouncing homosexuality means He condones it. Therefore it should follow that:

Christ not denouncing bestiality/rape/pedophilia means he condones it. Is that true?

 

[shira]

If it comes to that, what did Jesus say that was against group sex? Or against any number of sexual or nonsexual acts that perfectly secular people might consider immoral?

An act is not made moral by an absence of denunciation. One would think it'd be more incumbent on you to prove He did approve of homosexuality, rather than on us to prove He didn't.

In other words, you agree that what's moral and immoral is determined by human sensibilities, without any need for cosmic intervention.

 

[shira]

Extremely well said.

Another convert to the the secular view of morality.

 

[Retro Rob]

In other words, you agree that what's moral and immoral is determined by human sensibilities, without any need for cosmic intervention.

Are you making stuff up again? What is "cosmic intervention"?

 

[mikeymikec]

Regardless, I don't understand what you mean.

What I mean is, making an assumption in the name of a religion that results in the oppression of others is a) stupid and b) wrong.

If you consider your religion of choice to have dictated what is right and wrong and you consider yourself to be a faithful follower of that religion, then you shouldn't make assumptions and then claim that it's your religion that says it.

 

[shira]

So...because Christ didn't explicitly denounce rape means we can't call it immoral based on an extrapolation of his teachings?

Why would anyone need to be "taught" - either directly or indirectly - that rape is wrong? As you posted yourself, the answers to many moral question are pretty self-evident. And it's clear that rape is wrong based solely on the entirely natural instincts to avoid pain and to be in control of our own lives.

 

[shira]

Are you making stuff up again? What is "cosmic intervention"?

You can substitute whatever term you wish for your infinite spiritual guide.

 

[Atreus21]

What I mean is, making an assumption in the name of a religion that results in the oppression of others is a) stupid and b) wrong.

Calling something immoral is not oppressive. It's not oppressing pedophiles to call pedophilia wrong and immoral.

If you consider your religion of choice to have dictated what is right and wrong and you consider yourself to be a faithful follower of that religion, then you shouldn't make assumptions and then claim that it's your religion that says it.

Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, doesn't expect its adherents to be mindless, zealous drones.

 

[Atreus21]

Why would anyone need to be "taught" - either directly or indirectly - that rape is wrong? As you posted yourself, the answers to many moral question are pretty self-evident. And it's clear that rape is wrong based solely on the entirely natural instincts to avoid pain and to be in control of our own lives.

That's not the issue, or at least not the one I'm addressing. The issue is Newell attempting to hijack Christ into being a proponent of SSM.

 

[nehalem256]

Why would anyone need to be "taught" - either directly or indirectly - that rape is wrong? As you posted yourself, the answers to many moral question are pretty self-evident. And it's clear that rape is wrong based solely on the entirely natural instincts to avoid pain and to be in control of our own lives.

Aren't liberals always saying we need to teach men not to rape?:whiste:

Also I don't see how giving someone an orgasm without their consent has anything to do with "avoiding pain".

 

[mikeymikec]

Calling something immoral is not oppressive. It's not oppressing pedophiles to call pedophilia wrong and immoral.

You don't think that gay people have been oppressed because religious leaders have labelled their behaviour as immoral? What they say to their followers obviously has an effect.

How many religious leaders are going public and saying "while we don't necessarily agree with the lifestyles of homosexual people, we don't think anyone should deny them rights given to heterosexual people"?

 

[zinfamous]

That's all well and good, but I really think we should ask the lizard people what they think about SSM.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't think that gay people have been oppressed because religious leaders have labelled their behaviour as immoral? What they say to their followers obviously has an effect.

How many religious leaders are going public and saying "while we don't necessarily agree with the lifestyles of homosexual people, we don't think anyone should deny them rights given to heterosexual people"?

I think the problem here is you don't understand what marriage is.

Marriage is about societal celebration a relationship. Just because society doesn't celebrate your relationship doesn't mean you are being oppressed.

Now, if they start stoning you. Yeah, then you can fairly say you are being oppressed.

 

[zinfamous]

Apparently liberal idea of arguing is to repeat falsehoods enough times until the other side gives in so they don't have to listen to you anymore.

toaster

 

[Atreus21]

You don't think that gay people have been oppressed because religious leaders have labeled their behaviour as immoral? What they say to their followers obviously has an effect.

How many religious leaders are going public and saying "while we don't necessarily agree with the lifestyles of homosexual people, we don't think anyone should deny them rights given to heterosexual people"?

Saying homosexual activity is immoral is one thing. Saying we should oppress them and treat them as scum is quite another.

And there are non-religious reasons for thinking homosexuality is immoral.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can substitute whatever term you wish for your infinite spiritual guide.

Just wanted to show how atheidiots like to sensationalize and totally misrepresent ours (and many others religions) belief systems.

 

[fskimospy]

Aren't liberals always saying we need to teach men not to rape?:whiste:

Also I don't see how giving someone an orgasm without their consent has anything to do with "avoiding pain".

Holy shit.

The creepy factor on this guy just shot through the roof.