• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Support for same-sex marriage reaches record high

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nehalem256 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Newell Steamer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Newell Steamer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Atreus21 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Extremely well said.
 
Atreus21 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mikeymikec said:
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.
Click to expand...

So...because Christ didn't explicitly denounce rape means we can't call it immoral based on an extrapolation of his teachings?
 
Last edited:
mikeymikec said:
Your point only aids the argument I put forward against mindless assumptions.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Atreus21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
In other words, you agree that what's moral and immoral is determined by human sensibilities, without any need for cosmic intervention.
 
Atreus21 said:
Regardless, I don't understand what you mean.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Atreus21 said:
So...because Christ didn't explicitly denounce rape means we can't call it immoral based on an extrapolation of his teachings?
Click to expand...
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.
 
mikeymikec said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, doesn't expect its adherents to be mindless, zealous drones.
 
shira said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shira said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Atreus21 said:
Calling something immoral is not oppressive. It's not oppressing pedophiles to call pedophilia wrong and immoral.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
mikeymikec said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
mikeymikec said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top