Isn't it just a chicken sandwich...a really good chicken sandwich?
- Thread starter Tulsa Tom
- Start date
We are done. There's lots of dismissive attitude in this thread, including your attitude. I have read enough of your posts to have a very good idea of what "more clarification" will consist of. There are a number of non-religious reasons why some might question gay marriage. Also, there are other things, outside of religion, which form a persons morality. I suspect there are plenty of people who do not consider themselves religious yet do not support gay marriage. Peace.
Here's an idea for you, and many other Christians...You take care of the things you can take care of....and let God do the judging. As a sinner, you or I are no more qualified than the gay guy to judge others.
I've read enough of your blather to know you are really in the dark about a lot of things. You really believe the Old Testament is all about Jesus, and that in and of itself just astounds me.
There were 44 (I believe) Messianic prophecies that the Old Testament provided us. Each came to pass during the life of Jesus, which would indicate Him being the Savior. But CC is correct. There is a reason why the Old Testament is studied by Jews as we Christians study the New Testament.
Last edited:
Throughout history and today, God calls on and uses his children to fight on his behalf. Even though he doesn't really need our help, it's our duty as Christians to do so.
Then you don't have the slightest idea of what Christianity is. That's fine, but please don't pretend like you do.
“God created dinosaurs. God destroyed dinosaurs. God created Man. Man destroyed God. Man created dinosaurs. Dinosaurs eat man...Woman inherits the earth.” Jurassic Park
This thread is epic, better than the "Wolves in Yellowstone" thread on RSS. I find it amusing all this debate started over a crappy fast food joint. There is no observable, testable and repeatable evidence of a god. this is a fact. So until a great creator avails itself to the masses no reasonable person should believe in a deity. H.L. Mencken said it best, "we must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
This thread is epic, better than the "Wolves in Yellowstone" thread on RSS. I find it amusing all this debate started over a crappy fast food joint. There is no observable, testable and repeatable evidence of a god. this is a fact. So until a great creator avails itself to the masses no reasonable person should believe in a deity. H.L. Mencken said it best, "we must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
I absolutely do know what Christianity is, and the more you type, the more you distance yourself from it.
BTW, where do you think Jews get many of the tenets to live their lives by? Yes, the Old Testament, or what is loosely called the Old Testament.
Last edited:
My attitude has without question been hostile but it has not been dismissive. I often called for someone's reasons or justification for their stance - that is not being dismissive, that is an invitation to engage in discussion and debate. Your attitude, on the other hand, has been dismissive. When I draw a worthwhile philosophical distinction that has direct relevance to what we're discussing, your only response is to accuse me of "living under power lines." When I draw an analogy to rape, murder, and gay marriage to make a point about intolerance and moral judgment, you construe that as me treating those as equally morally wrong. I hope you can appreciate why I get so frustrated and hostile. It's one thing to be misinformed, ignorant, and to disagree, and quite another to do so willfully because you don't want to hear what the other person has to say. Say or believe what you want about me, I never become dismissive until we reach an impasse like you and I have.
Last edited:
No worries. Unfortunately, if I am being honest, I do not want to make the time to read an entire book right now (I am working on a 10-15 page bibliography for my prospectus defense, many of which are books, so I am not really in the mood to read other books at the moment). However, I am happy to discuss the issue, read your synopsis of the argument, or read one online that you could link. And there is a "conversations" function in the forum tools where we can discuss, as I am with you, this thread is surely headed for a lock.
In the midst of the jousting I actually hear a number of solid arguments on each side. I think the real issue is what types of morality should we codify through our legal system. Frankly, I am a Christian but don't want to live in a Christian nation if that means that only my beliefs become law. Just like I think instilling Sharia laws in other countries is wrong, I say the same thing here.
In the end I wish gov't would get out of the marriage business all together. However, if it is going to be involved then let people marry whomever they want as long as their are two willing parties. The idea of being equal under the law should trump my personal morality.
In the same vein, we should allow those engaged in religious activity to abide by their own beliefs. No, a conservative evangelical church should not have to consider a gay man to be the church secretary. No, Christian colleges should not have to hire a homosexual professor if they do not want to. No, Imams should not be forced to marry gay couples.
I believe that there should be a separation of church and state for a self-serving reason as well. The church always has done best when it was accepted the least in society. Instilling a "Christian gov't" full of "Christian laws" is bad for the church in the long run.
In the end I wish gov't would get out of the marriage business all together. However, if it is going to be involved then let people marry whomever they want as long as their are two willing parties. The idea of being equal under the law should trump my personal morality.
In the same vein, we should allow those engaged in religious activity to abide by their own beliefs. No, a conservative evangelical church should not have to consider a gay man to be the church secretary. No, Christian colleges should not have to hire a homosexual professor if they do not want to. No, Imams should not be forced to marry gay couples.
I believe that there should be a separation of church and state for a self-serving reason as well. The church always has done best when it was accepted the least in society. Instilling a "Christian gov't" full of "Christian laws" is bad for the church in the long run.
Of course you were dismissive. In your line of business, I suspect it is difficult for you to recognize it as it is probably second nature for you. No, you did not draw a worthwhile philosophical distinction. I could continue to play your game for the rest of the day, but I will instead give you the cliffs note version of what it would look like. Me: "Possible reasons someone may disagree with gay marriage are A, B, C, D, and E." You: "Those aren't good reasons." Just saved us a few hours. Now you can make time to read that book. Peace.
One question I have for Christians is that do you really believe your dead loved ones are watching down on you at all times? Like does Grandma get to see the pure joy on your face when your wife finally lets you do anal?
I am arguing against wanting blanket denial for a gay couple when that same love is celebrated for a straight couple. To make amends with those I've offended, I do not think your disagreement makes you a bad person by any stretch. You are probably very good people, to everyone but gay people, and I am not PC enough in my wording.
I will try to avoid insensitive language and simply say I disagree in the strongest terms. It is based on a strong conviction that equality includes gay people, that you cannot promote inequality without also causing harm, and that it is counter to individual liberties for a state to legislate sexuality.
The last point is currently the law of the land.
Yes.
Thank you Sparky and team for keeping this thread open by the way. There has been some good respectful debate.
I will try to avoid insensitive language and simply say I disagree in the strongest terms. It is based on a strong conviction that equality includes gay people, that you cannot promote inequality without also causing harm, and that it is counter to individual liberties for a state to legislate sexuality.
The last point is currently the law of the land.
Yes.
Thank you Sparky and team for keeping this thread open by the way. There has been some good respectful debate.
Good post, I agree with nearly everything you said and as long as christian colleges don't take federal money I am in total agreement. But it is a tricky subject, like did you know that a woman or a man cannot deny her/his partner conjugal rights? So if you are married in the Catholic church you have to have sex on demand. Also making fun of bald people might get you mauled by a bear. The problem is trying to reconcile 2000 year old ideas to today's modern world. I went to catholic schools and there were women talking in church, which is expressly forbidden in the bible. Also women should not wear makeup or jewelry but they do.. in church too. It is a crazy dog eat dog, cat eat cat, ostrich eat ostrich world.
On the contrary, I find that intelligent design reveals itself daily with many of the things we see in nature. If you take into account the millions upon millions of biological processes that take place and demonstrate organization during a pregnancy, that is plenty of proof for me that there is a creator.
Last edited:
Hoosker Du - you were asked to supply the link to your scientifc claim for the gay gene. Where is it?
You are obviously not a serious student of the Bible, new or old testament as you would know the OT clearly speaks to the saviour. The Jewish people are still waiting for the Messiah.
When you have a credible defense for a position other than a bunch of drivel that several have challenged and you cannot respond to logically - come back and lets talk. I will wait to see your evidence on the gay gene though.
You are obviously not a serious student of the Bible, new or old testament as you would know the OT clearly speaks to the saviour. The Jewish people are still waiting for the Messiah.
When you have a credible defense for a position other than a bunch of drivel that several have challenged and you cannot respond to logically - come back and lets talk. I will wait to see your evidence on the gay gene though.
Honestly pathetic. Your first tactic for disagreeing with me is to reference "my line of work," which is again a veiled reference to my being in academia and that having some effect on my inability to have a cordial discussion or form an objective argument. The Irony. Secondly, you have nowhere cited what you above reference as reasons "A, B, C, D, and E." These are not reasons, they are references to reasons you purport to posses but that for all I know do not exist. In fact, no one anywhere in this thread has referenced such reasons, at least non-religious ones, except for Antwill, who did not produce them, but told me they were available if I were willing to listen. How did I address him? I offered to have a discussion about his reasons. Once again, according to you, I am exhibiting my inability to have a constructive debate. Right...
Unlike you, apparently, I do not dismiss reasons prior to hearing them and trying to understand them. This involves extending the other party at least the slightest bit of charity so as not to misconstrue their words to fit your own stance on the matter. You have proven yourself incapable of that throughout our back and forth. Again, you wonder why I am so hostile -- it's because I've yet to find anything of value in what you've contributed to this discussion. If you could go back through your posts and cite just one point you made and thought valuable and which you feel I didn't take seriously, I'll eat crow in this thread in front of everyone.
Sinners to you,
God is a sob then, he makes gay people and then says its a sin. What a creep.
This is what I say to religious people. You want facts to refute fiction? I think it is fine to have faith or be religious up until it starts infringing on peoples rights. And a honest question, when did you choose to be straight? I swooned for my babysitter when I was 10, she was 16 and out of my league but those were the first amorous feelings I ever had... Oh Heather!
Last edited:
Besides, why should gay people be allowed to get legally married? Doesn't not allowing that violate the 1st amendment?
No, the first amendment is about freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. It does not guarantee you the right to do whatever the hell you want and does not guarantee you the right to marry whomever you want.
I'm fully aware the Old Testament discusses Jesus. And please...for someone to not know that Jews believe the Savior has yet to arrive...a person would have to live in a cave for their entire existence.
I remember Isaiah discussing the Messianic prophecies, but I know there are other books that do as well. I've said at least twice in these threads the most important part of the Old Testament for Christians are the prophecies that foretold the coming of Jesus. Do you read any of these posts???
Honestly, how difficult is it to Google "chromosomal differences of gay people?" On second thought, you're right...when it comes to something even remotely scientific, you're lost. You'll have pages and pages to do all the reading you would like.
While you're at it, Google "differences in brain structure" and "gay."
Learn..
Last edited:
What is a "religious person?" Religion is mans attempt to reach God. Christianity is God reaching down to man. I cant imagine the faith it takes to believe there is no creator and it is all by chance.
Where do you think Anti-Virus companies got their idea from?
EDIT: I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing at the above comment about God being an sob and a creep.
It's so ridiculous that it's funny.
Last edited:
Aren't laws that say gay people can't marry, respecting the establishment of a religion? Why is there a law for that anyway, where did it come from? Is it because of the bible?
Not sure what you are bringing to this discussion other than trolling...
If you want to participate, then fine, make an argument one way or the other. But pot shots like this are childish.
Again, I will ask, do you always paint with such a broad brush? Because some Muslims flew planes into the twin towers all Muslims are bad?
Because some Christians want to keep gays from not marrying all Christians are bad?
Or how about this... Because some husker fans were jerks on an Iowa message board (as has been claimed repeatedly by Iowa fans here) all husker fans are bad?
Seriously, Do you have any friends wth that approach?
God doesn't make gay people. He makes people. God doesn't make people born with defects. He makes people. God doesn't make idiotic people. He makes people like yourself who present themselves to be idiots.
Either come with an argument one way or another or get out.
Imo, it's pretty simple. If you think gay people aren't born that way and they're making a choice, you're as lost as the people who stone woman for smiling in public. If you do believe gay people are born that way, its pretty cruel to not allow them the same rights as the rest of us.
There's the Christian love... I'm an idiot for thinking people should be treated fairly. Or treating them as you'd like to be treated if you were in their shoes. Nice.
I appreciated Tulsa Tom's words regarding the Christian government versus the secular government. Not all Christians say gays should not marry. That doesn't mean all Christians agree with the lifestyle, but it does mean gay people have the right to marry. I don't have a problem with that.
But again, you paint with such a broad brush and label all Christians to be this way which is ridiculous.
It seems that in many instances where there are bans on gay marriage (in certain states) that the law has a religious justification. But the Supreme Court will not and should not accept such justification as Constitutional. But that doesn't mean one can then cite the First Amendment to guarantee a right to marry - that would be a misapplication of it unless some lawyer could show that it is directly relevant to freedom of religion, assembly, and speech - a tall order if you ask me.
It's not hard to find a basis for the First Amendment and its stance on religion when you consider the history of our country. Many people who fled here were trying to escape religious persecution (e.g., Quakers).
I am as secular as they come, but I have no problem with the First Amendment's stance on religion and I don't know why anyone - atheist or theist - would.
We are all people. I want to add that to be gay is uncommon, it is not a defect. It is just different. Also, not all Christians want to keep gays from marrying. A broad brush based on religion is not right. Here we have common ground.
Laws that say gay people can't marry were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for violating the 14th amendment's due process and equal protection under the law clause. Those laws no longer exist in this country.
Laws that say gay people can't marry were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for violating the 14th amendment's due process and equal protection under the law clause. Those laws no longer exist in this country.
You made no argument other than calling God an sob and a creep. That is considered trolling in my book. If you had made an argument I likely would have responded differently.
Edit: besides, are you telling me you weren't fishing for a response with that? Seriously?
I asked God if I could use it in an example like that and got the go ahead.
Good Lord man. You are really something else. I've made several counterpoints to things you have said and you didn't agree with. I do not care. Get outside and go for a walk, throw a frisbee, do something. it is hysterical how much you need to be right. I can't figure what you have contributed to this discussion, but then again, I haven't spent the last 24 hours on this site, so maybe you hit a home run.
Exactly. And the reasoning is sound and the way the court reasoned made the issue essentially one of fairness, which is what the due process and equal protection clauses preserve.
So you really don't have an argument to present other then to make fun of people who are Christian?
