Conservative Christians put warning label on Spongebob video...

[Anthony]

"I don't care if a Church recognizes any marriages, but I do care that there is such blatent discrimination regarding marriage in secular society. That's what really pisses me off."

What pisses me off, Indra, is that it is far from a secular society. At least, many post-ers in this forum seem to think so; they say its a secular society, and yet, their most often used argument against gay marriage is the Bible?

Rather contradicting, I believe.

Ant.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Not only what we believe but how we believe it. You summarily dismiss "love the sinner, hate the sin". This is a core application for Christians.

That's got nothing to do with your original point - you claimed I was dismissing all Christian belief when in fact I was only taking issue with your interpretation of Christianity which may or may not be representative of all Christians.

 

[Dreadsox]

Why do we holh to such a primative concept that marriage is about having children?

I know quite a few children born out of wedlock. I know quite a dew children in single parent homes. You do not need to mbe married to have children.

It is almost comical to me to hear that marriage is about procreation.

 

[nbcrusader]

That's got nothing to do with your original point - you claimed I was dismissing all Christian belief when in fact I was only taking issue with your interpretation of Christianity which may or may not be representative of all Christians.

The acknowledgement of sin and the Christian's response to it go hand in hand. My original point dealt with both with your disagreement of Biblical interpretation and outright dismissal of the appropriate Christian response (hate sin/love sinner).

 

[cardosino]

The acknowledgement of sin and the Christian's response to it go hand in hand. My original point dealt with both with your disagreement of Biblical interpretation and outright dismissal of the appropriate Christian response (hate sin/love sinner).

How can anyone object to "hate sin/love sinner" ? We are all sinners, Christian or not.

 

[Scarletwine]

The concept of sin is moot if you are not religious.

Moral behavior is not the same as sin.

 

[nbcrusader]

We are all sinners, Christian or not.

As you may soon discover, there is plenty of disagreement on this point as well......


But you sum it up well Cardosino. It is not a matter of what is or is not sin. It is a matter of how you respond.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

The acknowledgement of sin and the Christian's response to it go hand in hand. My original point dealt with both with your disagreement of Biblical interpretation and outright dismissal of the appropriate Christian response (hate sin/love sinner).

And as I pointed out - neither are universally accepted Christian beliefs. Not all Christians believe homosexuality is sinful, not all Christians believe in this 'hate the sin, love the sinner' argument. You can't claim I'm dismissing all Christian beliefs when in fact I'm only disagreeing with one particular view which isn't even universally accepted.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

How can anyone object to "hate sin/love sinner" ? We are all sinners, Christian or not.

Simple really. If you hate something which is a vital part of any person - ie their sexuality and all that goes with it such as relationships, love, marriage and much more - you cannot possibly claim you love that person. You can't claim to love someone when all the time you think that something which is an integral part of them and which they have no control over is wrong and to be hated.

 

[nbcrusader]

not all Christians believe in this 'hate the sin, love the sinner' argument.

I have not seen any argument against this belief.

BTW, are you making these statements from your knowledge of Christian belief?

 

[cardosino]

And as I pointed out - neither are universally accepted Christian beliefs. Not all Christians believe homosexuality is sinful, not all Christians believe in this 'hate the sin, love the sinner' argument. You can't claim I'm dismissing all Christian beliefs when in fact I'm only disagreeing with one particular view which isn't even universally accepted.

Well, personally speaking I don't know of one Christian who doesn't believe that, but if you have sources which claim otherwise, I'd be very interested in reading them.

 

[cardosino]

Simple really. If you hate something which is a vital part of any person - ie their sexuality and all that goes with it such as relationships, love, marriage and much more - you cannot possibly claim you love that person. You can't claim to love someone when all the time you think that something which is an integral part of them and which they have no control over is wrong and to be hated.

While it might be difficult, it's an integral part of the Christian belief system to do so. With all due respect I don't think you can say that it can't be done. Again, if you have empirical evidence to back it up, I'd love to read it.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I have not seen any argument against this belief.

BTW, are you making these statements from your knowledge of Christian belief?

Evidently the Christians who chose to persecute people because they don't like their sexuality don't give much regard to the "love" part of the statement. That's a fairly compelling argument against that belief.

And...what else would I be making my comments from? My knowledge of how to grow cabbage?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So you are opposed to Gonzales, and the Bush Administration?

Yes I am opposed to Gonzales, I don't want anyone to think I'm not. I have stated my anti-torture views on FYM a dozen times before, and most likely, I will have to keep doing that. The Bush Administration... they've made some embarrassing mistakes, but don't fool yourself thinking I'm a liberal. I'm not the biggest Rumsfeld fan, or the biggest Gonzales fan. I wish we had more in the administration who had enough dignity to further scorn what went on.

(...I knew this would turn all political...)

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Again, if you have empirical evidence to back it up, I'd love to read it.

What kind of empirical evidence can be provided when we're discussing something like love and hate?

 

[cardosino]

Evidently the Christians who chose to persecute people because they don't like their sexuality don't give much regard to the "love" part of the statement. That's a fairly compelling argument against that belief.

And...what else would I be making my comments from? My knowledge of how to grow cabbage?

Wanting to legislate against something that's not legally available anyway is hardly the same as persecution.

If Christians are truly "persecuting", then I'd question their level of commitment to Christ, it doesn't mean that the hate sin/love sinner is suddenly rejected by Christ.

Because Timothy McVeigh called himself Christian doesn't mean that beign a Christian means settign off bombs in front of Federal buildings.

 

[nbcrusader]

And...what else would I be making my comments from? My knowledge of how to grow cabbage?

Well, if the statements smell kind of funny....

 

[cardosino]

What kind of empirical evidence can be provided when we're discussing something like love and hate?

Reminder of what you said:


"If you hate something which is a vital part of any person - ie their sexuality and all that goes with it such as relationships, love, marriage and much more - you cannot possibly claim you love that person."

Again, how can you speak for everyone and how they feel ? You stated it as a fact, you have yet to back it up.

I firmly believe Jesus would indeed embrace homosexuals, as he would all sinners. He gave his life for all of us, what more proof would you need?

 

[Irvine511]

Reminder of what you said:


"If you hate something which is a vital part of any person - ie their sexuality and all that goes with it such as relationships, love, marriage and much more - you cannot possibly claim you love that person."

Again, how can you speak for everyone and how they feel ? You stated it as a fact, you have yet to back it up.

I firmly believe Jesus would indeed embrace homosexuals, as he would all sinners. He gave his life for all of us, what more proof would you need?

what i think its being argued is that it's impossible to love someone if you regard their sexuality as a sin, because sexuality isn't fucking; its much more multi-dimensional than that.

what heterosexuals need to realize is that homosexuality isn't a sexual position. it isn't a specific act. bluntly: it's not about anal sex. homosexualilty is when someone has an all-encompassing desirse, both emotionally and physically, to love someone of their same gender. it seems that this isn't necessarily a behavior, but a condition, and there is behavior that follows: dating, sex, love, betrayal, jealousy, breaking up, getting back together, starting partnerships, etc. homosexual love is as messy and wonderful and painful and as central to existence as heterosexual love.

finally, i would bet that Jesus would embrace homosexuals, as he would everyone, and understand that to live an authentic life, a homosexual person must be allowed the same freedom -- and social support and encouragement and recognition -- to pursue life and love in the same way that heterosexuals are enabled to.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

A 'barren' woman (a horrible word to use), or a 'barren' man incapable of pro-creating is not an opinion, Macfistowannabe, its a fact. A couple not wishing to have children for fear of biological complications is not opinion, its appreciation of a fact that pro-creating will have a pretty high chance of putting either the mother or the foetus at risk.

This is beginning to get very deep, and I appreciate your willingness to refrain from personal attacks. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO CANNOT BEAR CHILDREN, AND UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO MAY NOT WANT THEM. For those who want them, but can't have them, adoption seems to be a valid alternative. It may not be their vision, the child may not have their blood types, or any resemblance, but you can love that child as if it were your own. Those who may not want them, don't have to have them. However, if protection goes wrong, and the mother is perfectly healthy, no rape or incest involved, no maternal health complications, a mutual relationship, I think she should allow the child to be born. Whether or not she wants to bring the child up for adoption is another thing, and I strongly respect a woman who is willing to go that far. Some beg to differ, and I can't exactly change their views. I think science can do that eventually, and more and more will be revealed about the "non-human" fetus. Now we have ultrasounds and other technology to reveal that it's not a piece of meat inside the womb, it's a human that has emotions and body movements. A doctor once told me that he can see a baby's heart beat after two weeks in the womb. I hope you understand that my pro-creational views are within reason.

A couple who chooses not to have children based on their knowledge of themselves, and realising that they do not want children or that they would not be good parents is not a fact, but it is better-informed than you making a decision for them; who knows their capacity as parents better than them?

There are also shots available that stop a women's menstuation cycle, and she will not get pregnant. It's not the most convenient method out there, but one that is surely preventable.

Yes, I know your opinions are controversial, but it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that if you had it your way, a woman would not be a woman if she didn't pro-create, that a marriage is not a marriage without children. I question your logic; are you not so sure that your opinions don't include 'all' cases of a modern society, privy to facts that you yourself are not privy to?

I'm a little hesitant to believe that you understand where I am coming from, but I'm glad you asked. No, you are a woman, and it doesn't make you any less of a woman, if you don't want kids. A marriage can still be a marriage without children. However, I believe marriage was meant to fulfill the needs of a man and a woman. I feel it was that way from the very beginning, and I question man's desires to make it any different. Is it just to make us happy, or can it make us righteous? I get the impression that the left feels that whatever makes people happy is the right thing to do. Will this concept lead to polygamy? I feel that human logic is no match for God's logic.

I will quote some verses that I feel symbolize the original institution of marriage. I know plenty can care less what The Bible says, and those of you are free to skim down, but there are a number of liberal Christians on here who find a way to dismiss a lot of these for whatever reason they believe. Should politics be more important than spirituality? I really am curious for those who are believers, but disagree.

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
(Genesis 1:27)

"Then the LORD God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'"
(Genesis 2:18)

Why wouldn't God create another man?

Could this following verse possibly be the intent for marriage?

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
(Genesis 2:24)

So how did we get HERE? Is it the bible-bashing activists, calling us homophobes and such because we believe in this?

Why can't we legislate against it? If we can legislate against a 'sin' such as homosexuality, why not divorce? There is plenty of scripture in the Bible that says she should have loved her husband no matter what, and that God 'hates' divorce. In other words, tough. She should have dealt with it. She should have dealt with it and sayed in that marriage that was making her unhappy, and learned to trust and love her husband. Do you see what I'm getting at? This is the fate your opinions dictate to a homosexual, who seeks equality in law - no, deal with it, because the Bible says so.

First, the logic is that the government cannot force two people to love each other romantically. Whether we should redefine marriage is a completely different issue. Divorce is actually permitted for those who have dealt with a partner who is immorally unloving, possibly unfaithful, in other words those who refuse to commit and those who don't want to grow up. That is the exception, and it goes to show that separation is a result of sin. Homosexuals are not the only ones who seek equality in the law. Granted, they get a lot of support from voters and organizations, but the next big thing will surely shock us. There are those who want to marry relatives. There are those who want to marry multiple partners. There are even those who want to marry animals. Should we give the most popular group what they want? Is it a matter of popularity?

Faith can only ever be a powerful thing, it seems, as long as its alright with the Bible. With respect, your counter-argument to my example using divorce is not convincing, at least, I don't find it so. For one thing, I don't think the Titanic is regarded as a miracle, and another, you talk about the case of a woman amidst the turmoil of divorce - but my point is that this lady is ALLOWED to divorce, that she is ALLOWED to break free from her loveless marriage and to remarry again. You are talking about faith working through someone when that someone has freedom to do what she wishes; tell that to a homosexual who's rights are heavily compromised in a society that is intolerant of him or her.

I don't see the Titanic as a "miracle", I'm not CLAIMING it was an act of God, but I see an ironic twist that some bragged that God couldn't even sink it. What gets me is those who automatically think that just because I'm a bible-believing conservative, it means that I have no problem with how GLBTs are treated in society. I don't enjoy hearing about how they deal with those who call them nasty names, in fact it's really disgusting. Yes, your wishes are compromised on our society. The wishes of those who want polygamy, legalized drugs, and legalized prostitution are also being compromised.

So, in order to live in a free society your rights should be compromised? What about your rights? No one has banned your right to prayer in the Pledge of Allegiance, so I would request a better example.

I would admit that wasn't the most convincing example. However, some feel that society is pushing us to accept what we don't believe in, and at the same time, we have those who feel it is RIGHT, or that it is a FREEDOM, to interrupt the president's speeches just because they don't like what he has to say. The same political affirmation that cries censorship when Howard Stern or Janet Jackson exhibits a questionable conduct, they want to restrict what we can and cannot preach. I would say there is censorship on both sides, whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Anthony]

Macfistowannabe;

I will now respectfully agree to disagree with you. Its been succesful, I feel, in that we haven't ripped each other to shreds - but now I'm tired. Part of the reason why I don't like talking about gay rights is because I find it exhausting. I find it exhausting as someone who is concerned with Human Rights and Human Rights law (law student, don't hold it against me ) and as someone who has a vested interest in discrimination law - I enjoy talking about it to a 'certain' extent. After that point it becomes less enjoyable and more tiring, eventually depressing - its depressing that discrmination is still part of the law, and thats all there is to it.

My point is this; there is no moral (note, I said moral, not religious) reason for disallowing gay marriage. I do not accept your example that allowing gay marriage will lead to allowing that freak show parade you mentioned; the unions of which you speak of result in either genetic failures and innocent parties falling prey to something truly sinister - how does two men or women in a loving relationship affect ANYONE? How does it?

The fact is it doesn't, and if it does, I don't believe you, or anyone, has proven how. It doesn't involve anyone else, it doesn't involve taking advantage of someone, and it doesn't involve spawning children with defects. Its just about love, and thats all there is to it.

I admit that I don't much understand your view of marriage, I would criticise it as out of date, but I have one final word on it; you said in your post that marriage is meant to fulfill the needs of a man and a woman; now, I know you don't mean this, but marriage sounds little more than a legitamized brothel. Now, I know you don't mean that, but I genuinely believe that marriage has nothing to do with pro-creation. Thats not a liberal or a conservative position at all, as Dreadsox has demonstrated.

If marriage is about love, and love does not involve the suffering of innocent parties, then gay marriage is not as wrong as members of society think.

Ant.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Macfistowannabe;

I will now respectfully agree to disagree with you. Its been succesful, I feel, in that we haven't ripped each other to shreds - but now I'm tired.

The feeling is mutual, it's been a good talk.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Well, if the statements smell kind of funny....

Yeah, some of the prejudiced nonsense being spouted here really stinks too.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Reminder of what you said:

[...]

Again, how can you speak for everyone and how they feel ? You stated it as a fact, you have yet to back it up.

Reminder of what you said: "if you have empirical evidence to back it up, I'd love to read it."

How do you provide empirical evidence of feelings, emotions, love, hate, respect? Any social scientist would tell you that even if you were to conduct some form of survey asking people those type of questions, even if they were to answer truthfully, the fact that people's definitions of emotions vary so widely would mean that the results were far from reliable. How would you even go about collecting empirical evidence for that statement?

I firmly believe Jesus would indeed embrace homosexuals, as he would all sinners. He gave his life for all of us, what more proof would you need?

I feel very "embraced" by someone who thinks I'm a sinner just for living my life the only way I know how.

And I'd need quite a lot more proof than that considering I'm not a Christian to begin with.

 

[cardosino]

Reminder of what you said: "if you have empirical evidence to back it up, I'd love to read it."

How do you provide empirical evidence of feelings, emotions, love, hate, respect?


Any social scientist would tell you that even if you were to conduct some form of survey asking people those type of questions, even if they were to answer truthfully, the fact that people's definitions of emotions vary so widely would mean that the results were far from reliable.

So, let me get this straight just to be sure I understand.

You made a sweeping assumption claiming to know how people would feel on a topic, and then you say it's impossible to really know how they'd feel on the topic ?

Got it.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

So, let me get this straight just to be sure I understand.

You made a sweeping assumption claiming to know how people would feel on a topic, and then you say it's impossible to really know how they'd feel on the topic ?

Got it.

No: I said it's impossible to provide the "empirical evidence" you requested. Are we operating on two different definitions of empirical evidence or something?

 

[cardosino]

No: I said it's impossible to provide the "empirical evidence" you requested. Are we operating on two different definitions of empirical evidence or something?

Allow me to refresh your memory:

first you said:

"If you hate something which is a vital part of any person - ie their sexuality and all that goes with it such as relationships, love, marriage and much more - you cannot possibly claim you love that person. You can't claim to love someone when all the time you think that something which is an integral part of them and which they have no control over is wrong and to be hated."

Note the use of absolutes "cannot possibly claim", "you can't claim"

OK ? Later, you said:

"Any social scientist would tell you that even if you were to conduct some form of survey asking people those type of questions, even if they were to answer truthfully, the fact that people's definitions of emotions vary so widely would mean that the results were far from reliable."

So, first off, you make the sweeping generalization, then you follow it up with "it's not possible to prove it" - I guess if It's not possible to prove it, i'm wondering how you could be so convinced of it to begin with.

 

[indra]

And...what else would I be making my comments from? My knowledge of how to grow cabbage?

 

[indra]

Allow me to refresh your memory:

first you said:

"If you hate something which is a vital part of any person - ie their sexuality and all that goes with it such as relationships, love, marriage and much more - you cannot possibly claim you love that person. You can't claim to love someone when all the time you think that something which is an integral part of them and which they have no control over is wrong and to be hated."

Note the use of absolutes "cannot possibly claim", "you can't claim"

OK ? Later, you said:

"Any social scientist would tell you that even if you were to conduct some form of survey asking people those type of questions, even if they were to answer truthfully, the fact that people's definitions of emotions vary so widely would mean that the results were far from reliable."

So, first off, you make the sweeping generalization, then you follow it up with "it's not possible to prove it" - I guess if It's not possible to prove it, i'm wondering how you could be so convinced of it to begin with.

I find it interesting that you (and others) seem to think everyone should do as your Jesus and God said (or what their followers think they said, or want them to have said, or whatever), but them you complain when someone else makes what you call a "sweeping generalisation." You don't think that saying "homosexuality is a sin" isn't pretty damned sweeping?

I don't care what your god thinks about homosexuality, or marriage, what I want to know is why gay marriages should not be allowed in a SECULAR nation? If you don't want to recognise same sex marriages in your church, that's just peachy, you don't have to, but what do you get out of preventing same sex civil marriages? I don't tell you what you can and cannot do within your church.

 

[pax]

To interject for one moment, this thread is like the Octagon Bar of FYM.