Miss California?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Maybe not all, but most is all you need to have a majority.

[the_std]

And thus we continue to see that your definition of anything is what you see as the only true interpretation of whatever it is. This argument has become pointless as you continue to skirt questions and repeat meaningless statements. I'm just glad that your viewpoint will not win out in the long run.

[Rubystars]

at one point or another many churches have said/done the following
*god hates fags

I don't think God hates homosexuals, but I do think that God wouldn't want them to engage in homosexual acts.

*homosexuals should be put to death

I don't believe that it's the right thing to do in today's world, although very harsh penalties were laid out in the Old Testament for various sins. I think homosexuals should have their personal safety protected and should not be put to death.

*beatings of homosexuals that aren't condemned and in some cases condoned by church leaders

I disagree with any kind of hate crime.

*state legislatures, who claim to be legislating based on their church's views, who take pride in insuring that it is legal to fire someone for being homosexual.

On this one I'd have to know more details about the cases in question. Under what context were they saying homosexuals should be fired?

*same state legislatures who have fought to disallow hospital visitation right for homosexuals

They should find a way to allow hospital visitation. There probably only needs to be some minor adjustments in hospital policy and/or medical privacy laws to allow the people closest to the patient to see them.

*women can't hold the priesthood

That doesn't have anything to do with the gay issue. I'm not a Catholic so I won't tell them how to run their church.

*the mormon church, finally this year, had a black man join the quorum of 70... he's the most junior member in the lowest portion of the central leadership, there's also a token Japanese guy in there, but all the other higher ups are white men.

I'm not a Mormon and I don't really even think of them as being Christian. However if the token black and Japanese don't have a problem with it, who am I to criticize how they run their church? I don't have to agree with it but it's not my religion.

from where I'm sitting, quite a few christian churches are bigoted and hateful.

That Phelps guy of "God hates fags" is hated by just about everyone, Christian and non-Christian.

[Rubystars]

And thus we continue to see that your definition of anything is what you see as the only true interpretation of whatever it is. This argument has become pointless as you continue to skirt questions and repeat meaningless statements. I'm just glad that your viewpoint will not win out in the long run.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. For now the homosexuals do seem to be winning politically.

[the_std]

It's the tide of history. You're in the bigoted minority, and the tide usually takes those people over eventually.

[Pedersen]

As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.

Ya know, something occurred to me the other day. Homosexuals are not just fighting for their own right to marry the same sex. They are fighting for everybody's right to marry whomever they choose. That's right, they're even fighting to ensure that you have the right to marry your same gender, should you so choose.

Personally, even though I won't be using that option, I thank them for fighting for my rights.

[smileyeagle1021]

Personally, even though I won't be using that option, I thank them for fighting for my rights.

you are most welcome Pedersen

[Nyoibo]

Where in this thread did I say I wanted to persecute gays?

Persecute: You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Persecute: to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently

Yes, yes you do want to persecute homosexuals, whether you realize it or not.

[AFPheonix]

That's only if you see that as being a marriage. If two guys get together they're not married anyway. To call that a marriage is absurd in my opinion. I know other people here feel that it's just the same as a hetero marriage, but I don't.

And once again we've come to the question that you cannot seem to answer: Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?
Again, all we are wanting is that the wording of marriage, as defined secularly and for the state, to be a contract between two adults able to give consent. That does not prevent you from feeling that homosexuality is wrong in the least. It does not force you to recognize them. All it does is make the state recognize them.

They're trying to force "family law" to acknowledge gays as being married.

Yes, and? You yourself stated that family included spouses, yes? I should hope spouses are not blood relations. Further, we choose our spouses usually. So, according even to your own definition, family can indeed be chosen. All we want is for all people to be able to choose the spouse they want, as long as said spouse is an adult and able to give consent.

I feel really grossed out when I see men walking around acting feminine. I don't like certain religions (such as Islam), but if I were to see someone carrying a Qu'ran around I wouldn't be grossed out in the same way I would to see a man giggling and acting like a woman. I also feel yucky when I see women who go out of their way to be butch.

Yes, and your point is? None of those things mean that Christians receive as much derision or make people feel "grossed out" as homosexuals apparently can, simply by being themselves.
Well, Kirk Cameron gets a lot of derision from me, but that's because he's a goddamn moron, not because he's a Christian.
As an aside, Muslims in this country have been persecuted, as well as other religious groups like Sikhs (since they've got the whole turban thing going on) because of 9/11. I don't think Christians got persecuted after Timothy McVeigh tried to blow up stuff in Oklahoma City. So again, Christians are not persecuted simply because of who they are and what they worship.

It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.

This is not a basic Christian value. It is actually debated in quite a few different denominations, and homosexuality itself received very little mention in the Bible. Basic Christian values would include the salvation story and the teachings of Christ, who did not say a word about gays, although he did hang out with prostitutes and thugs quite a bit.

This probably isn't too relevant to the conversation but I'm really not a church type of person.

Interesting, consider you are stating many arguments I have heard in and from various conservative churches and religious leaders and institutions.

The left wing has already tried to do this by trying to ban public prayer, etc.

Because the left wing realizes that not everyone is Christian, therefore having a prayer slanted towards the Christian tradition coming from a state entity is not fair to people who worship other religions or people like myself and Flyn who do not worship at all.
You are still perfectly able to pray yourself, even in public places. You can even include people who wish to join you. You just don't get to make people who don't want anything to do with it to partake.
Hell, there's still prayer involved in the Presidential Inauguration, including speeches from big name preachers. I don't think Christians really have that much to complain about.

I do think that dissolving the defiitions of marriage and family will be harmful to society in the long term.

It won't be dissolved, just made so that people can marry the PERSON they wish, regardless of gender, as long as they are of age and able to give consent.
(let's see how many times I can reiterate that)

I'm not sure if that was deliberately done or done completely by accident. But anyway whatever Spanish were involved in that are already dead, so it's really a moot point.

By accident no doubt, much like how AIDS came to infect people, gay and straight, through sex, drugs, blood transfusions, natural childbirth, etc before researchers figured out what was up.
It's not moot, it's a very valid comparison. One that you skirted.

[guywithashovel]

Well, Kirk Cameron gets a lot of derision from me, but that's because he's a goddamn moron, not because he's a Christian.

You mean you weren't swayed by the Banana Argument? (Though in fairness, it was Cameron's cohort, Ray Comfort, who did most of the work on this one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

What about the Crockoduck? I found that quite compelling.

[Rubystars]

You mean you weren't swayed by the Banana Argument? (Though in fairness, it was Cameron's cohort, Ray Comfort, who did most of the work on this one)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

What about the Crockoduck? I found that quite compelling.

Oh gosh that's so stupid. lol Thanks for sharing that video.

[Boozy]

Although I'm generally pleased (and proud) of how everyone is handling themselves here given how heated this debate has become, there has been at least one incident of name-calling and a few more that skirted the line. I don't want to close what has become a very popular thread because of one or two unfortunate incidents. Please make sure your posts focus on the argument of the poster, not the poster themselves.

Thanks guys.

[Rubystars]

And once again we've come to the question that you cannot seem to answer: Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?
Again, all we are wanting is that the wording of marriage, as defined secularly and for the state, to be a contract between two adults able to give consent. That does not prevent you from feeling that homosexuality is wrong in the least. It does not force you to recognize them. All it does is make the state recognize them.

I have a problem with the state recognizing them because I don't want the state to be officially condoning homosexuality.

Yes, and? You yourself stated that family included spouses, yes? I should hope spouses are not blood relations.

Of course family includes spouses. A spouse is someone of the opposite gender that you're married to.

Further, we choose our spouses usually. So, according even to your own definition, family can indeed be chosen. All we want is for all people to be able to choose the spouse they want, as long as said spouse is an adult and able to give consent.

I don't want marriage or spouse redefined to fit a left wing agenda.

Yes, and your point is? None of those things mean that Christians receive as much derision or make people feel "grossed out" as homosexuals apparently can, simply by being themselves.

Years ago, they were able to control this effeminate and/or butch behavior in public and act relatively 'normal'. This leads me to believe this isn't something they're doing because it's who they are, but something they're doing specifically because they can now without serious repercussions in most cases. It's more of that "We're here, we're queer, and we're in your face" mentality, and less about acting as themselves.

As an aside, Muslims in this country have been persecuted, as well as other religious groups like Sikhs (since they've got the whole turban thing going on) because of 9/11. I don't think Christians got persecuted after Timothy McVeigh tried to blow up stuff in Oklahoma City. So again, Christians are not persecuted simply because of who they are and what they worship.

I think it's only a matter of time, really, if things don't change.

This is not a basic Christian value. It is actually debated in quite a few different denominations, and homosexuality itself received very little mention in the Bible. Basic Christian values would include the salvation story and the teachings of Christ, who did not say a word about gays, although he did hang out with prostitutes and thugs quite a bit.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&v=1&t=KJV#top

Interesting, consider you are stating many arguments I have heard in and from various conservative churches and religious leaders and institutions.

I didn't claim to be the one to come up with any original ideas here.

Because the left wing realizes that not everyone is Christian, therefore having a prayer slanted towards the Christian tradition coming from a state entity is not fair to people who worship other religions or people like myself and Flyn who do not worship at all.
You are still perfectly able to pray yourself, even in public places. You can even include people who wish to join you. You just don't get to make people who don't want anything to do with it to partake.
Hell, there's still prayer involved in the Presidential Inauguration, including speeches from big name preachers. I don't think Christians really have that much to complain about.

I wish the last inauguration hadn't happened at all.

It won't be dissolved, just made so that people can marry the PERSON they wish, regardless of gender, as long as they are of age and able to give consent.
(let's see how many times I can reiterate that)

Probably as many times as I've had to reiterate my points. I understand what you believe but I don't believe the same way.

By accident no doubt, much like how AIDS came to infect people, gay and straight, through sex, drugs, blood transfusions, natural childbirth, etc before researchers figured out what was up.
It's not moot, it's a very valid comparison. One that you skirted.

I think there's a difference because gays were and probably still are spreading disease through sexual immorality, and deliberate choices to engage in risky sex, while what you described likely only happened due to different populations meeting.

[BroomJockey]

I have a problem with the state recognizing them because I don't want the state to be officially condoning homosexuality.

*tweet* Flag on the play! Evading question! The question WAS NOT why do you have a problem with it, but, and I quote, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

Stop stepping around the question and answering what you want to answer. Answer the question that's being asked.

[Rubystars]

*tweet* Flag on the play! Evading question! The question WAS NOT why do you have a problem with it, but, and I quote, "Should your own personal opinion, shaped by your religious upbringing, be allowed to codify into law a restriction of rights for a group of people?"

Stop stepping around the question and answering what you want to answer. Answer the question that's being asked.

I'm not trying to step around the question. I might have misunderstood what you meant. I think that the opinion of the people of a country, regardless of what origin that opinion has (religious, or otherwise) should be reflected by their government. At least, all groups within the country should be able to work for their opinion to prevail, even if one of the opinions would restrict some rights of one or more groups.