06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. Farish's Avatar
    According to the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination to God. God does not hate the sinner, just the sin. What I do as a Christian is pray for these people, but never judge them, as we are directed not to judge by the Lord.
    Bolding the most important part of this.
    06-28-2013 04:06 PM
  2. GadgetGator's Avatar
    According to the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination to God. God does not hate the sinner, just the sin. What I do as a Christian is pray for these people, but never judge them, as we are directed not to judge by the Lord.
    But not everyone believes in your religion. And not everyone believes the Bible was written by anyone other then other men. And the country is not a Christian theocracy. Two people can get married on the courthouse steps outside of a church or clergy. For that matter, two atheist can get married. Yet I never see any calls by anyone who declares themselves to be religious, to demand that such atheist marriages be banned. I see no ballot measures, no constitutional amendments, nothing. Additionally, I see no protest outside of divorce courts trying to keep families together and "protect traditional marriage". Why is that?? And this aren't hypothetical questions. I really would like an answer. I've been asking those question for years and have never got an answer to them.

    To me, it seems that a lot of Christians have elevated a certain thing that they deem wrong, to be more wrong then others. They focus on it, dwell on it, meanwhile other supposed sins are ignored and not even mentioned. I have to wonder why. I am only left with gay animus as the reason. I suspect that if God and religion were not even a concept in people's minds, such people would still not like gay people. If you were born and raised on a deserted island and had never seen a Bible, had no bible verses read to you, and had no concept of religion, but saw two guys walking along the beach holding hands romantically, would you still think it was wrong??? If so, then maybe instead of the reason for not liking gay people being religion, religion is being used as the cover for not liking gay people to begin with. I'm okay with people not liking certain groups, no matter what the flawed reasoning is.....not everyone is going to like everyone on this planet. But people should at least be honest about it.
    06-28-2013 04:17 PM
  3. JHBThree's Avatar
    Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. I believe that I am supposed to hate sin, but care for the sinner.

    As for not being able to choose who you fall in love with, if that was true then we would all be with the person that first awakened feelings of love within us. We are designed to procreate, there is no way that 2 men or 2 women can create a life naturally the way it was intended.

    I take offense at being called a bigot, and being referred to as hate filled. This is simply not true.
    You can take offense if you like, but calling gay people sinners is being a bigot.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    06-28-2013 04:27 PM
  4. msndrstood's Avatar
    Since I won't be the one moderating this thread anymore, I feel it is safe to express my belief, then. Kevin, if im out of line, just let me know and I'll step out.

    The DADT was repealled because it was unconstitutional. For some one who adamantly supports the 2nd amendment, I would like to believe you would support the whole bill of rights, not just the ones that apply to you, which from this statement, it does not seem so.

    Do we remember the separation of church and state? the idea is to not infringe on another's rights because they may not have the same beliefs as us. Bringing your religion into a war of equal rights is inappropriate.

    Your guns make people uncomfortable, but you are within your constitutional rights to bear them.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    *Clapping and standing ovation.*

    We'll said Jennifer. Thank you. The better part of me is staying out of the conversation but you stated my thoughts as well. Thanks.

    What?! ... I'm msndrstood.
    via Note II
    Jennifer Stough likes this.
    06-28-2013 04:42 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    The other thing to keep in mind... even if we all were fundamentalist Christians or Mormons or Muslims or whatever, and even if we all believed homosexuality was a sin, it STILL wouldn't be a basis for law or something to consider as true. We would all laugh our heads off at a person in the Senate proposing legislation based on their worship of Athena, and we're all atheists when it comes to Athenian doctrine. Should we suddenly start molding our laws to comply within every religion on the Earth? Because I know of several that consider what we think of as "white people" to be unwise children at best, and evil spirits at worst. Which specific faith organizations should be blindly accept the mythology of, and which should we exclude?
    06-28-2013 05:19 PM
  6. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You can take offense if you like, but calling gay people sinners is being a bigot.
    Not neccesairly. Some people's religious beliefs think that everyone is a sinner, including themselves. So it depends on how that term is used. If in their life they single gay people out and only apply that term to gay people, then maybe, but I don't think asking someone else to not be offensive while throwing out offensive names ourselves, brings anyone around to reason, logic and common sense or our POV. I know it's hard to not do so. Believe me, I do. I've learned over the years to not be so quick to use that B word. Some people really just don't know better. It was the way they were raised or their religious upbringing...whatever. And I do not fault them for that. I might fault them for not listening or not asking questions or not growing as a person, but that's not worthy of a label.

    That being said, Live2ride883 needs to understand that the things that have been posted by him(?) have been quite offensive and quite outrageous in some cases as well. I'm also not a fan of the hit and run postings that it seems like most (all?) anti-equality people seem to do on message boards. If someone thinks I am ignorant on something, that by all means, point out how. None of us are experts in every single thing and all are unknowledgeable on something. Nothing wrong with that. However if you allow a lack of education on a subject to rule your feelings on it and even want to put that into law without getting any information on the issue, well then yeah, that's wrong. It's like looking at only one side's argument on a ballot measure. I always read both.
    Michael Vieux likes this.
    06-28-2013 05:22 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    As for the, "according to the bible" argument...

    According to Mother Goose you should build your house out of bricks so that wolves don't blow it over and gobble you up. Not to be harsh, but that is how the majority of the world sees faiths opposed to their own. Do you automatically assume that Hindu's are correct in all of their beliefs? How about the Aztecs?
    msndrstood and GadgetGator like this.
    06-28-2013 05:28 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    And not everyone believes the Bible was written by anyone other then other men.
    Is there anyone that thinks someone other than humans wrote the Bible? Like who? Ancient Aliens?
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-28-2013 05:30 PM
  9. msndrstood's Avatar
    Is there anyone that thinks someone other than humans wrote the Bible? Like who? Ancient Aliens?
    I think he means that men wrote the bible. I could be wrong. How about that Nicene Council?

    http://www.livescience.com/2410-coun...ged-world.html

    What?! ... I'm msndrstood.
    via Note II
    Aquila likes this.
    06-28-2013 05:56 PM
  10. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Is there anyone that thinks someone other than humans wrote the Bible? Like who? Ancient Aliens?
    I'm think he meant it as an "only humans" who wrote the bible. Insinuating that it wasn't inspired by a greater being.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    Aquila, GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    06-28-2013 06:06 PM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    Insinuating that it wasn't inspired by a greater being.
    Cool, learn something everyday, right? I had no idea that was even a thing. I guess I'd heard of the concept before, but never had heard of it applied to this or that people believed that.

    That opens up a very short logic flowchart by itself
    06-28-2013 06:08 PM
  12. Jennifer Stough's Avatar
    Cool, learn something everyday, right? I had no idea that was even a thing. I guess I'd heard of the concept before, but never had heard of it applied to this or that people believed that.

    That opens up a very short logic flowchart by itself
    Some people believe that the deciples were guided by god to write it, Lol, instead of it just being some human writing a tragedy.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    06-28-2013 06:11 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    Some people believe that the deciples were guided by god to write it, Lol, instead of it just being some human writing a tragedy.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using AC Forums mobile app
    But wasn't the entirety of what is left in the new testament written 30-200 years after Jesus's death by people that had never met him? I guess I don't know about the inspiration, but the authors are pretty big unknowns and they didn't seem to leave any notes in the form of a preface or dedication.
    06-28-2013 06:16 PM
  14. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I'm think he meant it as an "only humans" who wrote the bible. Insinuating that it wasn't inspired by a greater being.
    Yes thank you. Sorry for the word salad.

    BTW: Same gender marriages are resuming in California RIGHT NOW!!! This minute. Hooray!
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-28-2013 06:39 PM
  15. SouthernDroid's Avatar
    Against it 30 years ago, against it today....
    I will agree with one brief statement from Justice Anton Scalia today, in effect he stated that doma/prop 8 are issues best decided by the states, not the bench..

    Borrowed from a poster on FB...

    Why would government have a say in marriage at all? Makes no sense. As marriage is a religious institution and was defined in the bible, no government has the right to redefine it. Our forefathers established America and the separation of church and state for the purpose that government cannot interfere with whatever religious practices they chose. The fled England simply because their government was directly ruling through the Church of England and dictating what was taught. The real meaning of separation of church and state was meant so that the state would keep its nose out of the church's business and allow the people to worship as they pleased. Just because our government has perverted the religious act of marriage by making a tax out of it does not mean they have right to govern it.
    Secondly, why would the government hold the interests of the minorities at greater value than the majority? Why are they able to completely overturn the vote of the people? The so called "less than 2%" that claim to be homosexual have now attempted to change what was defined by the church, but for what purpose? Could they not have a partnership in which legally they share all assets, live together, claim each other for tax purposes and share in all activities and benefits that married couples do and yet call it another name? I don't care if they made up a new word, it cannot be called true marriage. What the government has done is equivalent to the Nazi's taking the Buddhist' religious symbol of peace, good fortune and humanity (the swastika) and forever turning it into a political symbol now associated with a gravely negative ideology. The government saying that marriage is now the act of two individuals of any sex would be like the government saying that pigs are now considered clean according to islam (fat chance they mess with islam). They have absolutely no right.
    On the other side, I have no problem with homosexuals in general.

    I do not believe that the act of homosexuality is right, good or moral. If they have the right to believe that it is, I also have the right to believe that it isn't. But forcing Christians et al. to accept this as so is breaking the separation of church and state. You think they're not going to make the churches somehow monetarily pay for this? If they can force them to pay for the abortion pill then this will be no contest. Where are the muslim riots against this? Just wait. In islam it is sin to act homosexually and is punishable by stoning to death, hanging or beheading. The government is quick to accuse Christians of being violent, intolerant bigots, but then what would you call stoning a homosexual man? This country is backwards in more ways than one.
    You may call it "gay marriage" but I will never call it marriage.
    It isn't a marriage, plain and simple!

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    06-28-2013 06:57 PM
  16. SouthernDroid's Avatar
    Such ignorance posted above. Why would the government be interested in protecting the rights of a minority? Seriously? How would the minority EVER obtain equality if left up to only others to decide their fate and lot in life? The number of gay people is roughly a fixed number. It neither increases nor decreases, therefore gay people can never be in the majority. Basically you are saying that people should not be protected and subject to the whims of the majority simply because those are your views. If you were gay, you'd have a different school of thought. You should be happy that minorities are protected though, because going by all measures recently, your views are now in the minority. I assume you would still like some protections, yes?

    The second fallacy is to make the claim that marriage is a religious thing. If that were the case, no two atheist would EVER have been allowed to marry. And you would HAVE to get married in a church. Since neither of those things are true, neither is your claim.

    Finally, the notion that someone "has no problem" with gay people then goes on to list all the reasons they do have a problem speaks volumes and is laughable. Saying things like "why can't they call it another name" is the same as saying "why can't they use a separate fountain" and exposes the true motives. This isn't about religion. This is about keeping a certain group of people unequal and separate.
    Currently the minority is given an unfair advantage over the majority. How many minorities do you think would get accepted into prestigious universities if there were no quota system and admissions were merit based? Please let's keep it real folks.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    06-28-2013 06:59 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    Currently the minority is given an unfair advantage over the majority. How many minorities do you think would get accepted into prestigious universities if there were no quota system? Please let's keep it real folks.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    You mean if things were 100% merit based? Or do you mean if the universities could choose whomever they wanted by whatever criteria they wanted?

    Do you believe minorities to be less capable as students by default?
    06-28-2013 07:00 PM
  18. msndrstood's Avatar
    But wasn't the entirety of what is left in the new testament written 30-200 years after Jesus's death by people that had never met him? I guess I don't know about the inspiration, but the authors are pretty big unknowns and they didn't seem to leave any notes in the form of a preface or dedication.
    Yeah, we're kinda spoon feed that in Catholic school. But we digress...

    What?! ... I'm msndrstood.
    via Note II
    06-28-2013 07:02 PM
  19. SouthernDroid's Avatar
    You mean if things were 100% merit based? Or do you mean if the universities could choose whomever they wanted by whatever criteria they wanted?

    Do you believe minorities to be less capable as students by default?
    If admissions were merit based and not quota based. And no, that is not what I was saying and I am insulted that you read my post that way. I know plenty of smart minorities, as well as plenty of minorities who got accepted at prestigious schools simply because of their skin color. To me, the latter is racist and puts the majority at a disadvantage.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    06-28-2013 07:10 PM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    If admissions were merit based and not quota based. And no, that is not what I was saying and I am insulted that you read my post that way. I know plenty of smart minorities, as well as plenty of minorities who got accepted at prestigious schools simply because of their skin color. To me, the latter is racist and puts the majority at a disadvantage.

    Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    I'm not trying to insult you, I was asking you to clarify what you meant by:

    How many minorities do you think would get accepted into prestigious universities if there were no quota system and admissions were merit based? Please let's keep it real folks.
    Because the implication of that statement typically is that the quotas are what drive admissions that would otherwise be denied.

    Of course, both denying or approving an application based on race is racist; but those quotas, while imperfect, are a means of balancing out the racism in the other direction. It's not ideal, but it's way better than the alternative of the previous status quo. Of course, the ideal would be to ignore everyone's race entirely, because it's 100% irrelevant to their qualifications.
    06-28-2013 07:18 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    I think people should state denominations as apparently some Christian denominations said they would be willing to do gay marriage if the law allowed it.my demonination isn't one of those but I support gay marriage.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-28-2013 07:26 PM
  22. pappy53's Avatar
    "According to the Bible" is how I try to live my life. And yes, humans wrote the Bible, but they were inspired by God. Every person on this earth is a sinner, including homosexuals. There has only been one perfect person on earth in history, and that is Jesus Christ.
    06-28-2013 08:06 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    "According to the Bible" is how I try to live my life. And yes, humans wrote the Bible, but they were inspired by God. Every person on this earth is a sinner, including homosexuals. There has only been one perfect person on earth in history, and that is Jesus Christ.
    I don't think anyone is going to or should try to tell you not to live that way and/or believe what you want to. That would be wrong. For the exact same reasons, it's unreasonable for you to expect anyone else to live by your rules or worship what you worship.
    msndrstood and nolittdroid like this.
    06-28-2013 08:11 PM
  24. GadgetGator's Avatar
    It isn't a marriage, plain and simple!
    The marriage licenses say otherwise. Next.

    Currently the minority is given an unfair advantage over the majority. How many minorities do you think would get accepted into prestigious universities if there were no quota system and admissions were merit based? Please let's keep it real folks.
    Please let's keep it on topic. This thread isn't about college admissions which was another court case ruled on earlier. It's about DOMA and Prop 8.
    06-28-2013 08:17 PM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    I think people should state denominations as apparently some Christian denominations said they would be willing to do gay marriage if the law allowed it.my demonination isn't one of those but I support gay marriage.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    There are thousands of religions on earth. Honestly, trying to keep track of which ones believe what, in which context is pretty pointless. A persons's private beliefs about the existence of God or gods and the mechanics of the universe, etc. need to be intellectually separated from the concept of man-made religions, which are at best mythology and at worst cults. Belief in the supernatural is a philosophical and spiritual question that is very interesting to consider, but I think it's safe to say that no one religion has gotten any of it all correct. That, to me, makes a person's denomination completely irrelevant, because it doesn't describe to me what they believe, or whether or not they're a good person, etc. All it identifies is the name on the side of the building that they may or may not enter when they choose to congregate.
    GadgetGator and msndrstood like this.
    06-28-2013 08:22 PM
1,813 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD