Jump to content

Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?


johntm

Recommended Posts

Oh wait. I guess I am racist. This is ridiculous. Your such a big atheist why would you care about marriage at all? It's a religious sacrament that's been morphed into a social institution. Let's just get rid of marriages altogether and have civil unions for everyone. If the state gave out communion would you want it to be given to Muslims or Buddhists?

 

 

 

It's not that I want to get married/or that I'm gay, but I think gay people/Christians/whatever who want to marry should be allowed.

 

 

 

The Church continuously gets a free pass and people don't look at it the same way they look at other things.

 

 

 

If I opened up a store and said that no black people could come in because my store operated on the teachings of Jeremiah, an ancient guy who said "black people are subhuman" - there would be outcry.

 

 

 

But when the Church says "No, we refuse to marry these people who are genetically different to us (gay people, cause that's what it is, and you know it), because God says homosexuality is an abomination" they get away with it.

 

 

 

You showed me exactly how it is with your whole "in a civil union you can do the same as if you were married". Separate but equal? Can you give me an answer please?

 

 

 

How is saying "black people can't marry" any different to saying "gay people can't marry"?

 

 

 

@ Sly.. no seriously. If the Church could pass laws they would almost definitely do something to hinder the progress of science.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@ Sly.. no seriously. If the Church could pass laws they would almost definitely do something to hinder the progress of science.

 

 

 

Like what? The only thing you're going to even get close to is embryonic stem cell research, and would be done on moral grounds rather than religious grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church doesn't say that. Just stereotyping everything religious as fundamentalist gets kind of old after a while. Marriage is inherently a religious sacrament. A covenant between one man and one woman. Changing the definition deprives it of it's meaning. If two black people get married it is different from two guys. You're not religious so you don't care. Other people do. That's what happens when you have the state invading Church territory.

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church doesn't say that. Just stereotyping everything religious as fundamentalist gets kind of old after a while. Marriage is inherently a religious sacrament. A covenant between one man and one woman. Changing the definition deprives it of it's meaning. If two black people get married it is different from two guys. You're not religious so you don't care. Other people do. That's what happens when you have the state invading Church territory.

 

 

 

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

 

 

 

You automatically fail for mentioning Zeitgeist. Of course, the whole "If the Church had their way" thing isn't/wasn't exactly true, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

 

 

 

You automatically fail for mentioning Zeitgeist. Of course, the whole "If the Church had their way" thing isn't/wasn't exactly true, either.

 

 

 

Zeitgeist is a word, it's not a reference to the "documentary".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Sly.. no seriously. If the Church could pass laws they would almost definitely do something to hinder the progress of science.

 

 

 

Like what? The only thing you're going to even get close to is embryonic stem cell research, and would be done on moral grounds rather than religious grounds.

 

 

 

Moral grounds for the reason that you think embryos have souls?

 

 

 

In some states creationism would be taught in schools, instead of evolution. Condoms would be banned/research into contraception probably stopped.

 

 

 

If we go back 50 years there'd still be the anti-miscegenation laws..

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

 

 

 

You automatically fail for mentioning Zeitgeist. Of course, the whole "If the Church had their way" thing isn't/wasn't exactly true, either.

 

 

 

Are you being serious?

 

 

 

I'm not talking about that conspiracy movie.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral grounds for the reason that you think embryos have souls?

 

 

 

Souls? Please. I don't have to invoke any philosophical argument. I can just point out that's it's a human life :)

 

 

 

In some states creationism would be taught in schools instead of evolution...

 

 

 

There is no state in which a majority supports teaching Creationism. Not one.

 

 

 

Condoms would be banned/research into contraception probably stopped.

 

 

 

Once again, good luck providing support for that claim.

 

 

 

If we go back 50 years there'd still be the anti-miscegenation laws..

 

 

 

Because it wasn't like anti-miscegenation laws were set up in the 17th/18th century before there was an established Church in North America or even established independent of religious ideologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't like anti-miscegenation laws were set up in the 17th/18th century before there was an established Church in North America or even established independent of religious ideologies.

 

 

 

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperm aren't human life.

 

 

 

The Church doesn't say that. Just stereotyping everything religious as fundamentalist gets kind of old after a while. Marriage is inherently a religious sacrament. A covenant between one man and one woman. Changing the definition deprives it of it's meaning. If two black people get married it is different from two guys. You're not religious so you don't care. Other people do. That's what happens when you have the state invading Church territory.

 

 

 

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

 

 

 

I don't really know what you are talking about. I've never heard anything like that. Why would the Church care about interracial marriages?

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Souls? Please. I don't have to invoke any philosophical argument. I can just point out that's it's a human life :)

 

 

 

So are sperm. Is it a sin to have a wet dream?

 

 

 

No, silly atheist, sperm are only HALF-SOULS.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperm aren't human life.

 

 

 

The Church doesn't say that. Just stereotyping everything religious as fundamentalist gets kind of old after a while. Marriage is inherently a religious sacrament. A covenant between one man and one woman. Changing the definition deprives it of it's meaning. If two black people get married it is different from two guys. You're not religious so you don't care. Other people do. That's what happens when you have the state invading Church territory.

 

 

 

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

 

 

 

I don't really know what you are talking about. I've never heard anything like that. Why would the Church care about interracial marriages?

 

 

 

There are several passages that can be interpreted as against interracial marriage. And indeed many Christians did interpret them this way. In fact, a judge ruled against Loving (vs. Virginia.) saying that "God placed the races on different continents, therefore showing that they shouldn't marry" and forced one of the people in that relationship (can't remember which) to leave the state for something ridiculous like 30 years.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperm aren't human life.

 

 

 

The Church doesn't say that. Just stereotyping everything religious as fundamentalist gets kind of old after a while. Marriage is inherently a religious sacrament. A covenant between one man and one woman. Changing the definition deprives it of it's meaning. If two black people get married it is different from two guys. You're not religious so you don't care. Other people do. That's what happens when you have the state invading Church territory.

 

 

 

If the Church had had their way, black people wouldn't even be able to marry white people. That's not the popular Christian opinion now.. but what do you think would have happened if the zeitgeist hadn't been moved along?

 

 

 

And that was like what.. 40 years ago?

 

 

 

I don't really know what you are talking about. I've never heard anything like that. Why would the Church care about interracial marriages?

 

 

 

There are several passages that can be interpreted as against interracial marriage. And indeed many Christians did interpret them this way. In fact, a judge ruled against Loving (vs. Virginia.) saying that "God placed the races on different continents, therefore showing that they shouldn't marry" and forced one of the people in that relationship (can't remember which) to leave the state for something ridiculous like 30 years.

 

 

 

There are a lot of passages that can be interpreted a lot of ways. Why would the Vatican care though?

My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet.

 

These are the times that try mens souls...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

 

 

 

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

 

 

 

You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry."

 

 

 

Sounds like a religious reason to me.

 

 

 

I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are sperm. Is it a sin to have a wet dream?

 

 

 

Sperm = Human life? Oh, do tell. I have to hear this.

 

 

 

Don't give me that crap that we were once "inhuman". Putting the words "human" and "life" together doesn't change the meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Christians of that area were. That doesn't mean all were.

 

 

 

So are Christians in the future going to look back at you and other Christians who try to hold back social equality as weird too?

noobs crowding hill giants? not on my watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Christians of that area were. That doesn't mean all were.

 

 

 

So are Christians in the future going to look back at you and other Christians who try to hold back social equality as weird too?

 

 

 

Yes, quote me.

Hey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

 

 

 

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

 

 

 

You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry."

 

 

 

Sounds like a religious reason to me.

 

 

 

I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What the non-religious who supported them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know very well that the Christians/Church of that time were for those laws.

 

 

 

Erm... You might want to read up on your history. By continuing to assert that the Church was for anti-miscegenation laws, you're really not helping your cause, here.

 

 

 

You're aware that the ruling in Loving vs Virginia was initially that they either had to go to prison for 1 year or leave the state for 25 years, for the reason that "God placed different people on different continents therefore showing they shouldn't marry."

 

 

 

Sounds like a religious reason to me.

 

 

 

I was wrong when I said the "Church" was for the anti-miscegenation laws, but the Christians of that time certainly were. So in response to what I previously said about separating Church (and religious ideals) from the state, it is relevant.

 

 

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, pick up a history book and read back to the 17th century. Anti-miscegenation laws had nothing to do with Christianity, nor any religion for that fact. What the non-religious who supported them?

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce ... lonial_Era

 

 

 

"In the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century, many American states passed anti-miscegenation laws, which were often defended by invoking racist interpretations of the Bible, particularly of the story of Phinehas and the "Curse of Ham"[10]. In 1776, seven out of the Thirteen Colonies that declared their independence enforced laws against interracial marriage. Although slavery was gradually abolished in the North after independence, this at first had little impact on the enforcement of anti-miscegenation laws. An exception was Pennsylvania, which repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1780, together with some of the other restrictions placed on free blacks, when it enacted a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. Later, in 1843, Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law after abolitionists protested against it. However, as the US expanded, all the new slave states as well as many new free states such such as Illinois[11] and California[12] enacted such laws."

 

 

 

"In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany, from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the Apartheid era, from 1949 until 1985.[1]"

noobs crowding hill giants? not on my watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are sperm. Is it a sin to have a wet dream?

 

 

 

Sperm = Human life? Oh, do tell. I have to hear this.

 

 

 

Don't give me that crap that we were once "inhuman". Putting the words "human" and "life" together doesn't change the meaning.

 

 

 

Yes, it does. Otherwise people, such as yourself, will try to equate things such as sperm or plants or chickens to a fetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.