I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay


Off-Topic Discussions

751 to 800 of 1,199 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Except for the name of God, Christianity and Islam share a lot of the same beliefs.

AFAIK, Allah actually just translates to God. It is not God's name.

The name of God is something they (that is the three Abrahamic faiths) should agree on. (Well, more specifically that they don't know the name of God, in ancient times it wasn't written down (properly) and only spoken once a year, and so the pronunciation has been lost.) Unless it was given to Muhammad.


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Aretas wrote:
It was not "Trolling". I would much appreciate that you cease accusing me of that. I was expressing my opinion and was looking for some constructive dialogue. Instead I got bashed.
It was trolling. No tmatter how you put it. You made non-verifiable statements and when asked couldn't or wouldn't provide anything resembling a coherent argument. Much like what you're doing now.

I listed 3 specific issues I had a problem with. Economics, race relations, and foreign affairs. My opinion was that they are all in the red under President Obama's watch. Yeah that is my opinion, I arrived at them by doing my own research that would take 100 thread pages to fill. Does everyone write a paper with footnotes on how they arrive at their opinions here? Why was I obligated to do so?

When pressed to answer or explain why I believed what I said, which is my opinion I spent most of the time attempting to get the conversation back on track with the Stateman OR Politician question.

The rest of the time was spent trying to put down & respod to Trolls like you. I had to defend my motives, & the intellectual honesty of my post.

I find it absurd that I had to go through all that.

Does that make sense to you? Yes or No?


thejeff wrote:

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church birth control is a sin. Abstinence, or periodic abstinence during fertile times is acceptable. Any artificial methods are out.

Most American Catholics ignore this.

It did not have to be this way. The Church formed a panel of laypeople and theologians to study the issue of contraception. Said panel recommended that at least some forms be permitted. The Pope of the time ignored them and maintained the hardline forced birth position.

In so doing he not only helped cause incalculable harm to untold millions of women up to and including death, but also made his own authority a global joke even in the eyes of millions of his followers.


Very belatedly,

As a homosexual woman, that's just part of a very large list of reasons why I am not okay with it.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Aretas wrote:

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.
So America passed a law allowing gays to marry? Wow. I missed that. Link please?

No. Of course not. Though several states have.

It remains perfectly legal, under federal law, to discriminate against homosexuals in many other ways as well. You can fire them at will just for being gay. Not rent or sell a house to them, if you don't want them in your neighborhood.

In positive news, we have decided to allow them to openly die for their country.


Aretas wrote:
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Aretas wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Unfortunately, the prime public voices supporting prejudice against homosexuals in the US are Christians. (Other religions fill the same role elsewhere.) Not all Christians or even Christian organizations do so, but Christian institutions have been far more dominant in the fight against gay rights than for them. Not just in the current argument over marriage, but dating back to times when you could go to jail for homosexual acts.

It makes sense since 78% of Americans identify with some brand of Christianity.

I read this as a non sequitir, Citizen Aretas.

78% of Americans identify as Christians, therefore Christianity is the prime public voice supporting anti-gay bigotry doesn't make any sense to me.

Well how homophobic is a nation that is 78% Christian and IS tolerant to whatever lifestyle you choose? Not at all.

I believe its a testament to what Christianity is all about. IMO.

I'm glad some of you guys made some sense of this, because I still don't understand what it means. But I've come to accept that Citizen Aretas and I live in different worlds.

But, whatever.

On another topic, small point but, Comrade Inaros: books don't oppress people.


Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:

From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.

Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL

Let me make sure I'm getting this right. You believe that religious beliefs are sufficient grounds to deny an employee access to medical coverage?

Its not about me, Arizona passed the following bill.

Arizona House Bill #2652. Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R) introduced this bill that grants employers the power to deny health care coverage for contraception based upon the employer’s religious beliefs. This bill, passed out of the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee 6-2.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:

According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church birth control is a sin. Abstinence, or periodic abstinence during fertile times is acceptable. Any artificial methods are out.

Most American Catholics ignore this.

It did not have to be this way. The Church formed a panel of laypeople and theologians to study the issue of contraception. Said panel recommended that at least some forms be permitted. The Pope of the time ignored them and maintained the hardline forced birth position.

In so doing he not only helped cause incalculable harm to untold millions of women up to and including death, but also made his own authority a global joke even in the eyes of millions of his followers.

Even above and beyond the Church's position on birth control, the opposition to condoms as means to prevent STD/AIDS transmission is obscene.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:


On another topic, small point but, Comrade Inaros: books don't oppress people.

You haven't met the right books.

Scarab Sages

ShadowcatX wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Except for the name of God, Christianity and Islam share a lot of the same beliefs.

AFAIK, Allah actually just translates to God. It is not God's name.

The name of God is something they (that is the three Abrahamic faiths) should agree on. (Well, more specifically that they don't know the name of God, in ancient times it wasn't written down (properly) and only spoken once a year, and so the pronunciation has been lost.) Unless it was given to Muhammad.

It also depends on who you talk to. I was in the navy, on my first two deployments we spent a month in Jordan. My friends and I hung out and a bookstore/cafe and got to know the owner really well. He introduced us to his Imam and we had some really good discussions. If I remember correctly, Allah is the name they use instead of God because to use the name God is to blaspheme. It was actually one of our funniest arguments. All of use agreed that we didn't know God's name, but as to what we call him...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.
Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL

Really again.

Many religions say many things. If all hospitals closed on the Sabbath, would you say government was wrong to make them open? If they said that employees must wear unmixed fibers at all time, would that be ok? What about not providing shaving implements, as shaving beards is forbidden? And my personal favorite, what if they wanted to quarentine all women during their menstrual cycle? 'When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.' -- Leviticus 15:19-20

Because one group holds a tenet as true doesn't mean it can be required. Should the Christian Science Monitor be allowed to have a health care program based on their healing tenets, even for non-believer who work for them? Of course not. So why should non-Catholics working for a catholic charity or church receive lesser healthcare than others? It is one thing if a church wants to set tenets for believers working in church business, it is a whole other thing when those exemptions expand to non-church buisnesses.

The fact is the church isn't paying, insurance providers are. Why? Because they agreed to do it because they want to pay for it, because it is cheaper than paying for a kid, which is what happens when people don't use birth control.

Which is also the reason reasonable people in government would want to pay for it.

Keep your bible out of my health care, please.

Liberty's Edge

Aretas wrote:

I listed 3 specific issues I had a problem with. Economics, race relations, and foreign affairs. My opinion was that they are all in the red under President Obama's watch. Yeah that is my opinion, I arrived at them by doing my own research that would take 100 thread pages to fill. Does everyone write a paper with footnotes on how they arrive at their opinions here? Why was I obligated to do so?

When pressed to answer or explain why I believed what I said, which is my opinion I spent most of the time attempting to get the conversation back on track with the Stateman OR Politician question.

The rest of the time was spent trying to put down & respod to Trolls like you. I had to defend my motives, & the intellectual honesty of my post.

I find it absurd that I had to go through all that.

Does that make sense to you? Yes or No?

You made an inflammatory statement with no evidence to back it up on an internet forum (trolling), then got mad people disagreed with you, saying "I had to defend my motives, & the intellectual honesty of my post." rather than posting absolutely any evidence to back up the claims you made.

Does that make sense to you? Yes or No?

Scarab Sages

Aretas wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Aretas wrote:
It was not "Trolling". I would much appreciate that you cease accusing me of that. I was expressing my opinion and was looking for some constructive dialogue. Instead I got bashed.
It was trolling. No tmatter how you put it. You made non-verifiable statements and when asked couldn't or wouldn't provide anything resembling a coherent argument. Much like what you're doing now.

I listed 3 specific issues I had a problem with. Economics, race relations, and foreign affairs. My opinion was that they are all in the red under President Obama's watch. Yeah that is my opinion, I arrived at them by doing my own research that would take 100 thread pages to fill. Does everyone write a paper with footnotes on how they arrive at their opinions here? Why was I obligated to do so?

When pressed to answer or explain why I believed what I said, which is my opinion I spent most of the time attempting to get the conversation back on track with the Stateman OR Politician question.

The rest of the time was spent trying to put down & respod to Trolls like you. I had to defend my motives, & the intellectual honesty of my post.

I find it absurd that I had to go through all that.

Does that make sense to you? Yes or No?

No. Because you couldn't list a single SPECIFIC issue. What you listed is so broad as to be virtually unknowable. You couldn't or wouldn't back up any of what you said. Therefore, you were simply trolling.

What you did, and continued to do, is troll. What myself and several others have done, is take you to task for it. If you don't get it, that's your problem.

Liberty's Edge

Aretas wrote:

Its not about me, Arizona passed the following bill.

Arizona House Bill #2652. Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R) introduced this bill that grants employers the power to deny health care coverage for contraception based upon the employer’s religious beliefs. This bill, passed out of the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee 6-2.

Hope no one at the Christian Science Monitor needs anything...


Aretas wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:

From what I believe the "Church" is not against woman using birth control. They are against government mandating they provide free contraceptives in their health care plans. We do get into a 1st ammendment issue.

Also, if a woman wishes to use contraceptives they can purchase them outside of their health care plan. They do understand if the work for a private entity they will have to abide by their rules, not try to usurp them. IMO.

TTYL

Let me make sure I'm getting this right. You believe that religious beliefs are sufficient grounds to deny an employee access to medical coverage?

Its not about me, Arizona passed the following bill.

Arizona House Bill #2652. Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R) introduced this bill that grants employers the power to deny health care coverage for contraception based upon the employer’s religious beliefs. This bill, passed out of the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee 6-2.

I'm not sure what you're doing here then. Are you advocating a position or not? Are you posting their information as some sort of point, or is it just a random coincidence that you hit those keys in that order and it happens to look like information?

Arizona has done a lot of things I disagree with.

Scarab Sages

Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
On another topic, small point but, Comrade Inaros: books don't oppress people.

Sadly, they lead people to justify why it's okay. Just take a look at the WS/WP movement and they justify their beliefs because it comes from the Book of God! The passages that they've shown me to justify their racism and why slavery was good, don't mention anything about skin color. Anything but, truth be told...And in the New Testament, there are passages that can be construed as anti-semetic, even though Jesus himself said that the Jews were God's chosen people.

Get enough people to believe a book, and, yeah, it can oppress people.


In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....
As a Christian i do not personally care what other's believe, as that is well beyond my control. I do not force my beliefs on anyone and if at all possible i avoid conflict of any kind. It saddens me to see my faith under full scale attack by the popular media, but at the end of the day i am powerless to combat such hatred. Truth be told i think the homosexuals are totally mistaken as to who is being oppressed. I am more of the assumption that it is people of faith, and not the gays who are being persecuted. No one can speak against gays and get away with it, whereas Christians are maligned at every turn with impunity. So spare me the "woe is me i am so oppressed" stance that so many homosexuals seem to take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....

As a Christian i do not personally care what other's believe, as that is well beyond my control. I do not force my beliefs on anyone and if at all possible i avoid conflict of any kind. It saddens me to see my faith under full scale attack by the popular media, but at the end of the day i am powerless to combat such hatred. Truth be told i think the homosexuals are totally mistaken as to who is being oppressed. I am more of the assumption that it is people of faith, and not the gays who are being persecuted. No one can speak against gays and get away with it, whereas Christians are maligned at every turn with impunity. So spare me the "woe is me i am so oppressed" stance that so many homosexuals seem to take.

...sigh

Liberty's Edge

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....

As a Christian i do not personally care what other's believe, as that is well beyond my control. I do not force my beliefs on anyone and if at all possible i avoid conflict of any kind. It saddens me to see my faith under full scale attack by the popular media, but at the end of the day i am powerless to combat such hatred. Truth be told i think the homosexuals are totally mistaken as to who is being oppressed. I am more of the assumption that it is people of faith, and not the gays who are being persecuted. No one can speak against gays and get away with it, whereas Christians are maligned at every turn with impunity. So spare me the "woe is me i am so oppressed" stance that so many homosexuals seem to take.

Yeah, and why were those black people so uppity about segregation. Everyone knows the back of the bus is the coolest part of the bus.

Am I right?!?!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
Am I right!

...was that a question?

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Am I right!
...was that a question?

Fixed :)

I could also add a sarcasm tag...Serious, when people discuss "Christian Oppression" I in the US...When I build a nativity scene in a public square, occasionally someone complains...so oppressed...

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
So spare me the "woe is me i am so oppressed" stance that so many homosexuals seem to take.

Are you married? Why don't we refuse to let you count that status for tax purposes? Also, you can't see your spouse in the hospital because you're not immediate family. And if they die, we'll sell off all their possessions instead of returning them to you. Also, you're not allowed to adopt because you are immoral and cannot provide a good household to raise them properly. And don't go walking alone, you might get beaten to death by people who disagree with your lifestyle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....

As a Christian i do not personally care what other's believe, as that is well beyond my control. I do not force my beliefs on anyone and if at all possible i avoid conflict of any kind. It saddens me to see my faith under full scale attack by the popular media, but at the end of the day i am powerless to combat such hatred. Truth be told i think the homosexuals are totally mistaken as to who is being oppressed. I am more of the assumption that it is people of faith, and not the gays who are being persecuted. No one can speak against gays and get away with it, whereas Christians are maligned at every turn with impunity. So spare me the "woe is me i am so oppressed" stance that so many homosexuals seem to take.

Oh, pity the poor oppressed majority.

So occasionally you get insulted for "speaking against gays". If you're a public figure, there might even be some consequences. Not legal ones, but your advertisers might feel some pressure. If you're running for the Republican presidential nomination though, it's no handicap at all.

Some people even insult Christianity as a whole. Especially on blogs. The horror.

When was the last time a Christian was lynched in the US by secularists for being Christian? How long has it been since practicing Christianity was illegal? Are there still laws on the books in some states? Can you be fired for being Christian?
How often are teens thrown out of their families and communities for admitting their Christianity?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
ciretose wrote:


I could also add a sarcasm tag...Serious, when people discuss "Christian Oppression" I in the US...When I build a nativity scene in a public square, occasionally someone complains...so oppressed...

Don't forget the oppressive atheist billboards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just so we're all clear, in Uganda, gays have been killed with impunity. AND that whole process got started by fundamentalist Christian missionaries from the United States.

On the flip side, there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays and who believe that the whole anti-homosexuality meme by the whackjob wing of Christianity is a gross misinterpretation.

But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....

Replying to this separately:

Yes, there are countries where oppression of gays is much worse than it is here. Some of those countries are Muslim.
Some are not. See Christian Uganda's attempts to pass the "Kill the Gays" law, with the support of some US Christian ministers.

I focus on problems in the US because I live here and so do my gay friends. Not only will that oppression affect me more, but I am able to have a larger effect on the situation here than across the world.

Yes, the oppression of gays, and women and other groups in those countries disgusts me.

I do wonder how much of the difference between the US and the Middle East for example is because we're Christian and they are Muslim and how much is because our government and laws our secular and many of theirs are religious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
In alot of Muslim countries, gays are slain with impunity. Let's make sure we hate on the Christians who might look down on their sexual practices and lifestyle, and not the religion who bashes in their heads with rocks....

It's not an either-or choice. I assure you that while I am a most accomplished hater (everyone says so) and thus quite capable of hating on Muslims and Christians alike for their horrible behavior towards gay people, skills of my caliber are not necessary to loathe both together. After all, the stances of both holy books are more or less identical on the subject.

And is the moral fiber of Christianity so feeble that the fact that Christians in the US are not presently lynching gay people is meant to be a substantial point in its defense? Perhaps it is, but I have thought better of Christians in the past.

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:


Truth be told i think the homosexuals are totally mistaken as to who is being oppressed.

Yeah, exactly.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.

No worse than the 'atheists are immoral' and 'homosexuals are a danger to children' crowd.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.
No worse than the 'atheists are immoral' and 'homosexuals are a danger to children' crowd.

I want to aim higher than the lowest common denominator. If my best defense is "there are people who are just as bad as me", then I think I've failed.


I have seen many reports of Christians being murdered in large numbers in Egypt and other places where the so called "Arab Spring" is taking place with the consent and most likely the funding and direct help of the United States government. Christians are openly maligned by "comedians" like the hateful Bill Maher and popular media sources like Yahoo.com. This all takes place with zero consequence and open support of the popular media. I seriously doubt anybody could take an openly anti-gay stance within the popular media or anywhere else without incurring some kind of serious consequence. The vocal minority has instilled it's own fascist control over the "tyranny of the majority". So yes, i am firmly in the belief that homosexuals and their agenda has already overtaken the popular media and are beyond reproach, be it by Christians or any other group. It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
If my best defense is "there are people who are just as bad as me", then I think I've failed.

I don't disagree.


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
I have seen many reports of Christians being murdered in large numbers in Egypt and other places where the so called "Arab Spring" is taking place with the consent and most likely the funding and direct help of the United States government. Christians are openly maligned by "comedians" like the hateful Bill Maher and popular media sources like Yahoo.com. This all takes place with zero consequence and open support of the popular media. I seriously doubt anybody could take an openly anti-gay stance within the popular media or anywhere else without incurring some kind of serious consequence. The vocal minority has instilled it's own fascist control over the "tyranny of the majority". So yes, i am firmly in the belief that homosexuals and their agenda has already overtaken the popular media and are beyond reproach, be it by Christians or any other group. It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

So, your issues are

1.) You believe that the US Government is tied into murders of Christians in Egypt? How, exactly? Are we talking about the same kind of connection fundamentalist Christians are to anti-homosexual violence in Uganda?
2.) You believe that Yahoo.com maligns Christianity. Could you give an example? Is it the same kind of maligning that gays receive from the government or is it more like some random person said something you don't like?
3.) Bill Maher's a pompous jerk. Ignore him.

Please don't tell me that your gripe boils down to the fact that somebody said something you don't like. Because, if it is, you're seriously ignorant about just how much worse than that gay life is.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Just so we're all clear, in Uganda, gays have been killed with impunity. AND that whole process got started by fundamentalist Christian missionaries from the United States.

On the flip side, there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays and who believe that the whole anti-homosexuality meme by the crazy fringe of Christianity is a gross misinterpretation.

But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.

Well, I've tried very hard not to.

Can you point me to the "whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays"? And let me know how long and how prominently they've been doing so?

I know there are plenty of churches that don't preach anti-homosexuality. I know, for example, of the recent schism between Anglican and Episcopal churches over gay bishops.
I don't know of churches that have taken a leading role against homophobia. It's one thing to take an official stance against prejudice, it's another thing to have your officials leading protests. There have certainly been Christian individuals and I'm sure some churches have played a role, but my impression of the overall gay rights movement is that it's been overwhelmingly secular. From Stonewall through the AIDS protests to the modern marriage equality fights, it's been secular, or at least lay, gays leading the fight.

Compare this to the Civil Rights movement, where most of the prominent leaders were religious figures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll likely regret this but....

I am a Canadian married homosexual male. I am also atheist. I also hold respect for christian religions. Here in Canada gay marriage has been legal in every province since 2006. In Canada churches hold no obligation to marry ANYONE. They have the right to decline anyone from their facilities, as to do otherwise would be a infringement on their beliefs. Meaning a church does not have to perform a gay marriage if they don't wish too. Likewise a justice of the peace who is obligated can ask another official to sub for them if they feel uncomfortable performing a gay marriage. The only official requirement is that there has to be someone willing to perform the marriage on the list of Justice of the peace in any one area. So how would this be so controversial if applied to the US? How would this infringe on religious rights?

I personally have no problem if someone disagrees with my sexuality, frankly that's their prerogative and really doesn't involve me. The law in my country disallows you to discriminate in any professional setting about it anyway, so why should I care what someone else thinks of me. I really don't see why it would matter if certain christians disagree with homosexuality here, I personally have no problem with it.

Liberty's Edge

The Minis Maniac wrote:

I'll likely regret this but....

I am a Canadian married homosexual male. I am also atheist. I also hold respect for christian religions. Here in Canada gay marriage has been legal in every province since 2006. In Canada churches hold no obligation to marry ANYONE. They have the right to decline anyone from their facilities, as to do otherwise would be a infringement on their beliefs. Meaning a church does not have to perform a gay marriage if they don't wish too. Likewise a justice of the peace who is obligated can ask another official to sub for them if they feel uncomfortable performing a gay marriage. The only official requirement is that there has to be someone willing to perform the marriage on the list of Justice of the peace in any one area. So how would this be so controversial if applied to the US? How would this infringe on religious rights?

I personally have no problem if someone disagrees with my sexuality, frankly that's their prerogative and really doesn't involve me. The law in my country disallows you to discriminate in any professional setting about it anyway, so why should I care what someone else thinks of me. I really don't see why it would matter if certain christians disagree with homosexuality here, I personally have no problem with it.

Sounds like religions don't hold quite the same power over your government that they do here in the US.


ciretose wrote:
Aretas wrote:

I listed 3 specific issues I had a problem with. Economics, race relations, and foreign affairs. My opinion was that they are all in the red under President Obama's watch. Yeah that is my opinion, I arrived at them by doing my own research that would take 100 thread pages to fill. Does everyone write a paper with footnotes on how they arrive at their opinions here? Why was I obligated to do so?

When pressed to answer or explain why I believed what I said, which is my opinion I spent most of the time attempting to get the conversation back on track with the Stateman OR Politician question.

The rest of the time was spent trying to put down & respod to Trolls like you. I had to defend my motives, & the intellectual honesty of my post.

I find it absurd that I had to go through all that.

Does that make sense to you? Yes or No?

You made an inflammatory statement with no evidence to back it up on an internet forum (trolling), then got mad people disagreed with you, saying "I had to defend my motives, & the intellectual honesty of my post." rather than posting absolutely any evidence to back up the claims you made.

Does that make sense to you? Yes or No?

RULES:

Users who participate in our message boards agree to not: post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party; use profanity or any type of vulgar speech; make any bigoted, hateful or racially offensive statements; defame, abuse, stalk, harass or threaten others; advocate illegal activity or discuss illegal activities with the intent to commit them.

I POSTED:
The economy, race relations, foreign affairs just to name a few have seriously gotten worse under his watch.

People are talking about topics that distract us from the real problems facing our nation.

President Obama in my opinion cares more about his re-election than doing the right thing for the USA.

Where are you Mr. President? We need a statesman NOT a politician.

Signed,
A first generation American citizen.

YOU RESPONDED:
"Seriously? Were you around in late 2007?"

Now, nothing in my post was inflammatory.

How did your response create an enviroment for discussion? There was not even a questions about what I posted.

I spent most of my time asking people to address the Statesman/Politician question.

You and I don't see eye to eye on many things but that does not mean you can attempt to discredit my intentions & call me a troll simply b/c you don't agree with what I say.

I'd like to cease this dialogue with you b/c I really don't appreciate your candre on this topic. I'll focus on other conversations that have a shred of goodwill attached to them.

Peace!

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Just so we're all clear, in Uganda, gays have been killed with impunity. AND that whole process got started by fundamentalist Christian missionaries from the United States.

On the flip side, there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays and who believe that the whole anti-homosexuality meme by the whackjob wing of Christianity is a gross misinterpretation.

But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.

Again, you don't get a cookie for not agreeing with the part of your religion in favor of killing gays if you still are saying they are going to burn in hell.

Liberty's Edge

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

Do you actually believe this, or are you trolling. Because if you are arguing Christians are persecuted more than other religions, that kind of cognitive dissonance is amazing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
I have seen many reports of Christians being murdered in large numbers in Egypt and other places where the so called "Arab Spring" is taking place with the consent and most likely the funding and direct help of the United States government. Christians are openly maligned by "comedians" like the hateful Bill Maher and popular media sources like Yahoo.com. This all takes place with zero consequence and open support of the popular media. I seriously doubt anybody could take an openly anti-gay stance within the popular media or anywhere else without incurring some kind of serious consequence. The vocal minority has instilled it's own fascist control over the "tyranny of the majority". So yes, i am firmly in the belief that homosexuals and their agenda has already overtaken the popular media and are beyond reproach, be it by Christians or any other group. It is Christians, if anybody, who are under attack and being persecuted here in the United States and the World at large.

I'm honestly quite taken aback with this. I hear what you're saying but you seem to be a little mixed up. Let me see if I can point somethings out to you you may have missed.

You are completely correct that there are places in the world where Christians are being oppressed and killed for their faith. This is wrong and should stop. Persecution is never a good thing and we should do what we can to stop it.

Christians in the United States are not persecuted. They are mocked in ways that are just hurtful and yes it is widely considered to be an almost socially acceptable practice but being mocked, while hurtful to the feelings, is not persecution.

Persecution strips away opportunities, rights and social standing. It means being under a constant threat of violence and never knowing for sure you are safe. It means being widely reviled in a way that destroys lives and takes away the chance to pursue happiness.

Christians in the United States do not suffer that.

Members of the LGBT community have throughout the nations history and still do.

Do you know why the media does not mock us?

Compassion.

People see what we have suffered and have a hard time justify adding to that burden in even the slightest way.

The "Gay Agenda" does not rule the people on your TV, common decency does.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
...[another re-posting of content from a locked thread]...

Somehow we're allowing this thread to turn into Aretas's locked President Obama thread...

This should probably be against the MB rules...


thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Just so we're all clear, in Uganda, gays have been killed with impunity. AND that whole process got started by fundamentalist Christian missionaries from the United States.

On the flip side, there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays and who believe that the whole anti-homosexuality meme by the crazy fringe of Christianity is a gross misinterpretation.

But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.

Well, I've tried very hard not to.

Can you point me to the "whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays"? And let me know how long and how prominently they've been doing so?

I know there are plenty of churches that don't preach anti-homosexuality. I know, for example, of the recent schism between Anglican and Episcopal churches over gay bishops.
I don't know of churches that have taken a leading role against homophobia. It's one thing to take an official stance against prejudice, it's another thing to have your officials leading protests. There have certainly been Christian individuals and I'm sure some churches have played a role, but my impression of the overall gay rights movement is that it's been overwhelmingly secular. From Stonewall through the AIDS protests to the modern marriage equality fights, it's been secular, or at least lay, gays leading the fight.

Compare this to the Civil Rights movement, where most of the prominent leaders were religious figures.

Here's one for starters

http://mccchurch.org/
also, you might find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations


ciretose wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Just so we're all clear, in Uganda, gays have been killed with impunity. AND that whole process got started by fundamentalist Christian missionaries from the United States.

On the flip side, there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays and who believe that the whole anti-homosexuality meme by the whackjob wing of Christianity is a gross misinterpretation.

But, hey, don't let nuance get in your way. Be sure to paint the entire religion with a single stripe of the same color.

Again, you don't get a cookie for not agreeing with the part of your religion in favor of killing gays if you still are saying they are going to burn in hell.

Many Christians believe that gays will not burn in hell for being gay (nor for having a loving committed sexual relationship with a member of the same sex).

I've told you this before. You just choose to ignore it.

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:


Many Christians believe that gays will not burn in hell for being gay (nor for having a loving committed sexual relationship with a member of the same sex).

I've told you this before. You just choose to ignore it.

No atheists believe they will.

Would you disagree that if not for the religious argument, gay marriage would be legal?

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


Many Christians believe that gays will not burn in hell for being gay (nor for having a loving committed sexual relationship with a member of the same sex).

I've told you this before. You just choose to ignore it.

No atheists believe they will.

Would you disagree that if not for the religious argument, gay marriage would be legal?

Yes, because the rational and secular government Jefferson, et al originally built would never have entertained superstition as a means of legal determination.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


On the flip side, there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays and who believe that the whole anti-homosexuality meme by the crazy fringe of Christianity is a gross misinterpretation.

Well, I've tried very hard not to.

Can you point me to the "whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays"? And let me know how long and how prominently they've been doing so?

I know there are plenty of churches that don't preach anti-homosexuality.
I don't know of churches that have taken a leading role against homophobia. It's one thing to take an official stance against prejudice, it's another thing to have your officials leading protests. There have certainly been Christian individuals and I'm sure some churches have played a role, but my impression of the overall gay rights movement is that it's been overwhelmingly secular. From Stonewall through the AIDS protests to the modern marriage equality fights, it's been secular, or at least lay, gays leading the fight.

Here's one for starters

http://mccchurch.org/
also, you might find this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations

As I said, I'm well aware that there are churches that accept LGBTs. I was asking, if "there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays" and "the whole anti-homosexuality meme" is just "the crazy fringe of Christianity", why don't the non-crazy fringe ones have anything like the influence of the crazies?

It is hard to see the anti-homosexual interpretation as "crazy fringe", when it's doctrine for the Catholic Church, the largest single denomination in the US and the majority denomination world wide. Nor is it at all rare in Protestant denominations. None of that means it isn't crazy or not a gross misinterpretation, but it's hard to call it fringe.


ciretose wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


Many Christians believe that gays will not burn in hell for being gay (nor for having a loving committed sexual relationship with a member of the same sex).

I've told you this before. You just choose to ignore it.

No atheists believe they will.

Would you disagree that if not for the religious argument, gay marriage would be legal?

No, I don't.

The reason is that homophobia doesn't just come from religion. We have a long tradition as human beings in attacking minorities for whatever reason is most convenient.
In response, gays could just stay in the closet.

What the whackjob wingnut branch of Christianity did was convince gays that staying in the closet wasn't an option. Remember that Stonewall didn't just happen out of thin air. Police had been raiding gay bars for awhile before that. Then, Anita Bryant came along.
So, the whackjob wingnut branch of Christianity, by provoking gays into action, set gays on a course of action which has led us to where we are today - heading towards legalized gay marriage.
So, gay marriage would not be legal, I believe. Gay marriage would not even be considered as an option, if not for the whackjob wingnut branch of Christianity.


thejeff wrote:


As I said, I'm well aware that there are churches that accept LGBTs. I was asking, if "there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays" and "the whole anti-homosexuality meme" is just "the crazy fringe of Christianity", why don't the non-crazy fringe ones have anything like the influence of the crazies?

It is hard to see the anti-homosexual interpretation as "crazy fringe", when it's doctrine for the Catholic Church, the largest single denomination in the US and the majority denomination world wide. Nor is it at all rare in Protestant denominations. None of that means it isn't crazy or not a gross misinterpretation, but it's hard to call it fringe.

I'd call a church which openly accepts gays, gay marriage, and gay leadership "fighting for equality and respect for gays". Understand that the fight for equality among gays is not the same as the fight for equality among blacks (for example). Gays can hide in the closet and, when they do, they aren't going to be fighting for equality. The first step in a fight for equality is for gays to have a safe place where they can be themselves and, then, accept themselves.

These churches provide that.

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:


Gay marriage would not even be considered as an option, if not for the whackjob wingnut branch of Christianity.

The Ancient Greeks called...


Are you seriously arguing that gays came out of the closet because they were attacked by Christians?

Nothing to do with the general opening of tolerance and sexuality starting in the 60s?
Anita Bryant didn't start her campaign until almost a decade after Stonewall. The world was already changing. I suspect Anita Bryant (and her ilk) were more backlash than cause.
Then came AIDS and it was pretty much come out of the closet and fight or die.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:


As I said, I'm well aware that there are churches that accept LGBTs. I was asking, if "there are a whole lot of churches and Christian leadership fighting for equality and respect for gays" and "the whole anti-homosexuality meme" is just "the crazy fringe of Christianity", why don't the non-crazy fringe ones have anything like the influence of the crazies?

It is hard to see the anti-homosexual interpretation as "crazy fringe", when it's doctrine for the Catholic Church, the largest single denomination in the US and the majority denomination world wide. Nor is it at all rare in Protestant denominations. None of that means it isn't crazy or not a gross misinterpretation, but it's hard to call it fringe.

I'd call a church which openly accepts gays, gay marriage, and gay leadership "fighting for equality and respect for gays". Understand that the fight for equality among gays is not the same as the fight for equality among blacks (for example). Gays can hide in the closet and, when they do, they aren't going to be fighting for equality. The first step in a fight for equality is for gays to have a safe place where they can be themselves and, then, accept themselves.

These churches provide that.

In your world, can anyone do anything without religion? The bad churches forced gays out of the closet and the good ones protected them, leading to the wonderful place we are today.

In my world, gays responded to a greater respect for personal private sexuality, the same movement that allowed contraception, no-fault divorce and abortion, by organizing and demanding the same rights for themselves. Churches mostly fought this tooth and nail, but sometimes, eventually tolerated it.

I was really hoping for more.

751 to 800 of 1,199 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay All Messageboards