Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[natty dread]

Nightstrike, why do you hate yourself?

I don't.

Nightstrike, why don't you hate yourself?

I would if I were you.

Well that must be why you're not me. I'm just fine wIth who I am. It's too bad that you have a problem with it.

Well, obviously you're "just fine" with yourself. Obviously, you never contemplate how hateful and bigoted your views are, how morally corrupt you are, because if you did, you couldn't live with yourself. So you just live in denial. Good job!

[Phatscotty]

Phatscotty, why do you hate gay people?

Natty, you are constantly making hateful allegations. Everyday, all day.

If you want to know where the hate comes from, look in the damn mirror.

No, but why do you hate gay people? Stop dodging the question.

Natty, wtf! You want me to start interrupting you while you're workin and knock the broom out your hands?

People like me are more friendly to the gay community than anyone else. People like you have made it a habit to exploit the gay community. I don't think they would really appreciate you using their lifestyle as a weapon to bash people. I could be wrong, but that is true among the gay people I know. I love gay people. We want more gay all the way! They have created their own flag and they stand side by side with me, and I with them!



Get with it Natty. Drop the poisonous hateful attitude, and embrace the love. I have love for you. Why can't you love me back? I will forgive you. Please stop the hate Natty Dread.

[natty dread]

People like me are more friendly to the gay community than anyone else

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm laughing at you, Phatscotty, not with you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

You're "friendly" to the "gay community" but you don't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. HOW DOES THAT WORK, PHATS?

[Phatscotty]

People like me are more friendly to the gay community than anyone else

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm laughing at you, Phatscotty, not with you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAHAHAHAAAAA

You're "friendly" to the "gay community" but you don't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else. HOW DOES THAT WORK, PHATS?

Maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with gay people at all. I really believe that is impossible for you to understand. Try though k?

Maybe, just maybe, there is a disagreement on what is a right and what isn't a right? Could there also be a legitimate disagreement or an argument as to where these rights would come from, and how that squares with where our rights do come from? Is it possible the disagreement could be there? Have you ever considered that? Maybe you guys are going about this the wrong way? Maybe? So, now that you have an insight as to where I am coming from, do you see how your bizarre behavior has backfired on you, and you were really just laughing at yourself and your realization that you do not even understand what the argument is?

Put down your club of hate once in a while and try listening. You overreact to everything.

[natty dread]

Maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with gay people at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow, Phatscotty you're killing me here

"Yeah, I want gay people to be treated as inferior, I want them to have less rights than straight people, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY PEOPLE AT ALL"

Wow, I didn't think even you could twist yourself in knots like that. Impressive, actually.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a disagreement on what is a right and what isn't a right? Could there also be a legitimate disagreement or an argument as to where these rights would come from, and how that squares with where our rights do come from? Is it possible the disagreement could be there? Have you ever considered that? Maybe you guys are going about this the wrong way? Maybe? So, now that you have an insight as to where I am coming from, do you see how your bizarre behavior has backfired on you, and you were really just laughing at yourself and your realization that you do not even understand what the argument is?

Um, no, that's a bunch of bullshit, you've clearly stated "marriage should be between one man + one woman"

Furthermore, don't even try to dodge the issue with semantics - straight people are able to marry, therefore they have the right to marriage, while gay people don't have that right,

GUESS WHAT SCOTTY, THAT'S NOT EQUALITY

[Night Strike]

Well, obviously you're "just fine" with yourself. Obviously, you never contemplate how hateful and bigoted your views are, how morally corrupt you are, because if you did, you couldn't live with yourself. So you just live in denial. Good job!

Actually, it's not my morals that are corrupt. I don't hate anyone who disagrees with me, and my views themselves are neither hateful nor bigoted. Just because you hate Christianity doesn't make me hateful for believing it. Maybe before you claim that I'm hateful, you should start evaluating why you are absolutely intolerable of any belief that you disagree with (which is the definition of bigotry).

[nagerous]

People like me are more friendly to the gay community than anyone else

Can you give examples? In chat you said you didn't know any gay people, so how are you more friendly to them than say the average person if you don't even know any.

[natty dread]

Well, obviously you're "just fine" with yourself. Obviously, you never contemplate how hateful and bigoted your views are, how morally corrupt you are, because if you did, you couldn't live with yourself. So you just live in denial. Good job!

Actually, it's not my morals that are corrupt. I don't hate anyone who disagrees with me, and my views themselves are neither hateful nor bigoted. Just because you hate Christianity doesn't make me hateful for believing it. Maybe before you claim that I'm hateful, you should start evaluating why you are absolutely intolerable of any belief that you disagree with (which is the definition of bigotry).

Oh hey, everything you said is wrong.

You're going to burn in hell

I REST MY SUITCASE

....

For the last time Nightstrike, when you believe in hateful and bigoted ideas, it's not bigotry to call you a hateful bigot for believing in those ideas. There's a very fundamental difference in being against a group of people because of some intrinsic quality they have, such as skin colour, appearance, sexual orientation, etc. or being against an IDEA that a group of people can freely choose to believe in.

Your particular brand of religion is hateful and bigoted, and I disagree with it. That doesn't mean I'm bigoted against whatever group of people you identify with. But when you assert that a group of people shouldn't have the same rights as you, that certain groups of people are "sinners that will burn in hell", when you attack a group of people because of something they ARE, you're being a hateful bigot.

[Night Strike]

Well, obviously you're "just fine" with yourself. Obviously, you never contemplate how hateful and bigoted your views are, how morally corrupt you are, because if you did, you couldn't live with yourself. So you just live in denial. Good job!

Actually, it's not my morals that are corrupt. I don't hate anyone who disagrees with me, and my views themselves are neither hateful nor bigoted. Just because you hate Christianity doesn't make me hateful for believing it. Maybe before you claim that I'm hateful, you should start evaluating why you are absolutely intolerable of any belief that you disagree with (which is the definition of bigotry).

Oh hey, everything you said is wrong.

You're going to burn in hell

I REST MY SUITCASE

How can you rest your suitcase by "quoting" a statement that I didn't say? If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell. If you don't like that conclusion, then I urge you to learn more about Christ.

For the last time Nightstrike, when you believe in hateful and bigoted ideas, it's not bigotry to call you a hateful bigot for believing in those ideas. There's a very fundamental difference in being against a group of people because of some intrinsic quality they have, such as skin colour, appearance, sexual orientation, etc. or being against an IDEA that a group of people can freely choose to believe in.

I do not believe in hateful or bigoted ideas. I am not against people based on their color, appearance, or sexual orientation. I disagree with homosexual actions, which is neither hate nor bigotry. Even if homosexuality is intrinsic in a person, that does not mean they have to engage in homosexual activities, which the bible clearly teaches is unnatural and shameful. Every person has intrinsic tendencies toward sin; it's our role to lean on Christ to overcome our sinful desires.

Your particular brand of religion is hateful and bigoted, and I disagree with it. That doesn't mean I'm bigoted against whatever group of people you identify with. But when you assert that a group of people shouldn't have the same rights as you, that certain groups of people are "sinners that will burn in hell", when you attack a group of people because of something they ARE, you're being a hateful bigot.

My "brand of religion" is included in mainline protestantism, and there is nothing hateful or bigoted about it. And I have never once said that any group of people should have different rights than me. Marriage isn't a right, so no rights are being violated by providing a specific definition of marriage.

[Phatscotty]

Maybe, just maybe, it has nothing to do with gay people at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow, Phatscotty you're killing me here

"Yeah, I want gay people to be treated as inferior, I want them to have less rights than straight people, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY PEOPLE AT ALL"

Wow, I didn't think even you could twist yourself in knots like that. Impressive, actually.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a disagreement on what is a right and what isn't a right? Could there also be a legitimate disagreement or an argument as to where these rights would come from, and how that squares with where our rights do come from? Is it possible the disagreement could be there? Have you ever considered that? Maybe you guys are going about this the wrong way? Maybe? So, now that you have an insight as to where I am coming from, do you see how your bizarre behavior has backfired on you, and you were really just laughing at yourself and your realization that you do not even understand what the argument is?

Um, no, that's a bunch of bullshit, you've clearly stated "marriage should be between one man + one woman"

Furthermore, don't even try to dodge the issue with semantics - straight people are able to marry, therefore they have the right to marriage, while gay people don't have that right,

GUESS WHAT SCOTTY, THAT'S NOT EQUALITY

At least I explained my position, which is more than I can say for you. All you do was call my post bullshit, dismiss it because of semantics, and then impose your new definition of equality.

At least I tried.

[Phatscotty]

The issue has already been decided. The debate is over. Traditional Marriage has weathered the storm.
.

[nagerous]

People like me are more friendly to the gay community than anyone else

Can you give examples?

the examples I gave was attached to the rest of the post you quoted

This is a crazy f'n argument

I see of no examples cited of how you are more friendly to the gay community than us, the people who are actually trying to support equal rights for gay people and gay marriage. Instead you accuse us of 'exploiting' the gay community because we want gay marriage to be legalised. Now that is a crazy f'in argument

[Phatscotty]

no, the people who are using gays to bash people who disagree are exploiting, and that is obvious. I wasn't talking to you

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=170298

very, very crazy indeed

[natty dread]

How can you rest your suitcase by "quoting" a statement that I didn't say?

Well. I was paraphrasing, but it is a fact that you have personally told me at least on two separate occasions that I'm going to burn in hell. Do I need to find the posts? Do you deny that this has happened?

Say what you want about me, but at least I don't wish you to spend an infinite amount of time suffering in horrible agony, which quite frankly seems pretty damn sociopathic to wish for anyone if you ask me.

If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell. If you don't like that conclusion, then I urge you to learn more about Christ.

If a person dies, he goes to face Crom, who is going to ask him the Riddle of Steel, and if the person can't answer, Crom is going to throw him down from his mountain and laugh. So you'd better get on crackin' on the Riddle of Steel, if you don't want to be thrown down from Crom's Mountain after you die.

What's that you say? You're not going to base your entire life on a fictional story? WELLLLLLLLLLL.......................

I do not believe in hateful or bigoted ideas. I am not against people based on their color, appearance, or sexual orientation. I disagree with homosexual actions, which is neither hate nor bigotry. Even if homosexuality is intrinsic in a person, that does not mean they have to engage in homosexual activities, which the bible clearly teaches is unnatural and shameful. Every person has intrinsic tendencies toward sin; it's our role to lean on Christ to overcome our sinful desires.

Nope, that's just a weak cop-out.

You can't tell someone "oh hey, I consider a fundamental part of you, ie. your sexual orientation, to be horrible, wrong and sinful, but I don't hate you or anything." That's just like saying "hey black person, I find your skin colour repulsive, but I'm not a racist or anything".

And then you go on and expect homosexuals to repress their very nature and live a miserable, unhappy & loveless life, simply to satisfy your personal superstitions, and that's somehow not hate? Wow. The lengths you people go to... If I called you "unnatural and shameful" you'd be all over the forums crying about how you poor christian fundies are getting persecuted again. But when you do it to homosexuals, that's just fine and dandy.

Oh, you can throw in some half-ass disclaimer about how you only disagree with the "act of homosexuality"... but in the end, it amounts to the same fucking thing! It's just a weak dodge, you're trying to twist yourself in knots in order to justify your bigotry.

My "brand of religion" is included in mainline protestantism, and there is nothing hateful or bigoted about it. And I have never once said that any group of people should have different rights than me. Marriage isn't a right, so no rights are being violated by providing a specific definition of marriage.

Bullshit. You twist words, you attempt to stand everything on it's head, but in the end, you're still a hateful bigot. You can't just say "marriage isn't a right" and expect that it's going to make it OK for one group to be allowed it but another not. In pretty much every civilized country, marriage carries with it certain legal & financial benefits, and the fact that heterosexual couples get to enjoy these benefits while homosexual couples don't, IS CLEAR INEQUALITY.

Oh, what's the next cop out... are you going to trot out the old "everyone has the same rights bcuz everyone gets to marry one person of opposite gender"... HAH! That's like, 9-year-old's logic. You think it's somehow clever to obfuscate the issue like that, but it's not. This is not some esoteric theoretical question which you can just play around with. The plain, simple, practical facts of the matter are that straight people get to marry the people they're fundamentally attracted to, ie. people of opposite gender, and enjoy all the benefits of that marriage, while gay people do not get to marry the people they're fundamentally attracted to, and are denied those benefits. That's not fair or equal no matter how you try to twist it.

[PLAYER57832]

The issue has already been decided. The debate is over. Traditional Marriage has weathered the storm.
.

Are you somehow suggesting that other types of unions no longer exist? Or are you perhaps still trying to pretend that the traditional form has predated other types of marriages?

[rdsrds2120]

The issue has already been decided. The debate is over. Traditional Marriage has weathered the storm.
.

Then why are there more states that allow gay marriage than ever? You're statement is correct if you measure your sample to some southern states, etc, but most of he developed world and an increasing number of states are recognizing same-sex marriage.

-rd

[PLAYER57832]

My "brand of religion" is included in mainline protestantism, and there is nothing hateful or bigoted about it. And I have never once said that any group of people should have different rights than me. Marriage isn't a right, so no rights are being violated by providing a specific definition of marriage.

Fine, its not a right. But why should the state recognize one type of marriage and not others? Why should the privliage of marriage to whomever one chooses be afforded some adults and not others?

[GreecePwns]

If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell.

Prove it. Then prove that this is the basis for your morality. Then prove it is objective morality. Then prove that this morality should be imposed on the nation (in other words, prove that separation of church and state should not exist) The discussion ends if you cannot do all 4.

[PLAYER57832]

If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell.

Prove it. Then prove that this is the basis for your morality. Then prove it is objective morality. The discussion ends if you cannot do all 3. And yes, this burden of proof is on you.

Or even just cite the places where the New Testament specifically proscribes homosexuality.

[Night Strike]

The issue has already been decided. The debate is over. Traditional Marriage has weathered the storm.
.

Then why are there more states that allow gay marriage than ever? You're statement is correct if you measure your sample to some southern states, etc, but most of he developed world and an increasing number of states are recognizing same-sex marriage.

-rd

Weak statement considering the number was previously 0. 29 states have reaffirmed the definition of marriage being only between one man and one woman, and most of that only took place in response to some people trying to change the definition of marriage to suit their personal lifestyles.

If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell.

Prove it. Then prove that this is the basis for your morality. Then prove it is objective morality. Then prove that this morality should be imposed on the nation (in other words, prove that separation of church and state should not exist) The discussion ends if you cannot do all 4.

Please go read the Bible. It clearly states that Jesus is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me [Christ]". For people who do not follow Christ, it clearly states that they will spend an eternity separated from God. There is no other morality other than the objective morality that God teaches because God is the only Creator of all things. To worship anything else or to follow the teachings/moralities of anyone else is idolatry, because you are putting someone else's morals above God. As for the morality on the country, the Founding Fathers frequently spoke about how only a "righteous and upright populace" could continue to honor freedom. It's not surprising that the era of government growth and erosion of Constitutional freedoms has coincided with the removal of God from the public. People have chosen to replace their beliefs in God with beliefs in a bigger and all-providing government. There is not and never has has been a "separation of church and state" in this country. The 1st Amendment simply states that Congress itself cannot establish a religion or prohibit someone from following a religion. It says absolutely nothing about where the moral guidance comes from.

[rdsrds2120]

The issue has already been decided. The debate is over. Traditional Marriage has weathered the storm.
.

Then why are there more states that allow gay marriage than ever? You're statement is correct if you measure your sample to some southern states, etc, but most of he developed world and an increasing number of states are recognizing same-sex marriage.

-rd

Weak statement considering the number was previously 0. 29 states have reaffirmed the definition of marriage being only between one man and one woman, and most of that only took place in response to some people trying to change the definition of marriage to suit their personal lifestyles.

Wait a minute...


Doesn't the fact that it was 0 affirm that more people support same-sex marriage than before? That it's trending that way?

-rd

[Night Strike]

The issue has already been decided. The debate is over. Traditional Marriage has weathered the storm.
.

Then why are there more states that allow gay marriage than ever? You're statement is correct if you measure your sample to some southern states, etc, but most of he developed world and an increasing number of states are recognizing same-sex marriage.

-rd

Weak statement considering the number was previously 0. 29 states have reaffirmed the definition of marriage being only between one man and one woman, and most of that only took place in response to some people trying to change the definition of marriage to suit their personal lifestyles.

Wait a minute...


Doesn't the fact that it was 0 affirm that more people support same-sex marriage than before? That it's trending that way?

-rd

I believe it's something like 5 states have either had the people vote or had the legislature vote to allow same-sex marriage while a couple of states have had the courts force it on them. 29 states have voted against same-sex marriage. I'd call that hardly a ringing endorsement.

[Phatscotty]

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=171233

[GreecePwns]

If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell.

Prove it. Then prove that this is the basis for your morality. Then prove it is objective morality. Then prove that this morality should be imposed on the nation (in other words, prove that separation of church and state should not exist) The discussion ends if you cannot do all 4.

Please go read the Bible. It clearly states that Jesus is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me [Christ]". For people who do not follow Christ, it clearly states that they will spend an eternity separated from God. There is no other morality other than the objective morality that God teaches because God is the only Creator of all things. To worship anything else or to follow the teachings/moralities of anyone else is idolatry, because you are putting someone else's morals above God. As for the morality on the country, the Founding Fathers frequently spoke about how only a "righteous and upright populace" could continue to honor freedom. It's not surprising that the era of government growth and erosion of Constitutional freedoms has coincided with the removal of God from the public. People have chosen to replace their beliefs in God with beliefs in a bigger and all-providing government. There is not and never has has been a "separation of church and state" in this country. The 1st Amendment simply states that Congress itself cannot establish a religion or prohibit someone from following a religion. It says absolutely nothing about where the moral guidance comes from.

I was born and raised Greek Orthodox. I know what it says. Now prove its actually true. You can't make the other steps I mentioned without making this first one.

[natty dread]

god is real because bible says so; the bible is real because god says so