Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: LA Times tells gays to stop being mean towards homophobic bigots

  1. #61
    Elite Member southernbelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,578

    Default

    There's no point in answering this, because whatever I say will be met with more ridicule of my religion.

    There are certain aspects of the Bible and of what is known as "Christian morality" that are much more heavily emphasized in most Christian faiths than other issues, and homosexuality happens to be one of them. I would imagine that the importance placed on these issues has to do with the frequency with which they are mentioned and with the underlying themes, tying into the larger "Christian morality" picture, that go along with them.

    Thus, more Christians feel strongly about these issues (things such as homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, adultery) than they do about not eating certain foods or wearing specific types of fabric, or other things, which, in Catechism classes, Bible study classes, and Sunday school are very obscure and are often explained (especially in the Catholic faith) as being metaphorical.

  2. #62
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    don't give your business, meaning money, to businesses that supported this hatred ppl!

  3. #63
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Oh i see.

    Bigotry towards gays = everyday to-do list.

    Everything else = metaphor.

    Again, how very convenient that all the mysogeny, bigotry, prejudice and everything else gets center stage while the more day to day, tangible living items get relegated to 'metaphor'.

    How are dietary commandments concerning seafood a metaphor?

    *shakes head*

    Still unanswered is the whole "what if the bible said jews and blacks couldnt marry, would you agree with that" question. Perhaps it would be a metaphor as well.

    *shakes head*

    All I know is that any person, group or entity that supports, finances, or argues for bigotry of this nature is on the slate to be destroyed eventually.

    It's on their heads. They started it with the incessant persecution. Eventually they'll be wiped out, relegated to a laughingstock or so financially crippled they won't be able to operate if they don't back off.

    Equality eventually wins, and religion has been losing for a long time now.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  4. #64
    Gold Member ymeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southernbelle View Post
    There's no point in answering this, because whatever I say will be met with more ridicule of my religion.

    There are certain aspects of the Bible and of what is known as "Christian morality" that are much more heavily emphasized in most Christian faiths than other issues, and homosexuality happens to be one of them. I would imagine that the importance placed on these issues has to do with the frequency with which they are mentioned and with the underlying themes, tying into the larger "Christian morality" picture, that go along with them.

    Thus, more Christians feel strongly about these issues (things such as homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, adultery) than they do about not eating certain foods or wearing specific types of fabric, or other things, which, in Catechism classes, Bible study classes, and Sunday school are very obscure and are often explained (especially in the Catholic faith) as being metaphorical.

    Can you find me some quotes from Jesus (I think he's got something to do with Christianity, if somewhat remotely) about homosexuality? I'd be interested in what he said about it.

  5. #65
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    ^ lol yeah!
    jesus liked pussy im pretty sure, but imo he was everyone-friendly

  6. #66
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    51,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southernbelle View Post
    There's no point in answering this, because whatever I say will be met with more ridicule of my religion.

    There are certain aspects of the Bible and of what is known as "Christian morality" that are much more heavily emphasized in most Christian faiths than other issues, and homosexuality happens to be one of them. I would imagine that the importance placed on these issues has to do with the frequency with which they are mentioned and with the underlying themes, tying into the larger "Christian morality" picture, that go along with them.

    Thus, more Christians feel strongly about these issues (things such as homosexuality, abortion, pre-marital sex, adultery) than they do about not eating certain foods or wearing specific types of fabric, or other things, which, in Catechism classes, Bible study classes, and Sunday school are very obscure and are often explained (especially in the Catholic faith) as being metaphorical.
    like i said, religions can preach whatever they want. but if you respect the separation of church and state, and you acknowledge that discrimination/bigotry against gays is founded on religious beliefs, then why would you oppose civil marriages between same-sex couples? not reigious ones - churches can continue to believe that religious marriages are only between men and women. but why deprive people of secular, civil marriage just because of your religious beliefs?
    i am not ridiculing your religion, i'm not even getting into that - people can believe what they want. but the state is a secular entity so why do religious people insist on imposing their beliefs on the state? it's like they want the best of both worlds - interfere in the secular world, bu still keep their tax-exempt status... how is that not a violation of church and state?
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  7. #67
    Elite Member Penny Lane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Over the hills and far away
    Posts
    21,646

    Default

    Please. I heard it put best when someone said, "religion is more of a choice than homosexuality is".. you can't choose who you love and robbing people of that with semantics, tied up with religion and non-secular beliefs, policing the lives of others is a recipe for disaster.

    You CAN choose, however, in a sickeningly-systematic fashion--a concept we've seen permeate our government and blur the lines between church and state-- to stigmatize and alienate whole populations of others simply because the Bible "says so".. it's like a recreation of Sodom and Gomorrah, systematically punishing those who DARE practice a love forbidden by a book written thousands of years ago. Punishing them for the purpose of consolidating archaic, literally-interpreted religious tenets with the progressive society we find ourselves in today. I maintain that it was written for societies of that time and it is an absurd concept to apply it to modern-day society. Does the Bible mention anything about LOVE between two same-sex persons? Does it? Nope. It's debased the concept of same-sex love and relegated homosexuality to "deplorable" gay sex and such. Where is the Christian love so many are called upon to practice? Like Grimm said, it's cherry picking religious tenets. Read the rest of the Bible with such fervor and you might find some sexist stuff in there no one would dare apply to today's society, much less in an argument for taking legal rights away from people.

    I think it's ridiculous, that's all. But whatever floats your boat. Or ark. Whatever.

  8. #68
    Elite Member january's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    like i said, religions can preach whatever they want. but if you respect the separation of church and state, and you acknowledge that discrimination/bigotry against gays is founded on religious beliefs, then why would you oppose civil marriages between same-sex couples? not reigious ones - churches can continue to believe that religious marriages are only between men and women. but why deprive people of secular, civil marriage just because of your religious beliefs?
    i am not ridiculing your religion, i'm not even getting into that - people can believe what they want. but the state is a secular entity so why do religious people insist on imposing their beliefs on the state? it's like they want the best of both worlds - interfere in the secular world, bu still keep their tax-exempt status... how is that not a violation of church and state?
    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    ^^
    i can understand not wanting churches to be forced to marry gays. i even agree that churches should be the only ones to decide on that matter.
    but what about legal marriage? that's carried out by the state, which is supposed to be a secular entity devoid of reigious influence. why do you care if the state marries gays?

    the catholic church won't let you have a religious marriage twice. if you're divorced, you're technically not allowed to be married in church again.
    whatever my opinion on that matter is, i don't think the church should be foreced to perform that ceremony just because the state will marry a person as many times as they like.

    the same goes for gay marriages in church. i don't think that should be imposed.
    likewise, i don't think religion should enter into what is the legal, secular definition of marriage. why do you care if marriage is extended to same-sex couples, as long as it is only legal, secular marriage we are talking about, not the religious ceremony?
    by depriving them of that right, aren't you imposing your religious beiefs on the rest of society? isn't that just as bad as if the state suddenly decided to force churches to perform same-sex ceremonies? (which would never happen by the way, as churches are protected by law).
    Great posts, I agree completely. I want to give you a golf clap. The state shouldn't interfere with religious entities and vice versa. Churches should never be forced to marry homosexual couples. Likewise, the state should not be forced NOT to marry homosexual couples because of religion. I do understand that many religious people feel like its a backwards slide, that if this passes than their rights will be stampled on and they will be forced in their churches, mosques, temples to recognize homosexual marriage, which goes against their religious beliefs. But to me, thats an overblown argument. Like you said before, the Catholic church won't marry a divorcee (in fact, my cousin was excommunicated for her divorce). The state doesn't interfere in such matters. I think you CAN be a religious person and recognize both things to be right. I honestly don't understand how a religious person can feel like their religious beliefs should impose on the legal, secular version of marriage, which is separate from what they practice in their churches. I think because it is an ingrained philosophy, that homosexuality is abhorrent to God, that makes them think that if they support it in any way that they are drawing wrath upon their heads. I think that the thinking that this will supersede or trump the Church and take away their rights is a way of keeping religious people scared so they toe the line, in many ways. Because it is irrelevant, isn't it? The state won't (and can't) interfere with Church business. I just don't get why it doesn't cut both ways sometimes. And I consider myself a Christian.
    Women ain't gonna let a thing like sense fuck up their argument. - Chris Rock

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: November 13th, 2008, 11:51 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 01:25 AM
  3. Heart tells McCain/Palin to stop using song
    By twitchy2.0 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 7th, 2008, 03:12 AM
  4. Replies: 39
    Last Post: April 7th, 2008, 09:00 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: March 10th, 2006, 04:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •