The Avenger Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Of course there is no problem with people questioning what they have been taught religiously and looking at all situations from multiple angles, but I still don't see people who believe in what they are taught and form an opinion based on that as ignorant either. What about kids in segregated Alabama who were taught that Blacks didn't have the same rights as whites and that interracial marriage was a sin against God and grew up figting for segeration? You going to say they're not racists becase they simply took what they were taught and formed an opinion? How are their reasons for their opinions any different than what is happening today with discrimination against gays? I'm curious to see how you say the two situations are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 You always you the word "bigot" so judiciously. Explain how it can be anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjeff215 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 So it is ignorant for one to form a belief on a subject such as this due to religious values that have been instilled in them for years? Classic. I don't even understand why this has to be a religious argument. No one is forcing the Catholic/Mormon/Southern Baptist/Lutheran/etc church to marry two men or two women. It's the legal agreement and the associated protections that people want. The "evil liberals" don't want to see gay unions blessed and validated in God's eyes. Why not grant consenting adults the legal status and leave the morality and religious connotations to the church itself? If your denomination decides to marry two dudes, then you've got your moral dilemma. Someone used the example of two older widows once. No family left and they desire to share in assets, tax liability, hospital/next of kin benefits, insurance status, and so on. Let them. From a legal status, that's no different than the state institution of marriage. Hell, for that matter, apply the same logic to polygamy of legal-age folks. I don't know. I've always been a small government guy. I don't want my tax money paying for a debate like this or for any subsequent amendment votes. Hell, call my marriage license a 'civil union between two adults' license for legal purposes. I don't care. That's especially true if it takes it off the table as a political issue. The sacrament itself is important to me regardless of what the government calls it. Edit... I think she made her mistake when she said "in my country..." If she had simply stated her personal beliefs, or that of her family, she would have probably been fine. By stating that she thinks it should be man and woman nationwide, she screwed it up. I *do* think she deserves credit for having enough sack to state what she did in a room like that with the question coming from Perez Hilton. It's a shame she didn't win, she's *smoking* hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Yep, and a lot of people in this country used to have slaves, and most supported the notion that women shouldn't vote. For awhile there, everyone thought Home Improvment was a great sitcom. Things change. Excellent comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Excellent comparisons. Are you being sarcastic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I don't even understand why this has to be a religious argument. No one is forcing the Catholic/Mormon/Southern Baptist/Lutheran/etc church to marry two men or two women. It's the legal agreement and the associated protections that people want. The "evil liberals" don't want to see gay unions blessed and validated in God's eyes. Why not grant consenting adults the legal status and leave the morality and religious connotations to the church itself? If your denomination decides to marry two dudes, then you've got your moral dilemma. Someone used the example of two older widows once. No family left and they desire to share in assets, tax liability, hospital/next of kin benefits, insurance status, and so on. Let them. From a legal status, that's no different than the state institution of marriage. Hell, for that matter, apply the same logic to polygamy of legal-age folks. I don't know. I've always been a small government guy. I don't want my tax money paying for a debate like this or for any subsequent amendment votes. Hell, call my marriage license a 'civil union between two adults' license for legal purposes. I don't care. That's especially true if it takes it off the table as a political issue. The sacrament itself is important to me regardless of what the government calls it. Very well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I'm religion and you're a kid and here's your opinion, take it, I want you to have it. Now go and live your life and don't question what I told you when you were too young to understand otherwise. ----------- So, if you're actively dispelling another perspective because it clashes with what an institution told you as a kid, I call that ignorant. If you're not actively dispelling another perspective because you've just simply never been exposed to something somebody other than religion had to say, then that's equally ignorant. Right? I was raised a Catholic...not one anymore. I changed my mind when I grew up. It can happen, I'm proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 What about kids in segregated Alabama who were taught that Blacks didn't have the same rights as whites and that interracial marriage was a sin against God and grew up figting for segeration? You going to say they're not racists becase they simply took what they were taught and formed an opinion? How are their reasons for their opinions any different than what is happening today with discrimination against gays? I'm curious to see how you say the two situations are different. The difference is your example can only be viewed as CLEARY wrong. Even if they were taught that, the bible says absolutely nothing against interracial relationships. The difference is the gay marriage issue can be seen from multiple different angles. Segregation, in reality and at the end of the day, can only be seen as being wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ok, so the question "Do you oppose gay marriage", get's 4 pages of heated debate.. Now let's debate Miss NC's (a former Panther Cheerleader btw) question, "Should taxpayers money be used to bail out foundering businesses?"... I say No... What a crock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 The difference is your example can only be viewed as CLEARY wrong. Even if they were taught that, the bible says absolutely nothing against interracial relationships. The difference is the gay marriage issue can be seen from multiple different angles. Segregation, in reality and at the end of the day, can only be seen as being wrong. Personally, I don't see the "wrong" angle, so please enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ok, so the question "Do you oppose gay marriage", get's 4 pages of heated debate.. Now let's debate Miss NC's (a former Panther Cheerleader btw) question, "Should taxpayers money be used to bail out foundering businesses?"... I say No... What a crock! Thread Stealer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I was raised a Catholic...not one anymore. I changed my mind when I grew up. It can happen, I'm proof. Ah yes, the Catholic Church…, which says true love can only be between one man and one woman. Or one elderly man of god and one young boy who will keep his mouth shut if he knows what's good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Personally, I don't see the "wrong" angle, so please enlighten me. It is clearly stated in the Bible that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. This is the basis of why so many people believe it is wrong. Simple enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Oh my god, how dare she! So now people with an opinion agianst gay marriage need to be in the closet? Oh the irony. Yeah, some things--like bigotry--you should keep to yourself, especially when your answer is being JUDGED. And yes, like Deano, I chalk it up to bigotry. If not bigotry, then religiously induced ignorance induced bigotry. This debate has been out of control for like five years now. And in those five years those opposing gay marriage have yet to give a reason for opposition that doesn't involve God and/or bigotry. Dennis Kucinich may very well have been visited by aliens from outer space, but bringing that sh-t up publicly is just a silly silly thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Again, this isn't what this thread was intended to turn into, although I can never really complain about good debate. Although in retrospect this was bound to happen, it still clouds the issue at hand which is pretty important IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 It is clearly stated in the Bible that marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman. This is the basis of why so many people believe it is wrong. Simple enough? Link? Where does it state this clearly and by whose translation of the original text? EDIT: I'm also fully aware that I what the Bible says has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the laws of man. You know, what our country is founded on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Its the CIA's fault. Well there were an awful lot of gay people attending while I was there, but I'm not sure how this is relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Link? Where does it state this clearly and by whose translation of the original text? EDIT: I'm also fully aware that I what the Bible says has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the laws of man. You know, what our country is founded on. Since I don't have it memorized, nor do I have the resources to provide a link to it at the moment, do some homework yourself if you are so passionate about this topic and want to see the other side. It won't take long at all, and might actually prove to be educational. Also, if you don't think our country was "founded on" many biblical principles, you're either ignorant (there's that word again) or uninformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 The difference is your example can only be viewed as CLEARY wrong. Even if they were taught that, the bible says absolutely nothing against interracial relationships. The difference is the gay marriage issue can be seen from multiple different angles. Segregation, in reality and at the end of the day, can only be seen as being wrong. OK, so segregation and barring interracial marriage is clearly wrong, even though people can and did find religious justification for both, but homosexuality isn't - got it. I can also point out biblical justification for not touching the skin of a pig (not popular on a football message board), the wearing of syntheic fibers and outlawing crop rotation. Seems pretty subjective to me, though. Not to mention that religious justifications should have nothing to do with laws of society, especially when nobody agrees on whose religion is the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Since I don't have it memorized, nor do I have the resources to provide a link to it at the moment, do some homework yourself if you are so passionate about this topic and want to see the other side. It won't take long at all, and might actually prove to be educational. Also, if you don't think our country was "founded on" many biblical principles, you're either ignorant (there's that word again) or uninformed. Haha, if YOU think the country was founded on Biblical principles, i.e. concepts and codes SPECIFIC to the Christian Holy Book, then you're the one that's categorically wrong. Here, I WILL provide a source: Link used for only $10.88, that's a pretty good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts