Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Ikari said:
Marriage exists as a legal contract. What there is to render is the exercise of one's right to contract. If the hand acts naturally and without infringing upon the rights of others, who's to say it's a sin and why is it ok to use government force to cut it off?

It is a sin so that would be God. And the comment was according to Jesus. Had nothing to do with government force, Jesus speaking figuratively about sin.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
It is a sin so that would be God. And the comment was according to Jesus. Had nothing to do with government force, Jesus speaking figuratively about sin.

So are you claiming it's ok to use government force to cut off one's hand because some deity from a book said it was a sin? Why is it ok for you to use government force to impress your religious doctrine upon the rest of us? This has everything to do with government force because in the end that's what you are using to prevent the free exercise of rights.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Ikari said:
So are you claiming it's ok to use government force to cut off one's hand because some deity from a book said it was a sin?

Are you reading what I am typing? Or are you seeing what you want to see? It is Jesus speaking FIGURATIVELY about the wages of sin. Do I have to repeat it a third time?

Ikari said:
Why is it ok for you to use government force to impress your religious doctrine upon the rest of us?

Please point out where I said anything about government force of anything?

Ikari said:
This has everything to do with government force because in the end that's what you are using to prevent the free exercise of rights.

I am not forcing anything nor preventing anyones exorcising of free rights. I am stating why Christians don't feel inclined to support something they see as morally wrong.

Knee jerk some more.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
Are you reading what I am typing? Or are you seeing what you want to see? It is Jesus speaking FIGURATIVELY about the wages of sin. Do I have to repeat it a third time?

You can repeat as many times as you want, it changes nothing. I'm not saying that you literally cut someone's hands off. I'm saying in the figurative text of "it's best to cut off the hand than face the consequences of sin" sort of thing whether or not it is ok to use government force to define the sin and cut off the hand. Or if it should be an entirely interpersonal thing.

Blackdog said:
Please point out where I said anything about government force of anything?

Government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is used to prevent certain folk from obtaining a marriage license.

Blackdog said:
I am not forcing anything nor preventing anyones exorcising of free rights. I am stating why Christians don't feel inclined to support something they see as morally wrong.

Knee jerk some more.

I'd rather you think some more. It's not that you "don't support something", it's that you actively support the infringement of rights to stop a practice based on your personal, religious beliefs. It would be one thing if you voted for gay marriage, but refused to go to one ever or say things like "God won't recognize same sex marriage". It's a whole different ball game when you actively USE government to prevent the act which infringes upon no one's rights and instead infringe upon right to contract of others to uphold through a legal context your religious definition of marriage.

CriticalThought · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
No as I have shown and you ignored it is not even close. :roll:

In fact his statement is not even an interpretation, it is just bad information from someone who wants it to mean something other than it does. Even though common sense and a 3rd graders grasp of English says otherwise.

I don't know why you are so upset about it. Other people can have different interpretations. What is it to you? If you are so insecure in your own beliefs that you can't let other people have their own, then maybe you should reflect on the origin of that insecurity.

CriticalThought · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
Since gay marriage does not exist on the books, and never has. What exactly is their to render?

Actually, same sex marriage has always existed. It was practiced in ancient Rome by some elites until Christianity became predominant. It was practiced in many countries around the world until Western influence lead to it being outlawed. Specific laws had to be made in the United States in order to deny same sex couples the right to marry based on their gender. It is by no means a new right, it has always existed, and it certainly exists in several states now. So I have no idea where you got the idea that it "does not exist on the books". It's actually kind of a ludicrous argument to make and denies reality and history.

If your hand causes you to sin, better to cut it off than face hellfire.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Civil marriage belongs to the state and religious marriage belongs to God.

But if that is the case you insist on making, then I believe lying is a sin and you statement that "gay marriage does not exist on the books" is a lie, so you probably should cut off the hand that typed it.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Ikari said:
You can repeat as many times as you want, it changes nothing. I'm not saying that you literally cut someone's hands off. I'm saying in the figurative text of "it's best to cut off the hand than face the consequences of sin" sort of thing whether or not it is ok to use government force to define the sin and cut off the hand. Or if it should be an entirely interpersonal thing.

#1 My statement has nothing at all to do with the government. A knee jerk reaction on your part that had nothing at all to do with anything I said. So you really have no point as far as my statement is concerned.

Ikari said:
Government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is used to prevent certain folk from obtaining a marriage license.

And again it has nothing to do with anything I posted.

Ikari said:
I'd rather you think some more. It's not that you "don't support something", it's that you actively support the infringement of rights to stop a practice based on your personal, religious beliefs. It would be one thing if you voted for gay marriage, but refused to go to one ever or say things like "God won't recognize same sex marriage". It's a whole different ball game when you actively USE government to prevent the act which infringes upon no one's rights and instead infringe upon right to contract of others to uphold through a legal context your religious definition of marriage.

I don't support anything on this subject. Really, I don't care. If it was called to a vote, would I vote against it? Yes, it's my right to remain true to my beliefs and not yours. If it passed would I really care? No. And to say I am somehow "actively support the infringement of rights to stop a practice based on your personal, religious beliefs." is a lie, as I don't and have not. Of course you may consider chatting on a website "actively supporting" anything.

Now you can take all that contract crap and throw it out the window. As if it had anything at all to do with anything even remotely connected to my post.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

CriticalThought said:
Actually, same sex marriage has always existed. It was practiced in ancient Rome by some elites until Christianity became predominant. It was practiced in many countries around the world until Western influence lead to it being outlawed. Specific laws had to be made in the United States in order to deny same sex couples the right to marry based on their gender. It is by no means a new right, it has always existed, and it certainly exists in several states now. So I have no idea where you got the idea that it "does not exist on the books". It's actually kind of a ludicrous argument to make and denies reality and history.

Don't care as it literally has nothing to do with my statement. We are talking about the here and now, not what may have been (they don't know for certain) practiced in ancient Rome.

CriticalThought said:
And that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Civil marriage belongs to the state and religious marriage belongs to God.

Marriage belongs to God. The state should have never got involved.

CriticalThought said:
But if that is the case you insist on making, then I believe lying is a sin and you statement that "gay marriage does not exist on the books" is a lie, so you probably should cut off the hand that typed it.

We are talking about the modern USA. You can't be that stupid?

PS again for the 3rd time, it was figurative. :lol:

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

CriticalThought said:
I don't know why you are so upset about it. Other people can have different interpretations. What is it to you? If you are so insecure in your own beliefs that you can't let other people have their own, then maybe you should reflect on the origin of that insecurity.

Why would I be upset? It was a moronic statement that literally has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. End of story.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
#1 My statement has nothing at all to do with the government. A knee jerk reaction on your part that had nothing at all to do with anything I said. So you really have no point as far as my statement is concerned.

It had everything to do with the post. You just can't back up your words so you have to deflect away. Fact is there are things you think are a sin and in so doing will vote to restrict other people's abilities based upon your religious conviction. Nothing short of tyranny. Also an illustration of the downfall of pure democracy.

Blackdog said:
And again it has nothing to do with anything I posted.

Yes it does. In the context of the marriage license where you'll allow religious doctrine influence your vote which enacts government against the rights of others.

Blackdog said:
I don't support anything on this subject. Really, I don't care. If it was called to a vote, would I vote against it? Yes, it's my right to remain true to my beliefs and not yours. If it passed would I really care? No. And to say I am somehow "actively support the infringement of rights to stop a practice based on your personal, religious beliefs." is a lie, as I don't and have not. Of course you may consider chatting on a website "actively supporting" anything.

Now you can take all that contract crap and throw it out the window. As if it had anything at all to do with anything even remotely connected to my post.

It does, as the marriage license is a contract. And as you said even here, you'd vote against someone's ability to engage in contract based on your religious beliefs. And that vote most certainly counts for active support for the infringements of rights through government force based on your personal, religious beliefs. The courts may have to suffle through this one. But I dare say that should they ever decide that government cannot deny same sex couples their right to contract; there will be a lot of "activist judges" sort of BS slung around.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Ikari said:
It had everything to do with the post. You just can't back up your words so you have to deflect away. Fact is there are things you think are a sin and in so doing will vote to restrict other people's abilities based upon your religious conviction. Nothing short of tyranny. Also an illustration of the downfall of pure democracy.

And no it had nothing at all to do with my post. No deflection, just a typical knee jerk reaction on your part. You completely misread what I said and then added stuff that was not related at all.

What if my morals came from someplace else but said the same thing. Would that be OK? The problem here is you think your subjective morals are somehow superior for whatever reason to my subjective morals. This in my eyes makes you the one supporting tyranny. So I can only support my moral values when they agree with yours, otherwise I am supporting tyranny? Not likely.

Ikari said:
Yes it does. In the context of the marriage license where you'll allow religious doctrine influence your vote which enacts government against the rights of others.

What part of philosophical did you miss? My only comment about government was it is not on the books, and it's not.

Ikari said:
It does, as the marriage license is a contract. And as you said even here, you'd vote against someone's ability to engage in contract based on your religious beliefs.

Oh no! Again your moral values are different than mine!

Ikari said:
And that vote most certainly counts for active support for the infringements of rights through government force based on your personal, religious beliefs. The courts may have to suffle through this one.

And you wanting to force me to vote the other way is not? Hmmmm.

Ikari said:
But I dare say that should they ever decide that government cannot deny same sex couples their right to contract; there will be a lot of "activist judges" sort of BS slung around.

And allot of judges will find themselves out of a job.

CriticalThought · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
We are talking about the modern USA. You can't be that stupid?

PS again for the 3rd time, it was figurative. :lol:

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC all have same sex marriage. New York recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states. No matter how "figurative" the statement is, it is false.

And the state is not involved in religious marriage. You can get married in a church and nobody in the state will interfere with you one way or another. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage. The fact is you are trying to force the state into religious marriage by denying same sex couples the right to civil marriage. There is no rational or important state interest that is served by denying same sex couples the right to civil marriage, it is simply you trying to impose your religious values on civil marriage.

CriticalThought · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
Why would I be upset? It was a moronic statement that literally has nothing to do with anything in the Bible. End of story.

If that were the case, I doubt you would have written the seething post that you wrote. Your words betray your feelings.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
And no it had nothing at all to do with my post. No deflection, just a typical knee jerk reaction on your part. You completely misread what I said and then added stuff that was not related at all.

What if my morals came from someplace else but said the same thing. Would that be OK? The problem here is you think your subjective morals are somehow superior for whatever reason to my subjective morals. This in my eyes makes you the one supporting tyranny. So I can only support my moral values when they agree with yours, otherwise I am supporting tyranny? Not likely.

Depends on how you "support your morals". If you try, for instance, to enact law counter to the rights and liberties of the individual; then yes you support tyranny. If you're going to stand on a street corner and bitch, but support the overall ability of the people to exercise their rights; then not so much.

Blackdog said:
What part of philosophical did you miss? My only comment about government was it is not on the books, and it's not.

The Marriage License is on the books.

Blackdog said:
Oh no! Again your moral values are different than mine!

It's not that they're different, it's a difference in how we would support and enact our varying moral values. Morality has little to do with government.

Blackdog said:
And you wanting to force me to vote the other way is not? Hmmmm.

I'm not trying to force you to vote anyway. If you support tyranny, we have the courts to ferret it out. However, I merely saying that your desire to codify in law your religious beliefs at the expense of the liberty of others is a form of tyranny.

Blackdog said:
And allot of judges will find themselves out of a job.

Perchance, but one reason they are there is to prevent tyranny of the majority. Thus it would be their jobs to rule along the rights and liberties of the individual and not your bible.

Your Star · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog

The problem is that your morals are coming from a religious doctrine, and aren't secular in nature, and that is why it is wrong to put those religious morals into law.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

CriticalThought said:
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington DC all have same sex marriage. New York recognizes same sex marriages performed in other states. No matter how "figurative" the statement is, it is false.

The marriages are not recognized by all states as legal, and most of them are not marriages but civil unions. Try again.

This is a really stupid argument.

CriticalThought said:
And the state is not involved in religious marriage.

No authority can marry you without a licenses from the state. Come again?

CriticalThought said:
You can get married in a church and nobody in the state will interfere with you one way or another. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage.

You will have no rights to visitation benefits etc. If your spouse dies, you are SOL you are entitled to nothing but your own possessions. Come again?

CriticalThought said:
The fact is you are trying to force the state into religious marriage by denying same sex couples the right to civil marriage. There is no rational or important state interest that is served by denying same sex couples the right to civil marriage, it is simply you trying to impose your religious values on civil marriage.

I am not trying to force anything. How many times do I have to repeat this? I will not support it. I would no more support it then support freeing a guilty murderer.

My values no matter where they come from are mine. I don't care what yours are, thats why we have a legal system.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Your Star said:
Blackdog

The problem is that your morals are coming from a religious doctrine, and aren't secular in nature, and that is why it is wrong to put those religious morals into law.

Plenty of people who are not religious in any way also do not support it. Are they correct?

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

CriticalThought said:
If that were the case, I doubt you would have written the seething post that you wrote. Your words betray your feelings.

Seething? :lol:

I think surprise at the silliness of your response was more like it.

You think this....

Blackdog said:
No as I have shown and you ignored it is not even close. :roll:

In fact his statement is not even an interpretation, it is just bad information from someone who wants it to mean something other than it does. Even though common sense and a 3rd graders grasp of English says otherwise.

Is seething???

Dude you really need to develop thicker skin.

Your Star · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
Plenty of people who are not religious in any way also do not support it. Are they correct?

They are not correct, but they have more of a leg to stand on legally than you do.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Ikari said:
Depends on how you "support your morals". If you try, for instance, to enact law counter to the rights and liberties of the individual; then yes you support tyranny. If you're going to stand on a street corner and bitch, but support the overall ability of the people to exercise their rights; then not so much.

Again completely subjective.

Ikari said:
The Marriage License is on the books.

Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.

Ikari said:
It's not that they're different, it's a difference in how we would support and enact our varying moral values. Morality has little to do with government.

Morality has everything to do with government. If this were not the case we could watch porno in prime time.

I agree our morals are not that different, but to a degree they are. You would have me throw mine out for something I believe is wrong. I will remain true to myself.

Ikari said:
I'm not trying to force you to vote anyway. If you support tyranny, we have the courts to ferret it out. However, I merely saying that your desire to codify in law your religious beliefs at the expense of the liberty of others is a form of tyranny.

That is your opinion and little more as many would disagree on non-religious grounds.

Ikari said:
Perchance, but one reason they are there is to prevent tyranny of the majority. Thus it would be their jobs to rule along the rights and liberties of the individual and not your bible.

It is the way the system works. I have no problem with protecting the rights of the individual, as I said I would not care one way or the other if it passed. I will not support that type of law outside of civil unions in any way.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Your Star said:
They are not correct, but they have more of a leg to stand on legally than you do.

Oh I see. If you are religious you are wrong. If you believe exactly the same thing as a non-religious person, it's OK legally.

Wow, talk about hypocritical. (not you, the statement)

Your Star · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
Oh I see. If you are religious you are wrong. If you believe exactly the same thing as a non-religious person, it's OK.

Wow, talk about hypocritical.

No, the first amendment prevents the government from applying religious doctrine into laws, legally, wanting to promote any law with the bases of religion is unconstitutional. It is, the American way. Now if you have a non-religious argument for a law, and it so happens that a religion is against it too, it doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional, it just means you can't use the religion as a reason for wanting the law. If you wanna ban something, find a secular reason to ban it, otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Ikari · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
Again completely subjective.

Nope, you are merely trying to paint it so because you have no logical argument.

Blackdog said:
Intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.

The Marriage License is not a government issued and recognized contract? Is that what you're really saying? Lying is not going to help your case here.

Blackdog said:
Morality has everything to do with government. If this were not the case we could watch porno in prime time.

Morality has very little to do with government. Government is to be concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual. Not someone's sense of right and wrong. Morals and rights can line up; but legally it is rights which are the main concern.

Blackdog said:
I agree our morals are not that different, but to a degree they are. You would have me throw mine out for something I believe is wrong. I will remain true to myself.

I didn't say that you had to throw anything out. All I've said is that you cannot use government force to enact your moral code at the expense of the rights and liberties of the individual. It's not a tough concept.

Blackdog said:
That is your opinion and little more as many would disagree on non-religious grounds.

They can disagree all they want on non-religious grounds. They are still wrong. You cannot rightfully and justly enact laws which infringe upon the rights and liberties of others when that action in and of itself does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Besides, they may disagree for non-religious grounds; but you didn't.

Blackdog said:
It is the way the system works. I have no problem with protecting the rights of the individual, as I said I would not care one way or the other if it passed. I will not support that type of law outside of civil unions in any way.

And in that action against support for the free exercise of the rights and liberties of the individual, you have demonstrated that you do have a problem with protecting the rights of the individual. Support of action against the rights of the individual is not protection of the rights of the individual.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2010

Your Star said:
No, the first amendment prevents the government from applying religious doctrine into laws, legally, wanting to promote any law with the bases of religion is unconstitutional. It is, the American way. Now if you have a non-religious argument for a law, and it so happens that a religion is against it too, it doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional, it just means you can't use the religion as a reason for wanting the law. If you wanna ban something, find a secular reason to ban it, otherwise it's unconstitutional.

People can vote or put something up to be a law based on the morals they have no matter where they come from. They don't really need any reason at all, we see it every day. So until they make it illegal to follow your own moral compass for whatever reason, it's a non issue.

Your Star · Nov 9, 2010

Blackdog said:
People can vote or put something up to be a law based on the morals they have no matter where they come from. They don't really need any reason at all, we see it every day. So until they make it illegal to follow your own moral compass for whatever reason, it's a non issue.

True, but it's still unconstitutional. Luckily we have the court system, because a true democracy isn't such a good thing for the minority.

Question for people who believe being gay to be wrong

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Rage More!

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Rage More!

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Rage More!

King Of The Dog Pound

Rage More!