[ChristMyRedeemer]

Originally Posted by Niarah

Agreed.

Also, I think it's ridiculous that people like Kim Kardashian and Shit can have those jokes they call marriage but it's apparently gay people who are ruining the institution of marriage.

No one can ruin the institution of marriage. It is what it is, and that which is not it simply is not it.

My opposition to Same Sex Marriage is that it is a violation of the Marriage Covenant.

As a fan of the Constitution of the United States, however, this matter is best left to the states via the 10th Amendment.

[ChristMyRedeemer]

Originally Posted by Niarah

That's not what is meant when equal is used in this context.

Having re-read the post that Sot is critiquing, I see nothing in the post to indicate her critiquing was unwarranted nor misplaced.

[LaurenTheNerd]

Yes.

Yes, they should be treated equally. I'm open for people to give me a reason as to why they shouldn't. I don't see why not though.

[Jonae_Marayki]

Sot, I'm sorry that I didn't add detail onto what I meant by "Everybody is EQUAL". But my topic I thought my topic was pretty clear.

To add on, I agree with gay marriage, and whatever they do. It's the point that I dont understand, when other people sit around and criticize them. They aren't bothering you, they are just trying to get a point across. If they want to adopt, get married, or whatever. Then, let it be. People pick with them for what? It just hurts me to see a regular person committing suicide because of their sexual orientation or what they support.
- Jonae_Marayki

[awfulcopter]

Originally Posted by ChristMyRedeemer

No one can ruin the institution of marriage. It is what it is, and that which is not it simply is not it.

She raised a perfectly valid point with her post, which you expertly dodged.

You haven't given a reason why the fanatical Christians choose to persecute gays and deprive them of their equal rights as U.S. citizens, all while completely ignoring the Hollywood celebrities who go through six marriages and divorces per week to get media attention. If you're going to pass laws that deprive one group of their rights, then you're going to need to apply it equally to the other groups.

Originally Posted by ChristMyRedeemer

My opposition to Same Sex Marriage is that it is a violation of the Marriage Covenant.

Marriage as far as the government is concerned is a legal arrangement, nothing more. If a Christian marriage holds a deeper meaning for you, that's great, and you're more than welcome to have all the Christian marriages you want. Just realize that Christianity doesn't hold intellectual rights to the concept of marriage itself, it is simply a custom that takes many different forms and varies widely across religion, cultures, etc. Marriage means different things to different people. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by ChristMyRedeemer

As a fan of the Constitution of the United States, however, this matter is best left to the states via the 10th Amendment.

I think you need to go back and read the Constitution again before calling yourself a 'fan'. Did you happen to skip over the part where it says 'ALL MEN are created equal'? That doesn't sound like 'all heterosexual persons who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour are created equal', now does it? Tell me, how would you feel as a Christian if a staunchly anti-religious politician ascended to power and forbade all Christian marriages and Christian worship? I think you and the rest of the Jesus Fanclub would go berserk.

Don't use the Constitution to try and defend your homophobic beliefs. It grants equal rights to everyone regardless of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

My god you people disgust me. Why can't you just live your life and let others live theirs?

[Kryptonite]

Easy, guys. I'm all for debate, but personal attacks on one's faith or beliefs aren't necessary. I'm gonna ask that you guys don't make stupid assumptions.

Thanks.

[ChristMyRedeemer]

Originally Posted by awfulcopter

She raised a perfectly valid point with her post, which you expertly dodged.

I haven't dodged anything my dear friend. I seek to address everything that I can, which is why I partition my posts so that one can see what I respond to and examine the original content of the responded post, to see if anything of importance was missed. Some items that a response is not necessary are dropped during response. That doesn't mean I dodged it, rather, I felt it was unnecessary to address. If something arises that it has been determined by you needs to be further addressed, bring attention to it (best done by tagging the post with a mention) and I will respond to the best of my ability.


My friend, not everything is a conspiracy.

You haven't given a reason why the fanatical Christians choose to persecute gays and deprive them of their equal rights as U.S. citizens, all while completely ignoring the Hollywood celebrities who go through six marriages and divorces per week to get media attention.

I'm opposed to divorce, as are most people who claim the title Christian. The biggest problem we have in the United States is what is called Cultural Christianity. There are many people out there who claim the title "Christian", but are not so.

I suspect you will respond with the typical atheist claim of "No True Scotsman". I will just go ahead and take care of that right now.

I think it would do much good to recognize there is a defining of what makes someone a "Scotsman".

Is Hu Jintao a Scotsman?



Is Richard Dawkins a bible-believing Christian?



If you answer no to those, then you recognize that there are certain "requirements" per se to be a Scotsman, or a Christian. My suggestion to you, is that for Protestants such as myself who adhere to Sola Scriptura, that we let scripture do the defining. For those who are Roman Catholic, and do not adhere to Sola Scriptura, then we will play the game on their terms.

If you're going to pass laws that deprive one group of their rights, then you're going to need to apply it equally to the other groups.

You're going to have to explain this one.

How does a ban on Same-Sex Marriage require banning anything else? On your worldview or mine?

Marriage as far as the government is concerned is a legal arrangement, nothing more.

If you're talking about the piece of paper, yes.

If a Christian marriage holds a deeper meaning for you, that's great, and you're more than welcome to have all the Christian marriages you want. Just realize that Christianity doesn't hold intellectual rights to the concept of marriage itself, it is simply a custom that takes many different forms and varies widely across religion, cultures, etc.

Actually, Christianity has a much more philosophically sold claim on the matter than atheism. Christianity has an Objective Morality, while atheism, up to this point has not been able to offer anything valid. So if we are defining marriage in terms of atheism, it's an entirely subjective definition.

Marriage means different things to different people. Deal with it.

A subjective definition of marriage does not equate to an objective definition of marriage.

I think you need to go back and read the Constitution again before calling yourself a 'fan'. Did you happen to skip over the part where it says 'ALL MEN are created equal'? That doesn't sound like 'all heterosexual persons who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour are created equal', now does it?

I don't recall saying that I believed that to be the case. If I have, please indicate so.

What is the point of your having said this?

Tell me, how would you feel as a Christian if a staunchly anti-religious politician ascended to power and forbade all Christian marriages and Christian worship? I think you and the rest of the Jesus Fanclub would go berserk.

The Fanclub would quickly dissipate. Personally, I say bring on the persecution. It wouldn't be the first time the straunchly anti-religious have done so.

Tortured for Christ- Richard Wurmbrand - YouTube

Tortured for Christ- Richard Wurmbrand - YouTube

Don't use the Constitution to try and defend your homophobic beliefs.

According to Webster dictionary, Homophobia is defined as - "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

I am not afraid, discriminatory toward, nor possess an aversion toward homosexuals. Just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean I want to kill them.



I don't recall saying that "the constitution says, therefor no same sex marriage". Rather, what I recall saying (do correct me if my memory serves me wrongly) was that I believe the matter is to be left to the states. Marriage has only recently in American history been a national matter, and historically has been a state-level issue.

It grants equal rights to everyone regardless of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

If it grants rights, then can they be "un-granted"?

Where does it grant said rights to same-sex marriage? The Constitution of the United States does not address marriage to my knowledge. Could you point out which artical and section this appears in?

My god you people disgust me.

You don't disgust me. I actually like you.

Why can't you just live your life and let others live theirs?

You mean, do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law?



Personally, I am opposed to same-sex marriage, on the basis of an Objective Morality. What do you have to offer?


Awfulcopter, could you please be civil?