Since following this post, you posit that you have sliced through my arguments, I'm going to assume these two short sentences are the ones you are referring to as doing the slicing. This is a strange justification indeed, for several reasons. -As one who professes faith in Christ, what concern is it to you what other religions say of right and wrong? If every other religion in the world believed that homosexuality was good and just, would you find your moral stance on the matter lessened? If the world's religions all agree on a subject, do they somehow reinforce each other, creating some kind of universal morality? If so, do you subscribe to it? Or do you cherry pick, saying "Of course I don't believe Mohammed is the true Prophet of the Lord, but we can still fist bump on the homosexuality is a sin thing. My moral stance against homosexuality is strengthened by their similar stance, though of course I disagree strongly with many or most other articles of Islamic faith." On what ground does your faith stand, that agreement with other religions outside your own strengthens and vindicates your beliefs on right and wrong? -Furthermore, you have not addressed an important assertion of mine. Allow me to repeat it: My assertion that majority does not equal a moral right still stands in opposition to your assertion above that the majority of the world's religions agreeing on something is proof positive of a moral right. Do you still stand by your assertion? If so, how much of a religious majority do you need to reach before deciding a moral stance is universal and true? Explain how your multi-religious moral compass works. Are you unaware that Noah's curse of Canaan was used to justify slavery and racism? There are pastors to this day who still rely on it. These passages are not very far away from the passages in Leviticus used to justify the present day anti-homosexuality stance in. Are you unaware that passages from the letters of St. Paul were quoted as proof positive that women absolutely must not be allowed to vote in a democracy? That such a thing would upset the natural order as ordained by God: that man submits to God, and his wife submits to him? Deuteronomy 7:1-6 tells the Israelites to destroy all the inhabitants of the Canaan land and not to intermarry with them--because they would "turn your sons away from following Me, that they may serve other gods." Also, when Paul says "What fellowship hath light with darkness?" -Are you unaware that these were quoted as undeniable proof that interracial marriage was against God? Perhaps like me, you scoff at such a stretch of scripture, but at the time it was taken very seriously. If you assert that the Christian bible was not used as a major factor or the major factor in justifying racism, slavery, denying the vote to women and blacks, and forbidding interracial marriage, you are absolutely and assuredly wrong. I for one, do not find this fact to be a condemnation of the bible so much as the people doing the 'interpreting.'
You've tried (and failed, actually) to cherry-pick Biblical examples that are not convincing, and frankly deceptive without proper context. Then you try to twist my words into some kind of simple "if everybody jumps off a bridge" argument, which wasn't what I was suggesting. Then finally you again twisted my words on the idea that many religions oppose homosexuality. The point is not to form some kind of universal truth, but rather to suggest that you'll have an uphill battle convincing so many people. Hence the scoreboard that shows your team is losing. Badly. Only 10 countries out of 200. Hate to say it, but "scoreboard", braaaaaahhhhh
This thread title made me grab one of these yesterday. Haven't had fast food in a long time....hmm. tasty.
so? at a certain point in history, 0 out of 200 countries believed in heliocentric systems. gay rights advocates aren't fighting for the present or the past, they're fighting for the future. they know how tough it is. so the f*** what. if dealing with ignorance was easy, it'd have been dealt with already. fighting for the future---and the battle's already being won.
In the highlight reel of spectacular slam dunks that Nolen has thrown down in this thread against an admittedly porous defense I believe my own broadcast would have to lead with this one: Someone's going to make a poster of this and the ensuing shattered backboard. I'm either too new or too stupid to be able to rep posts but if I could, I would, liberally.
Unconvincing how? Deceptive how? You mean to say those verses were not used as justifications for racism and denying votes in the past? You're welcome to show me evidence otherwise. If you mean to say the verses I've quoted are unconvincing as justification for racism (for example), then, uh, yeah. I completely and totally agree. My point is that once upon a time certain beliefs and moral stances on women, slavery, and so forth were taken for granted as universally true, as God's plan. Scripture was used to justify it. That is a simple fact. I haven't twisted anything- I'm carrying on a debate. I'm addressing your statements with my own refutations and merely asking questions which you are welcome to answer. Oh- so the above is not a justification of your anti-homosexuality moral stance? The problem is, I took time to illustrate exactly why I don't respect your moral stance against homosexuality. I included specific moral justifications for my support of homosexuality and gay marriage. You claimed to have refuted my points with the statement that most of the world's religions are against homosexuality. How can you refute my point without providing justification for your moral stance? Nolen: I do not respect your moral stance, because it denies freedom and equality to an innocent minority. bigtexxx: Everybody else agrees with me. I have now blown you out of the water and sliced through your arguments. If "everybody agrees with me" is a justification, then it certainly is an "if everybody jumps off a bridge" justification. If it is not justification and merely pointing at the scoreboard, then it does not refute my assertion about your moral code. Scoreboard does not equal justification. First of all, why would you celebrate some kind of moral victory because the majority agrees with you? Shouldn't morality just be true regardless? Here in America the numbers for people accepting homosexuality and gay marriage are only accelerating, especially among the young. If you believe that the scoreboard has the final say, then the next two decade or two in America are going to be very disappointing for you regarding this issue.
Seriously, Nolen.... Even though I spoke earlier about thinking boycotting is a waste of time (instead of things that I think address the issue in a more results-effective manner)... It's like you're beating up a special needs kid at this point. You can let up now. There has to be a skunk rule on this board.
OH NO YOU DIDNT! i pick both chick fil-a and gay rights. one has nothing to do w/ the other. unless one wants to say that they pick their ipad over slave labor.
I've actually lost count of the number of times that posters in this thread have picked up l'iltexxx's Rice baseball cap, dropped their trousers, sharted in it, and placed it back on his head.
