Was referencing your quote because you mentioned using religion as a pretext for HATE. Not saying something is wrong or whatever. He is saying that he believes its wrong. That is not personal. That is about an activity, not a person. Seems pretty straight forward. And I was making an attempt to understand your disdain(as opposed to just disagreement) with Christianity. Unfortunately the quote I based that off of was by Dubious, so its more directed at him. Although you have a similar stance, if not with quite the same animosity.
I missed the hissy fit. At best it was hyperbole to simply ask "what happened to cause such animosity?" I simply fail to understand some folks' animosity against religion. And yes LSD, you have made some pretty harsh posts against it. Though you seem to be attacking the poster instead, as you are doing to me in some regard. Especially if that quote is directly about me.(It is ambiguous) I havent told gay people that they can't marry. Apparently that's up to the government. And while I may not always agree with what the government does, its not my place to tell someone what they ultimately can or can't do. I am not in that position, nor do I want that position. I can say I think what they are doing is wrong, but that would just be my opinion. Same as many of the folks who feel a religion is wrong and leave it at that. I feel Hinduism is wrong, but don't harbor any animosity towards a practicing Hindu nor the Hindu religion itself.
Whatever it was, it was more an attempt to undermine than one to understand. Your attempt to backtrak on what you originally said is duly noted. Then either quote them or quit making vague, unsubstantiated accusations. It's not ambiguous in the context of our exchange. Then we agree, except that I think your religion is wrong, too.
1) That's a terrible analogy and I'd imagine very offensive to African Americans. Their position was not even remotely comparable to that of homosexuals today. 2) Screw that. Let's see, if I were you I'd say: I will do what my religion tells me and as long as it doesn't intrude on your life it's really non of your business. If that means voicing my opinion, so be it. You don't have to accept it. I don't think hatred is tolerated in any religion anyway, so if you're reffering to those who do it, good for you but nothing to do with me. In the end its belief vs belief. Religion is a personal thing. Where I derive my beliefs from is my business. What needs to be addressed is opinions regarding this topic. Plain and simple. One person deriving their beliefs from their religion and another deriving their belief from somewhere else is besides the point. You don't have to attack my choice of faith, you just have to voice your opinion in you free and democratic nation. In the end, changes will or won't be made and everyone has to live with those changes. To make sure those changes are reflective of public opinion, everyone must voice their side of the story, and the decision makers wil decide what's plausible. Moral of the story: You are free to say what you want obviously, but attacking religion altogether is an unnecessary cheap shot and if your goal is change, then it won't happen by creating enemies.
It's actually a perfect analogy. You were saying that by wanting equal rights, gays are "caring for [themselves] only" and thus the "downfall of society". The same could have been said, with comparable ignorance, of African slaves seeking freedom from chattel slavery. We're not talking about my beliefs vs. your beliefs. We're talking about your beliefs being imposed on others, denying their civil rights to marriage. You don't have to stop being a hateful bigot, but you shouldn't be able to enshrine your hateful bigotry into the law. I never attacked your religion. Some people have a tendency to hide behind their beliefs as if they somehow justify hatred and discrimination--a pathetic and transparent tactic.
I got to tell you, you've been aggressive and rude in your posts. You've heard it a couple of times already in this thread. Just a thought. Firstly, I was not talking about that at all. I was just very generally saying that if people feel something is right, it is a good thing to voice their thoughts to the rest of the people around them in the spirit of offering help to other people. It is healthy for the community and the bull**** will ultimately be weeded out. I happen to personally think that exchanging thoughts is great for a country rather than everyone supressing them inside. Again, I wasn't talking about imposing anything. If you are incapable of listening to other people's views without screaming "stop imposing" then yes maybe its best that you ask people to only state their opinions which you agree with. What's enshrined in the law is up to the people of the country. It is the exchange of thought which is studied, agreed upon and then enshrined in law. Assuming a free democracy with good corporate governance standards, systems and controls, the will of the population will win out every time. Obviously, someone will lose and they don't have to change their beliefs - they should still be able to respect the system though. Your condescending name-calling is worthless and I really wonder why you're incapable of having a calm and collected discussion here. Totally agree with you on the last part. If you cant control your anger, I suggest you direct your hatred at them rather than everyone who has religious beliefs. You did attack religion in general. (Oh and before the thought pops up in your mind, I'm sorry but no, I'm not bothered to search through your posts and find the specific post.) Maybe you just need to be a bit more careful with your wording honestly.
You're spouting meaningless pontifications and whining because I'm not nice enough to you. Why don't you stop dancing around the real issues and let us know where you stand: are you for or against allowing homosexual couples to get married? Find the post or STFU. I can't defend myself if you won't even let me know what I said that you disagree with.
I have to admit that is a very interesting rationale towards why lesbian relationship seem to be more accepted by society than gay relationships and I had never thought of it that way. That said I have met Gay men who have been parents and are very nurturing and Lesbians who have not. In fact if you consider your stereotypical Bull Dyke Lesbian and your flaming Gay the flaming gay is stereotypically thought of as a better homemaker than a Bull Dyke.
Sorry to butt into your debate but just wanted to point out that under our Constitutional Republic the will of the people doesn't always win out and in many ways the Constitution is designed to thwart the will of the majority.
LOL@ you accusing me of whining. Very cute. Yet again, I'm sick of discussing something with you. So again, just to end the conversation: - I don't care what the state considers a marriage. I care what God thinks is a marriage. - I am completely against the concept of imposing anyone's opinion on anyone else except by laws which have been selected in a fair and prudent manner. Just for example, a bunch of homosexuals running into a bar to make others uncomfortable just to make a point - that would irritate me. I am in no way insinuating that such an example is a justification for the persecution of homosexuals. - Personally, I am against the concept of same sex intimate relationships. I won't run into anyone's house and impose my ideas on them. I reserve the right to my opinion. I reserve the right to fight against someone else imposing their opinion on me. In the end, I will either be happy with what the state decides or keep trying or I will move. No, I don't care to discuss it anymore than this. Thanks and good luck with the anger management.
I didn't know that, thanks! Do you mind giving me a brief explanation of exactly where the people's will gets lost? and why? I realize thats probably a huge question but just an example or an analogy or a short paragraph would be really helpful.
The people who drew up the U.S. Constitution sought to protect the minority's liberty against the majority. They did not extend that principle out practically at the time to everyone (and we still haven't today)....but they wanted to avoid "tyranny by the majority." They believed there were certain rights to be protected. So they made for a strong judiciary to counter what the legislature handed down. Keep in mind, they'd seen tyranny through Parliament and fought against it in revolution. An example might be desegregation. I'm not sure that was an entirely popular idea, particularly in the areas it was implemented...both in the north and the south. But the Supreme Court said that it was ridiculous to pretend that you could have 2 different public school systems that were "separate but equal." That one group or the other would be short-changed. So, despite popular sentiment, they protected the rights of the political and population minority, because there is a higher principle...the dignity of human beings...that wins out over a popularity contest.
What a child. Your pathetic outbursts when you debate things with people and your aggressive attacks make you the worst person in this forum in my opinion, below even Basso and TJ. You seem like a very smart person, but you can't avoid being a jerk. Such a pity.
To follow up on MadMax's post the framers of the US Constitution were very wary of unfettered democracy as MM notes because of the possibility of a tyranical parliament but also because the country wasn't completely united and there was a fear that smaller states would be overwhelmed by the more populous states in the government. Finally many of the Framers wanted to preserve individual liberties that couldn't be taken away by the changing views of even a democractic government. The Constitution enshrined these protections by creating a divided legislature that gave each state equal representation in the Senate which meant that a small state like North Dakota could thwart the will of a populous state like California, and also in the Bill of Rights which would preserve individual liberties even in situations where the majority dissaproved. For example speech that offensive to a majority of people is protected.
Gay? It's interesting that you never have articulated where you stand on gay marriage. You snipe at the gay community and gay rights ("downfall of society"), but you don't have the balls to stand behind your words when the chips fall. Similarly, you couldn't back up your claim that I attacked all religion.
I have looked up some of your posts. And while you are nowhere near the worst religion basher on even this board, you repeatedly try to find minor loopholes or take biblical text out of context to debunk a person using the bible as a basis on their belief. I actually find it funny that one who is apparently well studied in the bible in order to refute the Christian religion has completely missed the boat on what it is all about. I still don't understand how someone who has read so much of the bible can not realize that New Testament = how a Christian should live and Old Testament = glorified history book. The only uses most pastors today garner from the old testament is to represent real men and how they demonstrated their faith and what that faith did for them. Most commonly people like David, Job, Moses, etc.... I havent heard a sermon on why we should sacrifice livestock or why we should observe the passover in about.....oh...since I can remember attending church services.(About 25 years now) So no, LSD does not attack religion directly. He will attack people who have a faith, and he will make indirect attacks to undermine said religion using any tactics necessary, even outdated material that most New Testamant Christians laugh at. Oh, I believe Mathloom said he was against Gay marriage, but its not up to him to decide ultimately what happens to people. Thats for the government. I think pretty similar to my view.
BucMan- I think we got off on the wrong foot for whatever reason. You seem like a person genuinely interested in an enlightened exchange of ideas, and I hope we can find common ground in that respect. You have to understand that I don't approach the Bible or Christianity from the same perspective as you. I don't believe in God, so by extension I don't believe that the Bible is inspired/given by God. That said, I do believe that the Bible contains some beautiful metaphors for the human condition. It also contains some pretty ugly and demeaning passages, like those describing homosexuality as abhorrant in the eyes of God, as well as a good deal of dated material that doesn't really translate well to modern life, like the laws of Kashrut (some of which happen to be adjacent to the laws on homosexuality). I understand that what you describe is how the NT & OT are generally regarded by most Christian sects. However, I don't think that interpretation is warranted in the text, as I have argued on this board on occassion. (slight nitpick- the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice ended with the destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem) I like to argue. When somebody says the NT did away with the OT law, I challenge their position not because I want to undermine their faith, but to encourage critical thinking on a subject that does not get enough of it. Some people are too sensitive about their religion to discuss it on that level. As an atheist, I am not invested in any particular conclusion about the validity of any given Biblical interpretation. This, to me, is a cop out. There are people in this country right now who cannot marry the one they love simply because they are a member of the same sex. If you don't stand up for them, who will stand up for you when those in power seek to deny your rights?
