|
Post by Historian on Apr 16, 2014 12:06:57 GMT -6
H: Your entire post is based upon marriage as defined by the Church and John Paul II in particular. You dodge the secular/legal issues surrounding gay marriage altogether, even though you admitted in an earlier but uncharacteristic moment of candor that you appreciate the existence of civil marriage as a legal institution. Clearly, you adamantly favor applying the definition of marriage favored by the Roman Catholic Church to the legal institution of civil marriage in the United States. Will you at least acknowledge that start point? No I will not acknowledge it. I have not used religion in any single post arguing against homosexual marriage. Honestly, can you not see that this post answers you and your claim to be a Christian? Of course I have to bring up the Christian view of marriage in such a circumstance! Honestly, what planet are you people from? Christianity makes hard demands of its followers. While being nice is nice, it is not the heart of Christianity. Nor is any teaching on homosexuality. The heart of Christianity is found in Christ. Why did he come? What does he expect from us? Niceness and honesty are basics. What more? You need to do some serious reading or get with some serious, informed believers. The only thing the world doesn't need is more people ready to wink at sin because they are too nice to call a spade a spade, which usually means that they are too much of the world. You can't follow the world's fashions and Christ too. Of course, you might be an Episcopalian which would explain it all completely. As a citizen it is your duty to think before you go radically remaking society. To not know why non-religious people oppose gay marriage is a real black mark on the citizenship record of every single person who blindly supports it. What does it mean that no one has ever thought gay marriage a good idea before now? Can we answer that question before deciding to destroy marriage as humanity has always known it? Do you think you can just say, "oops", 25 years from now when the damage will be clear, and put it back together again? You would do well to read A Libertarian View of Gay Marriage and rethink your assumption that this is a dispute between religious views of marriage and civil views.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 16, 2014 12:23:10 GMT -6
You're a lying sack of shit. This time I didn't have to search hard for the bullshit you claim or didn't claim. Here are your own words, So let's see how the cowardly Christian wordsmiths those words to mean something other than what we perceive. Again, why do your words goose step in beat with those of the Westboro Baptist Church? English really is not your first language, is it? Let's see if I shout, whether it helps: Get it yet? Uninformed Christian does not mean NOT A CHRISTIAN. There is such a thing as stupid Christians, uninformed Christians, bad Christians, etc. Now, aren't there any puppies you can kick? Don't bother me any further, until you learn some manners and, above all, until you learn to read and understand adult English. I'm not the one who made the distinction between informed and uninformed Christians being Christian, you did. Obviously you fit the bill for being an ignorant, stupid, bad, uninformed, and bigoted Christian, but a Christian nevertheless. I won't make any distinctions, it suits my purpose to lump you in with all Christians. You are the type of Christian that secularists and atheists love to debate, you make our job easier. Your insistence on there being a historical, natural, and god given basis for marriage is pure caveman ignorance. We make the rules, we determine what is historical and natural, so if mankind decides that a new epoch begins on a certain date, and everything changes to reflect a new attitude, then it's your responsibility to alter your Neanderthal mentality or be labeled a bigot. You can't help but be bigoted towards other Christians. Look how you've responded to Jim. Judging by his lack of support, I suspect Ken is appalled by your behavior.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 16, 2014 12:31:33 GMT -6
Somebody give H scorecard, he can't keep track of his posts and his stupid statements. What a sorry excuse for a human being.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 14:25:49 GMT -6
Natural law, like hellfire, is something we just have to accept and tremble before, Steve.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 16, 2014 15:21:46 GMT -6
H: Your entire post is based upon marriage as defined by the Church and John Paul II in particular. You dodge the secular/legal issues surrounding gay marriage altogether, even though you admitted in an earlier but uncharacteristic moment of candor that you appreciate the existence of civil marriage as a legal institution. Clearly, you adamantly favor applying the definition of marriage favored by the Roman Catholic Church to the legal institution of civil marriage in the United States. Will you at least acknowledge that start point? No I will not acknowledge it. I have not used religion in any single post arguing against homosexual marriage. Honestly, can you not see that this post answers you and your claim to be a Christian? Of course I have to bring up the Christian view of marriage in such a circumstance! Honestly, what planet are you people from? Christianity makes hard demands of its followers. While being nice is nice, it is not the heart of Christianity. Nor is any teaching on homosexuality. The heart of Christianity is found in Christ. Why did he come? What does he expect from us? Niceness and honesty are basics. What more? You need to do some serious reading or get with some serious, informed believers. The only thing the world doesn't need is more people ready to wink at sin because they are too nice to call a spade a spade, which usually means that they are too much of the world. You can't follow the world's fashions and Christ too. Of course, you might be an Episcopalian which would explain it all completely. As a citizen it is your duty to think before you go radically remaking society. To not know why non-religious people oppose gay marriage is a real black mark on the citizenship record of every single person who blindly supports it. What does it mean that no one has ever thought gay marriage a good idea before now? Can we answer that question before deciding to destroy marriage as humanity has always known it? Do you think you can just say, "oops", 25 years from now when the damage will be clear, and put it back together again? You would do well to read A Libertarian View of Gay Marriage and rethink your assumption that this is a dispute between religious views of marriage and civil views. H: As predicted, the substance of your reply can pretty much be summed up as "Jim is a lousy Christian." Sigh. This is not a dispute between religious views and civil views as I've made abundantly clear, beginning with my painstaking distinction between civil marriage and sacramental marriage. No, the controversy over gay marriage is predominately, overwhelmingly a matter of civil law. Predictably, you deny that your opposition to civil gay marriage is based in your religious point of view. No one believes you of course. Unfortunately, if you are not motivated by religion, you might be motivated by naked prejudice. This is counter-theory is abundantly supported by your posts. This line is a hoot: "Can we answer that question before deciding to destroy marriage as humanity has always known it?" I would absolutely love to hear you explain how allowing gays the rights and obligations of civil marriage can in any possible way affect my marriage, your marriage or any other modern heterosexual person's marriage. How the hell can granting equality under the law destroy the institution??? (Another question you will certainly refuse to answer). My wife and I might have dinner with a male high school friend and his male spouse this weekend, assuming the schedules work. They are in town from Connecticut. I hope we have the chance to get together so I can ask how their marriage threatens the very institution. Should be good for a few laughs. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 15:36:51 GMT -6
30 minute warning.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 16, 2014 15:58:21 GMT -6
As predicted, the substance of your reply can pretty much be summed up as "Jim is a lousy Christian." Sigh. Can't read, eh? No. It marks you as an uninformed Christian. Of course no one here believes me. When do libtards, to borrow a very rude phrase, ever believe that disagreement with them is possible and honest? No it isn't. take off the atheist glasses. And while you are at it, remember what the Bible says about bearing false witness. If you know what it says. That information is so easily found all over the Internet that it is shameful that you don't know. I also don't have time to give you the bibliography or the summary. I have only half an hour left here. Your continual refusal to understand what I write or else your dishonest refusal to understand it, marks you as an ignorant man and a superficial Christian. Congratulations, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Historian on Apr 16, 2014 16:00:13 GMT -6
I am all aquiver! Are you? If so, let me relieve your suspense. No, I will not be forced to join a forum full of people who are dishonest, ugly and uninformed. You need me a hell of a lot more than I need you.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 16:06:24 GMT -6
I am all aquiver! Are you? If so, let me relieve your suspense. No, I will not be forced to join a forum full of people who are dishonest, ugly and uninformed. You need me a hell of a lot more than I need you.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 16, 2014 18:44:39 GMT -6
I'm going on record by predicting H's next assumed identity will be Big Gay Al from South Park.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 19:02:51 GMT -6
I'm going on record by predicting H's next assumed identity will be Big Gay Al from South Park. It turns out we need him a lot less than stated.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 16, 2014 19:34:35 GMT -6
I'm going on record by predicting H's next assumed identity will be Big Gay Al from South Park. It turns out we need him a lot less than stated. Not only us, but world is a better place without his BS.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 19:45:20 GMT -6
It turns out we need him a lot less than stated. Not only us, but world is a better place without his BS. The world is still stuck with it, I'm afraid. Misery loves company but company does not reciprocate. --Mizner
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Apr 16, 2014 21:07:08 GMT -6
For Historian
|
|