Biblical Protests

[Ibanez]

[grizzaholic]

I believe this thread will be a winner!

[∞∞∞]

My friend and I were actually having this discussion yesterday. While I completely oppose the Westboro Baptist Church's views, I can at least respect that they're faithful to their beliefs. I can't say the same about many sects of other religions, Christianity or otherwise. That said, it's probably a VERY good thing that most followers are hypocritical 'cause I'd rather not have a bunch of WBCs running around with actual influence.

[dbackjon]

My friend and I were actually having this discussion yesterday. While I completely oppose the Westboro Baptist Church's views, I can at least respect that they're faithful to their beliefs. I can't say the same about many sects of other religions, Christianity or otherwise. That said, it's probably a VERY good thing that most followers are hypocritical 'cause I'd rather not have a bunch of WBCs running around with actual influence.

WBC says publically what the others believe, but are too chicken shit too.

IF there was a bunch of WBC's running around - well, in actually there are...

[clenz]

Also stealing this for my own use

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[JohnStOnge]

The problem, Ibanez, is that you're offering a false premise. Being against recognizing homosexual unions as "marriage" is not telling other people how to live. It's just saying that you don't think the society should recognize the unions as marriage.

Homosexuals can practice their deviant lifestyle all they want as far as I'm concerned, and I am opposed to any law that would prohibit them from doing so. If two homosexuals want to live together and think of themselves as "married," that's fine.

But don't tell me I have to get into the ridiculous and consider such a union to be a "marriage." It's not. And it never will be regardless of whether or not the United States goes down the ridiculous road of calling it such.

[kalm]

The problem, Ibanez, is that you're offering a false premise. Being against recognizing homosexual unions as "marriage" is not telling other people how to live. It's just saying that you don't think the society should recognize the unions as marriage.

Homosexuals can practice their deviant lifestyle all they want as far as I'm concerned, and I am opposed to any law that would prohibit them from doing so. If two homosexuals want to live together and think of themselves as "married," that's fine.

But don't tell me I have to get into the ridiculous and consider such a union to be a "marriage." It's not. And it never will be regardless of whether or not the United States goes down the ridiculous road of calling it such.

Why should a church dictate civil contracts? It should be to a church to decide whether or not they will marry homosexuals. Some will, many will not. Either way, it's their right. But the state should clearly not discriminate based on the fears of some people's irrational beliefs. You're a terrible libertarian.

[JohnStOnge]

Why should a church dictate civil contracts? It should be to a church to decide whether or not they will marry homosexuals. Some will, many will not. Either way, it's their right. But the state should clearly not discriminate based on the fears of some people's irrational beliefs. You're a terrible libertarian.

A Libertarian believes that a person should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't definitely impact someone else. Being opposed to homosexual marriage is not stopping anyone from doing what they want to do. Marriage is a recognition. It involves how other people perceive you. Nobody is denying anyone the right to do what they want to do by refusing to recognize their relationship as a marriage. Nobody has a right to have other people view them in any particular way.

[kalm]

Why should a church dictate civil contracts? It should be to a church to decide whether or not they will marry homosexuals. Some will, many will not. Either way, it's their right. But the state should clearly not discriminate based on the fears of some people's irrational beliefs. You're a terrible libertarian.

A Libertarian believes that a person should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't definitely impact someone else. Being opposed to homosexual marriage is not stopping anyone from doing what they want to do. Marriage is a recognition. It involves how other people perceive you. Nobody is denying anyone the right to do what they want to do by refusing to recognize their relationship as a marriage. Nobody has a right to have other people view them in any particular way.

You can view gay people however you like. Would you be opposed to a church endorsing gay marriage?

[JohnStOnge]

You can view gay people however you like. Would you be opposed to a church endorsing gay marriage?

I would not oppose it because I am not a member of any Church, but I would under some circumstances shake my head. Like Christian denominations that decide to do it. All these years, centuries, they say God says homosexuality is wrong. And I do think that's what any intellectually honest interpretation of what the Bible says about it would say. Not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well. And that's an important distinction between the homosexuality issue and things such as dietary laws since there was a specific point in the New Testament at which God was supposed to have said to go ahead and eat anything.

To me if you believe in God and you believe in a certain source of knowledge about what God's rules are you don't act as though God's rules "evolve" as society does. If you don't believe in the rules don't be in that religion. But don't act as though there is a God but God changes his mind because Humankind thinks He should. And that's what I see happening in some Christian denominations today. If there is a God the rules that God established are not subject to democracy. It's not something people vote on.

It calls to mind the quote from Archbishop Sheen:

Right is right, even if no one is right. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong.

If there is intrinsic right and wrong at all it doesn't change because the culture does. So don't tell me you're a Christian then waffle back and forth on what you say is right or wrong based on trying to be perceived as "with it" from the standpoint of the popular culture.

[andy7171]

The State shouldn't be involved in things of the Church. Marriage.
But it is. Because there is money to be made.
So be it.
I have been persuded to believe that since that boundary has been broken. It can't ever be restored.
So be it.
My Church doesn't acknowlegde my brothers "marriage" outside the Church any more than it does two homosexuals.
Until that day when the government says my Church has to accept either, I couldn't give two shits.
I'm not smearing your beliefs, why smear mine?
You zealots can eat my ass.

[grizzaholic]

JSO, Why do you dislike gays so much? Do you really care what your neighbor does? It doesn't have any effect on you. It takes more men out of the population...it means more women for the men, right? It has nothing to do with your taxes, they pay just as much as you if they are married like yourself.

OH, that is right. It is the old Christianity saying. "I am right, and if you don't believe what I do you are wrong and don't deserve to live"...or something like that

[biobengal]

It seems the folks in NC are working on the divorce part. A friend in NC sent this to me... actions of what he calls the "Tarheel Taliban":

Republican state Sen. Austin Allran wants to impose a two-year waiting period and mandatory marriage counseling for couples seeking a divorce in North Carolina. The “Healthy Marriage Act” would also force couples to attend a four-hour course on the impact of divorce on children.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/north_c ... r_divorce/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

Why should a church dictate civil contracts? It should be to a church to decide whether or not they will marry homosexuals. Some will, many will not. Either way, it's their right. But the state should clearly not discriminate based on the fears of some people's irrational beliefs. You're a terrible libertarian.

A Libertarian believes that a person should be able to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't definitely impact someone else. Being opposed to homosexual marriage is not stopping anyone from doing what they want to do. Marriage is a recognition. It involves how other people perceive you. Nobody is denying anyone the right to do what they want to do by refusing to recognize their relationship as a marriage. Nobody has a right to have other people view them in any particular way.

SHut your mouth and stick with the facts. A group of Americans wish to deny equal rights to another group of Americans based on a vague religious law (while ignoring other laws). We are a secular country and our country is founded on (although it was practiced) equal rights and freedom to be whoever you are. If you want to be an immigrant, Come to America. Jews, Catholics, Athiests, Lutherans come and freely practice religion. This country has laws that prohibit discrimination. Why should a gay couple be any different. Fess up to your problem. You are a bigot. You hate gays.

[Ibanez]

The State shouldn't be involved in things of the Church. Marriage.
But it is. Because there is money to be made.
So be it.
I have been persuded to believe that since that boundary has been broken. It can't ever be restored.
So be it.
My Church doesn't acknowlegde my brothers "marriage" outside the Church any more than it does two homosexuals.
Until that day when the government says my Church has to accept either, I couldn't give two shits.
I'm not smearing your beliefs, why smear mine?
You zealots can eat my ass.

The government should protect the legal rights of couples, gay or straight. The gov't shouldn't say who can and cant be a couple.

[kalm]

You can view gay people however you like. Would you be opposed to a church endorsing gay marriage?

I would not oppose it because I am not a member of any Church, but I would under some circumstances shake my head. Like Christian denominations that decide to do it. All these years, centuries, they say God says homosexuality is wrong. And I do think that's what any intellectually honest interpretation of what the Bible says about it would say. Not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well. And that's an important distinction between the homosexuality issue and things such as dietary laws since there was a specific point in the New Testament at which God was supposed to have said to go ahead and eat anything.

To me if you believe in God and you believe in a certain source of knowledge about what God's rules are you don't act as though God's rules "evolve" as society does. If you don't believe in the rules don't be in that religion. But don't act as though there is a God but God changes his mind because Humankind thinks He should. And that's what I see happening in some Christian denominations today. If there is a God the rules that God established are not subject to democracy. It's not something people vote on.

It calls to mind the quote from Archbishop Sheen:

Right is right, even if no one is right. Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong.

If there is intrinsic right and wrong at all it doesn't change because the culture does. So don't tell me you're a Christian then waffle back and forth on what you say is right or wrong based on trying to be perceived as "with it" from the standpoint of the popular culture.

But a Church still has the right to marry homosexuals if they want to, right? And those married homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as married hetero's right? Regardless if you interpret the bible differently.

I wish God would write a sequel. He's really been resting on his laurels.

[clenz]

It seems the folks in NC are working on the divorce part. A friend in NC sent this to me... actions of what he calls the "Tarheel Taliban":

Republican state Sen. Austin Allran wants to impose a two-year waiting period and mandatory marriage counseling for couples seeking a divorce in North Carolina. The “Healthy Marriage Act” would also force couples to attend a four-hour course on the impact of divorce on children.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/north_c ... r_divorce/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't like the waiting period....but forcing parents to understand the impact their actions will have on their kids and actually address their issues with each other is VERY important.

[Rob Iola]

No abortion protest pics?

[houndawg]

My friend and I were actually having this discussion yesterday. While I completely oppose the Westboro Baptist Church's views, I can at least respect that they're faithful to their beliefs. I can't say the same about many sects of other religions, Christianity or otherwise. That said, it's probably a VERY good thing that most followers are hypocritical 'cause I'd rather not have a bunch of WBCs running around with actual influence.

They believe in making money, like all churches do.

[BDKJMU]

The State shouldn't be involved in things of the Church. Marriage.
But it is. Because there is money to be made.
So be it.
I have been persuded to believe that since that boundary has been broken. It can't ever be restored.
So be it.
My Church doesn't acknowlegde my brothers "marriage" outside the Church any more than it does two homosexuals.
Until that day when the government says my Church has to accept either, I couldn't give two shits.
I'm not smearing your beliefs, why smear mine?
You zealots can eat my ass.

The government should protect the legal rights of couples, gay or straight. The gov't shouldn't say who can and cant be a couple.

The govt isn't saying who can and can't be a couple.

[∞∞∞]

No one is forcing religious institutes or individuals to recognize same-sex marriages, but we should be forcing the federal and state governments to recognize them with all the rights afforded to heterogamies.

[UNI88]

The government should protect the legal rights of couples, gay or straight. The gov't shouldn't say who can and cant be a couple.

The govt isn't saying who can and can't be a couple.

It's about more than being a couple. If something happens to me, my wife is more than just my partner when it comes to inheritance, power of attorney, etc. If something happens to Jon, Alex would be in a much different position. From a governmental perspective, marriage is just a government sanctioned contractual relationship. Why should the government restrict that contractual relationship to just male and a female? If they chose to do so, why shouldn't Jon and Alex be able to enter into the same contractual relationship?

[kalm]

The govt isn't saying who can and can't be a couple.

It's about more than being a couple. If something happens to me, my wife is more than just my partner when it comes to inheritance, power of attorney, etc. If something happens to Jon, Alex would be in a much different position. From a governmental perspective, marriage is just a government sanctioned contractual relationship. Why should the government restrict that contractual relationship to just male and a female? If they chose to do so, why shouldn't Jon and Alex be able to enter into the same contractual relationship?

Gay couples deserve the same right as heterosexual couples.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

My friend and I were actually having this discussion yesterday. While I completely oppose the Westboro Baptist Church's views, I can at least respect that they're faithful to their beliefs. I can't say the same about many sects of other religions, Christianity or otherwise. That said, it's probably a VERY good thing that most followers are hypocritical 'cause I'd rather not have a bunch of WBCs running around with actual influence.

They believe in making money, like all churches do.

Bills do need to be paid....

[Rob Iola]

No one is forcing religious institutes or individuals to recognize same-sex marriages, but we should be forcing the federal and state governments to recognize them with all the rights afforded to heterogamies.

Heterogamies? Please, call us breeders...