Abstinence Criticized

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Drake

Since the Pauline letters made it into the Scriptures (i.e. God's Word) and the Scriptures are infallible, then we must assume that God that mandated scriptural interpretation should keep in step with social changes.

QED

Of course, you still have the nasty little problem of Christian denominations not agreeing completely on what constitutes "the Scriptures," so how would one tell whether any particular compilation is the "right" one?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Great - a website for this particular minister to sell his merchandise. Doesn't really answer the question though, since there's nothing in the way of an online FAQ addressing anything like what I asked - why is it OK to interpret the section in Leviticus about gays and use that as a source while ignoring all those other questionable passeges in Leviticus and other sections of the bible? If the bible is to be taken literally and has not been subject to human fallibilities over the eons as you seem to think, then what do you think about all those other passages I mentioned in my original post (with thanks to Fozzie for originally bringing to the thread)?

Instead of sidestepping them, how about addressing each one and rendering an opinion?

1. Funny, I distinctly see a 'free study materials' section listed right along with a 'contact us' section on the left of the screen.

2. So in your world, everyone else is worthy to get paid for their expertise, but not a Pastor? Bible clearly states that 'the workman is worthy of his hire.'
You think that producing materials someone might want to order from this site is free to produce? I don't think that there is a high profit margin on the stuff they do charge for because they are sending it to you.

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother? You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it. This is why I gave this site as a source. These articles (many are free) do this and are more in-depth than anything you have heard.

4. You don't get saved through your intellect. Matter of fact, Bible teaches us that man is composed of 3 parts: 1. Body 2. Soul (seat of intellect, emotions and conciousness) 3. Spirit (this is what the Bible refers to as your 'heart', your spiritual heart.) Those who sincerly seek God will be lead to Him (seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you) those who just want to play endless mind-games will never find the answers, cause God Himself allows false anwers in the relm of the intellect (That they should believe a lie and be damned) Revelation

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother?

My dog farted out a thought:

Because you don't have any good answers?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by clintl

Of course, you still have the nasty little problem of Christian denominations not agreeing completely on what constitutes "the Scriptures," so how would one tell whether any particular compilation is the "right" one?

Bah. Whichever one you happen to be using, silly.
-------------------------

Seriously, if you're not reading it in Hebrew, Attic Greek and Aramaic, you're not reading the Scriptures -- you're reading Reader's Digest.

-------------------------

Edit for clarification: This really isn't a thorny problem in religious or theological circles these days. The Scriptures have been stable for several hundred years, and the only differences are really between the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Protestant versions. My understanding is that the various Apocryphal books that are included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles that are not included in the Protestant one are largely considered useful, but not authoritative.

Now, if you're talking farther back in history, back to say, the Council at Hippo in 393 or Carthage in 397, then yes, it was a nasty issue for believers to resolve. These issues are not, however, troublesome to most Christians. If one believes the Bible is infallible, one must believe that God is able to get His words in the right form for people to understand them. If one doesn't believe that, then the discussion isn't worth having in the first place.

Everybody has faith in something. Just because others don't believe it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Then again, just because I believe it doesn't mean that it's true, either. That's why they call it "faith" as opposed to "fact".

[Bubba Wheels]

But I praise God regardless, even for my critics, because some reading this may actually be sparked to investigate Biblical things further, and that is always good.

[Bubba Wheels]

Drake, the Apostle Paul claimed he was himself without sin? What Bible are YOU refering to. Paul identified himself as "Chief among sinners" before his conversion. Be carefull what you put out there as teaching, you are responsible for it. "None is blameless, no not one." Romans

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

But I praise God regardless, even for my critics, because some reading this may actually be sparked to investigate Biblical things further, and that is always good.

And if you hadn't actually have said that, you might have had a witness there, but instead, you're going to go to your wife or your pastor or your church and say, "Man, you ought to see how I'm getting persecuted on that Internet Bulletin Board, but I think God will work some good out of it, maybe reach a few of those sinners who have never heard the Gospel message before"...and then it all becomes about what you're trying to do for God rather than about what God might be trying to work through you in the lives of others.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Drake

And if you hadn't actually have said that, you might have had a witness there, but instead, you're going to go to your wife or your pastor or your church and say, "Man, you ought to see how I'm getting persecuted on that Internet Bulletin Board, but I think God will work some good out of it, maybe reach a few of those sinners who have never heard the Gospel message before"...and then it all becomes about what you're trying to do for God rather than about what God might be trying to work through you in the lives of others.

Internet is just a time-killer for me, I wouldn't brag at all about anything on it (although through persistance God did allow me to site that website as a source for anyone really wanting to learn more.)

Also, glad you are such a mind-reader on motives, no wonder you no longer need to attend church except to grace it with your presence.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it.

Yes.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Drake, the Apostle Paul claimed he was himself without sin? What Bible are YOU refering to. Paul identified himself as "Chief among sinners" before his conversion. Be carefull what you put out there as teaching, you are responsible for it. "None is blameless, no not one." Romans

Philippians 3:5-6 (excerpted): "...circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless..."

Paul's whole point was that even though he had perfectly observed the Law, he was still a sinner, and that Man is only justified by Grace through faith. I'll admit that I left out that particular point as it wasn't cogent to the argument I was making.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

for instance, in the Bible it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God. However, I beleive that Jesus was a human being and that the Lamb thing was just a metaphor. It was not meant to be taken literally. If you consider yourself to be a pure literalist or a pure textualist, please let me know how you reconcile the fact that Jesus is a lamb, but that he was born of a human woman and was able to talk and use his hands. Or you can admit that some aspects of the Bible are metaphor.

So some things in the Bible are a metaphor; some things in the Bible are meant as literal instructions. The majority of Christain Biblical textual argument is nothing more than a matter of where people choose to draw the line.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Drake

Again, my argument is that it's tough to say on the one hand that the Divine Sacrifice obliterated the OT, and then on the other to say, "oh, except for the bits that we want to keep to bludgeon folks with". Either Jesus Saves, or Jesus Saves with Provisions. You can't have it both ways.

An outstanding reply - thanks. I agree with this statement, and it's the point I'm trying to make with Bubba.

I may not agree with other people's religious beliefs, and I certainly object to those that try to force their beliefs on me. That said, I have no problem with the idea that Christianity and the bible provide guidelines for how to live your life, but that ultimately it will be up to God (or whatever divine spirit you may believe in) to cast final judgement. I may not agree with all of those guidelines, and I may not believe in God (at least not in the Christian sense), but this way of thinking is consistent with Christian concepts.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

1. Funny, I distinctly see a 'free study materials' section listed right along with a 'contact us' section on the left of the screen.

Funny, all I found there were a few selected articles, none of which seemed to be a direct or even semi-direct answer to the question I asked.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

2. So in your world, everyone else is worthy to get paid for their expertise, but not a Pastor? Bible clearly states that 'the workman is worthy of his hire.'
You think that producing materials someone might want to order from this site is free to produce? I don't think that there is a high profit margin on the stuff they do charge for because they are sending it to you.

Please point out to me where I criticized the fact this minister is trying to earn money from his expertise?

What I did was point out this was a commercial website for a particular pastor, as opposed to a website that had any kind of specific replies or FAQ's directly related to the question I asked.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

3. You want point by point answers to a flurry of questions. Any answer I give you you will just disagree with anyway, so why bother? You have to get a picture of the Bible as a whole to get the context things were written in to understand it. This is why I gave this site as a source. These articles (many are free) do this and are more in-depth than anything you have heard.

How presumptuous of you to assume that I have a closed mind and would be unwilling to accept and valid response to my question. I believe in the scientific method - postulated theories based on the evidence at hand, be willing to adjust or completely rescind those theories in the face of conflicting evidence, or reinforce those theories with corroborating evidence. Don't be stuck on the theories, but rather the process and the underlying premise of seek the truth. If you are able to provide a cogent argument to support your positions, one that answers my question in a satisfactory manner, and I'm willing to adjust my opinions on the matter.

The articles you refer to don't appear to have anything to do with my question. I'm not interested enough in the matter to read them all to try and find relavence; if you find something that is a direct or even semi-direct response to my question, I'd be happy to review it.

The fact you still haven't addressed my questions directly leads me to believe that you'd really rather not face the sticky possibility that you literal and rigid belief system might not hold up to this kind of scrutiny. I challenge you to defend your position.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

4. You don't get saved through your intellect. Matter of fact, Bible teaches us that man is composed of 3 parts: 1. Body 2. Soul (seat of intellect, emotions and conciousness) 3. Spirit (this is what the Bible refers to as your 'heart', your spiritual heart.) Those who sincerly seek God will be lead to Him (seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you) those who just want to play endless mind-games will never find the answers, cause God Himself allows false anwers in the relm of the intellect (That they should believe a lie and be damned) Revelation

Problem is, my intellect lead me to strongly question much of these ideas. Like I said earlier, don't put yourself out worrying about my salvation - that's my business and none of yours.

[yabanci]

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by yabanci

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).

{Sticks nose in against better judgement to make small point}

Well, if one believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, then it seems that Christ's words would carry no more or no less weight than the rest of the Scripture.

That being said, Christ's words in Matthew 7:6 have come mind quite often in reading this thread...

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, if one believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, then it seems that Christ's words would carry no more or no less weight than the rest of the Scripture.

It doesn't seem that way to me. I would think if God sent Jesus to Earth as the savior of humankind, you might want to pay particular attention to his teachings.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by yabanci

It doesn't seem that way to me. I would think if God sent Jesus to Earth as the savior of humankind, you might want to pay particular attention to his teachings.

I understand where you're coming from there. This is where and why this discussion is really at an impasse overall though--and lots of people seem to fail to see where any ability to discuss this breaks down right here. Some people believe that the entirety of the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God--making it therefore the final and supreme authority on all matters of faith and practice. Therefore, all parts of this discussion are seen through that filter. On the other hand, others vary somewhere on a continuum from "book of lies" to "almost the Word of God, but Jesus' words are most important." For some reason (and I really can't fathom why), a lot of folks on both sides of that fence seem to have no clue where the other side is coming from, and no understanding of why the other side thinks and reacts the way they do.

Maybe it is because I'm a Bible-believin', fire-baptized, washed-in-the-blood-of-the-Lamb guy () who spends the majority of his time with those who openly say that they want nothing to do with Christ that this seems like such a bizarre discussion to me...

Can y'all really not see the other side's perspective???

(I'm talking to both sides with that question, by the way.)

[Drake]

I though that breakdown was sort of implicit, SD. Maybe I've been spending too much time around Bible-thumpers.

But, of course, I will point out that I did say:

If one believes the Bible is infallible, one must believe that God is able to get His words in the right form for people to understand them. If one doesn't believe that, then the discussion isn't worth having in the first place.

That's also why I've found in-your-face evangelism to never be very successful in practice. It's like trying to argue String theory with committed Einsteinian physicists (which, I swear, is a discussion for another thread).

[Ben E Lou]

Drake:

I missed that. Good insight.

[Buccaneer]

Ben, it seems that the hard sayings of our Savior are the ones that trip up a lot of folks, believers and unbelievers. One of my favorites is Matt. 10:34, "Don't believe that I came to bring peace on earth. No! but rather a sword." It is the division of those accepting that He is the way, the truth and the life, and those not accepting that.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola--

for instance, in the Bible it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God. However, I beleive that Jesus was a human being and that the Lamb thing was just a metaphor. It was not meant to be taken literally. If you consider yourself to be a pure literalist or a pure textualist, please let me know how you reconcile the fact that Jesus is a lamb, but that he was born of a human woman and was able to talk and use his hands. Or you can admit that some aspects of the Bible are metaphor.

So some things in the Bible are a metaphor; some things in the Bible are meant as literal instructions. The majority of Christain Biblical textual argument is nothing more than a matter of where people choose to draw the line.

Jews in the old testament were commanded of God to sacrafice an unblemished (free of sin) lamb in the temple to account for their sin "without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin." Jesus became the ultimate sacrafice for sin, He who was without sin, hence the term "Lamb of God."

Get the big picture, see the context, its really easier than you think.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Can y'all really not see the other side's perspective???

(I'm talking to both sides with that question, by the way.)

I can see both sides of the perspective. I am an atheist married to a woman who was raised Southern Baptist (but is more of a spiritual "free agent" at this point, if you will... she finds that particular church too strict, she holds more liberal beliefs than most... but she won't hesitate to tell me that if I don't accept the Lord as Savior, then I'm going to hell).

It's an odd situation for us both, especially with our children. My brother is also a born-again Christian, and my parents are both atheist. So I have had hours upon hours of discussion about all aspects of religion, and the Christian God, and Jesus, and so on and so forth.

And I just think it's extremely presumptuous of Bubba Wheels to come on here and tell everybody what the Bible means. It means different things to different religions. I'm sick of people whining about religious persecution in this country. If you want to see religious persecution, let's all time warp back to the good old 1600's when you could be burned at the stake for heresy.

So, I can SEE both sides of the discussion, and I can understand why people believe what they believe, and how difficult it is to question one's beliefs, but that doesn't mean we can't have a good old-fashioned argument every once in a while.

[RendeR]

I know that this discussion has deteriorated into "Xion vs the world" but let me ask this:

How many people reading this have gone to the article about "purity day" and then gone on to check out the website and promotional material that these kids are being given to pass around to other peoples children?

*edited out a large, very angry rant at the arrogance of the religious right in this country*

The original point of this thread (I'm assuming at least) was to point out the very anti-gay/lesbian cant put on this very well intentioned abstinance day thing. I have to agree that while the premise for the "purity day" was a good one: Try to get kids to wait until they are older to have sex, a christian group chose to support this with an over the top Xion commentary. I'm betting they'll lose more kids than they'll gain because of the dogmatic statements within their information.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by yabanci

What strikes me is how nobody ever quotes what Christ actually said (or is purported to have said, especially in the synoptic gospels).

Many Christians call Jesus God, but the recognition of his divinity does not make them recognize a greater importance in his words and teaching than in the words of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Acts, the Epistles, the Apocalypse, the decisions of the various councils and church fathers, or even any other yahoo who claims he can explain it all for the small price of $59.95 paid in three easy installments.

I've read through a few of these threads here, and it seems the one thing I never see is, "Jesus said......." No, Jesus always seems to be brushed aside in favor of others who better support a particular point of view (even if that point of view contradicts Christ's teachings).

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Jesus

Matthew 12:36 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement." Jesus

Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Jesus

Matthew 12:36 "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement." Jesus

Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability.

Except I don't believe in your god so I don't care what he thinks.

[CamEdwards]

Don't be a dick, Chubby. He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to Yabanci.

These issues are contentious and emotional enough without having intentional bullshit inserted into the argument.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Don't be a dick, Chubby. He wasn't responding to you, he was responding to Yabanci.

These issues are contentious and emotional enough without having intentional bullshit inserted into the argument.

Once again, proving my point that so far the only real argument against this is religious.

So, let me get this straight. People are free to go off about how they worship their god and spout scripture but ONLY if they are Christian? Anyone else isn't allowed to speak their view? I don't follow Judeo-Christian beliefs, I have just as much right to say so as Bubba does in spouting of scripture every chance he gets.

[CamEdwards]

Chubby,

He was responding to a question by Yabanci about what Jesus has said. Give it a rest, dude. He wasn't spouting Scripture, he was trying to answer a legitimate question.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Chubby,

He was responding to a question by Yabanci about what Jesus has said. Give it a rest, dude. He wasn't spouting Scripture, he was trying to answer a legitimate question.

He also felt compelled to add this line:

"Those are a couple of good one's to start with, God is the ultimate endorser of personal accountability."

He's certainly within his rights to express this view, just as Chubby is to express his views.

[Poli]

Can I get the Cliff Notes on this thread?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by ardent enthusiast

Can I get the Cliff Notes on this thread?

umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Chubby

umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

Chubby just got himself off the "soon to be wignored" list.

Kudos, sir.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

umm it started off about an article about a group of kids that are holding a abstinence day in fla (i think) then it quickly veered into a religous discussion of basically christianity vs anything else (as usual).

At this point, I personally am sick of the bible thumping and bible quoting that is going on and how every moral/ethical discussion has to revolve around christianity.

Cam - Like I said before, people are free to post quotes and whatever from the bible, just as I am free to say it is a bunch of bunk. Nobodies beliefs are more important than anyone elses.

The 'abstinence' point-of-view concerning sex-education in the public schools is almost always promoted by Christians. The Secularists want to deny the 'faith' aspect of anything, and always seem to feel that they have more answers than the parents do (because they are graduates of Universities specializing in education and those 'backwater religious folks need to join the real world?)

I have done nothing more than address the topic of this thread from the Judeo/Christian point of view. I am not 'forcing my religion' on anyone. But as long as public schools are the tax-funded vehicles of choice to educate our kids then those with personal relationships with their living God will not allow themselves to be marginalized and condenscended to by liberal social engineers who 'know what's good for your kids weather you like it or not." Trust me, I speak for many, and we are not going away (until the rapture)

PS In case of Rapture, have at it, do it all your way and have fun!

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by wig

Chubby just got himself off the "soon to be wignored" list.

Kudos, sir.

I didn't know I was on that list, but thanks

It just gets a little thick in here at times, it's no wonder you don't see any other religions brought up in here. They'd be pounced on for being "wrong" in not time.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The 'abstinence' point-of-view concerning sex-education in the public schools is almost always promoted by Christians. The Secularists want to deny the 'faith' aspect of anything, and always seem to feel that they have more answers than the parents do (because they are graduates of Universities specializing in education and those 'backwater religious folks need to join the real world?)

I have done nothing more than address the topic of this thread from the Judeo/Christian point of view. I am not 'forcing my religion' on anyone. But as long as public schools are the tax-funded vehicles of choice to educate our kids then those with personal relationships with their living God will not allow themselves to be marginalized and condenscended to by liberal social engineers who 'know what's good for your kids weather you like it or not." Trust me, I speak for many, and we are not going away (until the rapture)

PS In case of Rapture, have at it, do it all your way and have fun!

You are trying to force your views on others whether you will admit that or not. Like I said, I for one am sick of the bible thumping around here and will certainly speak my mind whether you agree with me or not.

I don't care if you speak for many, I speak for MANY MORE people on this earth who DON'T believe in the same religous system that you do. I don't give two fucks about the rapture, I don't give two fucks how many bible verses you quote, and I don't give a fuck how you try to weave your "god" into every moral/ethical debate there is. If people want to spout off about their "god" then be prepared to hear the other side of the coin too, yet many people don't want to (not you Bubba in this case, you just choose to bury your head in the sand).

People are free to believe whatever they want, we as a country can NOT make laws based on one religions point of view. The truth is, christianity is the "most vocal" religion in this country. They feel that they are in a position of power and need to use that power to influence things to be how they want. You can quote all the selective bible verses you want, you aren't going to convince anyone that you are "right" and that things should be how your church says they should be.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

People are free to believe whatever they want, we as a country can NOT make laws based on one religions point of view.

You're right, but laws will be made and sometimes they'll agree with one religion's point of view and not another. It doesn't necessarily make it a religious law.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

You're right, but laws will be made and sometimes they'll agree with one religion's point of view and not another. It doesn't necessarily make it a religious law.

Once again, feel free to show me an argument against same-sex marriage that isn't based in religous beliefs. The only one even semi-offered up was that it would lead to incest/child abuse/etc... and that argument is silly because it has nothing to do with those things.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Once again, feel free to show me an argument against same-sex marriage that isn't based in religous beliefs. The only one even semi-offered up was that it would lead to incest/child abuse/etc... and that argument is silly because it has nothing to do with those things.

How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

How many times do I have to tell you to POST THOSE REASONS. Stop trying to cop out by "well I'm not going to tell you". When I asked John Galt that earlier the best I got was the "incest/child abuse" argument which is foolish.

So do tell, so you can "enlighten" the lurkers even tho you know me so well that I will "obviously" connect them to religion.

[Cuckoo]

This is why I hate these arguments and regret it everytime I get into one. Inevitably, there is at least one person who needs everything recapped for them. In all actuality, they really don't need it recapped, they just like to pretend that they do in order to marginalize and diminish the other viewpoint. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

[tucker342]

Well said Chubby

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

How many times do people have to tell you that they have legitimate objections to homosexual marriage that are not based on religion? As I've said before, it probably won't matter because you seem to have a bug up your ass for anything remotely religious or that can even be considered religious in any way.

I too would like someone to point out these "legitimate objections" that are not rooted in religion or bigotry.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

This is why I hate these arguments and regret it everytime I get into one. Inevitably, there is at least one person who needs everything recapped for them. In all actuality, they really don't need it recapped, they just like to pretend that they do in order to marginalize and diminish the other viewpoint. Pretty pathetic in my opinion.

Funny, I hate these discussions because when religous people are pressed for their so-called "non religous reasons" they can't seem to find any. They don't want to SAY the only reason they are against something is for religous reasons so they try and find some why to keep ducking the question.

You still haven't posted those reasons now have you? Nope, not yet.

[Maple Leafs]

Chubby, would it upset you terribly if I suggested in your worldview "Christian" and "Conservative" mean the same thing, and that maybe that's the source of your confusion here?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Chubby, would it upset you terribly if I suggested in your worldview "Christian" and "Conservative" mean the same thing, and that maybe that's the source of your confusion here?

No it wouldn't upset me.

I have found, that many vocal christians are conservative tho not always the case. Me being a liberal tend to clash with those people, me also being spirtual and not religous tend to clash with those same people more

To me, what 2 adults do in the provacy of their own home sexually is none of my friggin buisness. It shouldn't be any of your business, and it certainly shouldn't be the buisness of the government IMO.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

To me, what 2 adults do in the provacy of their own home sexually is none of my friggin buisness. It shouldn't be any of your business, and it certainly shouldn't be the buisness of the government IMO.

Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

No, they are asking the government to force a group of people (that they already are on record as not liking, feel are going to hell, think are beneath them) to not use a word that tthey feel is theirs.

The issue is Christians want the word "marriage" for their own. They don't want gay people to be able to use it because they don't like gay people. THAT'S the issue.

And my argument is government shoudln't be writing laws (stupid laws at that, over a WORD) JUST because one religion wants something a something way.

Funny, I STILL haven't seen these phantom non-religous reasons for not allowing same-sex marriages. But that's prob because they don't exist. Same-sex marriage does NOT lead to incest, or child abuse, or killing puppies, or driving over grandmothers...

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Funny, I STILL haven't seen these phantom non-religous reasons for not allowing same-sex marriages.

I have. About 30 times. Why haven't you? I didn't even read the whole thread and I've read the reasons that are non-religious.

EDIT: Welcome to my ignore list.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

I have. About 30 times. Why haven't you? I didn't even read the whole thread and I've read the reasons that are non-religious.

EDIT: Welcome to my ignore list.

Oh no, don't hurt me in that way

Funny that there are others who still haven't seen any non-religious reasons given.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Agreed. But again, I don't think that's the issue. Nobody here is asking for the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people. Er, at least I hope not.

On a side note: just a few months ago private, consensual sex between gay people *was* illlegal in many states, and many people were outraged when the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that those laws were unconstitutional. If you look at the positions of most of the organizations that strongly oppose gay marriage, you will see that they do in fact want the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people and are very angry that the Supreme Court ruled it can't.