With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Quote :

And though I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms), there are more damaging sins, especially smug self-righteousness; we all have our faults, and merely being tempted is no sin. Certainly pulling a heel-face door slam on anyone who wishes to change their ways is wrong, and Jesus Himself pleaded with His Father to forgive His persecutors, like Stephen did later. Furthermore, if even sexual predators, self-righteous types, and murderous zealots can repent...

WHAT

As someone who is still technically a Christian (in that I believe Jesus was real), I'd like to nominate you. I offer this thread as evidence. Also I nominate the Catholic Church because seriously. SERIOUSLY.

Penguin wrote:

Saleha wrote:

Yeah, I'm out of this. Quite honestly, Korora is refusing to take this out of a spiritual context, when, in fact, this spiritual context is invading the way the government (which, according to the constitution, is intended to be secular - ever heard of separation of church and state?) works.

Oh, yeah I'm not even expecting them to be able to make any kind of informed argument here... it's the only argument they know, and when it comes right down to it, it's the only one that matters.

Korora wrote:

And as I said, I did have the testimony of ex-homosexuals.

Eudyptula albosignata

Ex-homosexuals? You are what you are, and you can't change it. You can change the way you behave in relation to your sexuality, but you can't change your basic sexuality itself. Yes, human sexuality can be fluid--but it goes both ways. Someone who is gay may decide to engage in sex with a person of the opposite sex, while someone who is straight may choose to engage in sex with someone of the same sex. Some people are just plain bisexual, but may engage in sex with only the opposite sex or only the same sex. Some people aren't interested in sex at all (and yes, some of them may choose to engage in sex anyway). Some people are both sexes biologically, or appear to be one but biologically are actually the other. Some people are born one sex but find that they are happier as the opposite sex. None of it changes a person's basic sexuality--you like what you like, and if you go out of your usual comfort zone and experiment with something else, it's still all good as long as all parties are consenting.

A person who claims to be an ex-homosexual is quite possibly deluding themselves, or lying to get people off their case, or weren't gay in the first place (remember what I said about human sexuality being fluid?)

As far as I'm concerned, same-sex marriage is fine. Why shouldn't two people who care about each other be able to form a legal bond, with all the legal rights and responsibilities that come with that bond? For that matter, I have nothing against polyamorous relationships, either, as long as all parties are consenting and all have equal rights under the law.

Guys, you do know that no matter what, Kokomo's only form of rebuttal is going to be completely dodging the question by mumbling about god and how "I have the right to my opinion."

So Kokomo, can I just announce that I think the moon is made of cheese, and then when you say I'm wrong, I can just blather about how my religion says the moon is made of cheese and that it's my opinion, thus, it's sacred and can never be disputed by anyone ever?

Korora wrote:

And as I said, I did have the testimony of ex-homosexuals.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! Were they "cured" by George Rekers, the rabid homophobe who was caught with a gay male prostitute? Did you see the expose about Rekers and one of those "sinful" homosexuals he "cured" on CNN a few weeks ago? The "cured" guy ended up killing himself because he was so conflicted about who he was and couldn't take it anymore. Take that "testimony" and choke on it.

Oh, and you really picked the wrong place to spew your "sinful homos have 'bad' sex, mmmmkay, oh I'm a closed-minded bigot, let's agree to disagree, tee-hee" garbage.

Korora wrote:

And as I said, I did have the testimony of ex-homosexuals.

Eudyptula albosignata

As an open bisexual, I kindly ask you to choke on that penguin in your avatar and take a flying leap.

Love, me.

Korora wrote:

And it's not so much ickyucky as, well, all sins overwrite the rest of our character at some rate or other; eventually you get just the sin (be it based in pride, wrath, sloth, acedia, lust, gluttony, or greed) itself going.

Why do you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and an all-consuming one at that?

Also, do you have a link to the CS Lewis text?

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the point of the thread is. Is it for discussing homosexual lifestyles? I had trouble understanding exactly what Korora was saying.

Quote :

Yeah, I'm out of this. Quite honestly, Korora is refusing to take this out of a spiritual context, when, in fact, this spiritual context is invading the way the government (which, according to the constitution, is intended to be secular - ever heard of separation of church and state?) works.

Separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, it was from Thomas Jefferson's (I think. Bear with me if my recollection of historical details is incorrect) letter to a religious group guaranteeing that the government would not interfere with religious matters (like disallowing worship in some place, or forbidding a religion or religious practices.) It has nothing to do with religion affecting the government.

Howithurts wrote:

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm not quite sure what the point of the thread is. Is it for discussing homosexual lifestyles? I had trouble understanding exactly what Korora was saying.

Quote :

Yeah, I'm out of this. Quite honestly, Korora is refusing to take this out of a spiritual context, when, in fact, this spiritual context is invading the way the government (which, according to the constitution, is intended to be secular - ever heard of separation of church and state?) works.

Separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, it was from Thomas Jefferson's (I think. Bear with me if my recollection of historical details is incorrect) letter to a religious group guaranteeing that the government would not interfere with religious matters (like disallowing worship in some place, or forbidding a religion or religious practices.) It has nothing to do with religion affecting the government.

You are correct. The Constitution does guarantee that no laws are to be made for or against any religion, thereby insuring that no religion gets made into a state religion because that would suck, TYVM.

^It does? Huh, I was not aware of that. Would you kindly quote that section of the Constitution? (Though if you don't want too, I'm perfectly up to reading through the entire Constitution carefully to make sure I didn't miss that.)

Hmm, now I'm confused. Having read the "Don't Shoot the Message" page on TVTropes, I fail to see how this discussion has anything to do with it. Would someone care to enlighten me?

Howithurts wrote:

^It does? Huh, I was not aware of that. Would you kindly quote that section of the Constitution? (Though if you don't want too, I'm perfectly up to reading through the entire Constitution carefully to make sure I didn't miss that.)

1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Howithurts wrote:

Separation of church and state was not in the Constitution, it was from Thomas Jefferson's (I think. Bear with me if my recollection of historical details is incorrect) letter to a religious group guaranteeing that the government would not interfere with religious matters (like disallowing worship in some place, or forbidding a religion or religious practices.) It has nothing to do with religion affecting the government.

I stand corrected, although I would argue that the separation is inherent in the first amendment, to a degree ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]").

Miss Misery: Good that you found it, I tried googling Mr. Re(e!)kers and his recent victim up but forgot his name.

That said, it seems Kokora has left the building.

Edit: Meh, pointless arguing.

So, since the northern penguin is gone, do we just let the topic die?

You're like my mother, and that is not a good thing to aspire to be.

OH NOES TWO SAME SEX PEOPLE IN A LOVING MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP!!111!1!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!

/s.

Sorry, even if the OP disappeared, I can't let this slide.

Sutremaine wrote:

Korora wrote:

And it's not so much ickyucky as, well, all sins overwrite the rest of our character at some rate or other; eventually you get just the sin (be it based in pride, wrath, sloth, acedia, lust, gluttony, or greed) itself going.

Why do you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and an all-consuming one at that?

Also, do you have a link to the CS Lewis text?

CS Lewis is highly overrated as a philosopher and a Christian apologist.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Korora wrote:

And it's not so much ickyucky as, well, all sins overwrite the rest of our character at some rate or other; eventually you get just the sin (be it based in pride, wrath, sloth, acedia, lust, gluttony, or greed) itself going.

Why do you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and an all-consuming one at that?

Also, do you have a link to the CS Lewis text?

CS Lewis is highly overrated as a philosopher and a Christian apologist.

Casual racist.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Still mad you got caught pulling statistics out of your ass?

Aggie wrote:

Yeah, if you espouse a view that directly infringes upon the inalienable rights of other people, you're darned right people are going to demand that you explain your position.

Give me a minute. What you said is so indefensibly stupid I need a drink before I respond.

In any right/wrong debate where there are very little actual facts to support either position (gay marriage, abortion, and such), idiots like you always make up some fucking "inalienable right" or another. How many has the UN pulled out of their ass now?

You, and everyone like you, are fucking morons and I suggest you all an hero.

Sally wrote:

which, according to the constitution, is intended to be secular - ever heard of separation of church and state?

Have you ever actually read ANY part of the Constitution? I assume you're referring to the whole "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit. Which, quite obviously, is only meant to prevent the whole Henry VII, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I clusterfuck of the government dictating what religion everyone in the land had to follow. It doesn't even imply that the federal government can't ban homosexual marriage (though, nothing in the Constitution says the federal government CAN do that).

There is no "Separation of Church and State" in the Constitution. Get. Over. It.

Quote :

there are more damaging sins, especially smug self-righteousness

Oh, you are not going to enjoy your time on this board.

Proin ipsum odio Latin

The actual subject of this topic was rather interesting, I don't suppose we can discuss that?

Don't Shoot the Message

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur

I just find it deeply ironic (and amusing) that Kororo came in talking about fallacies, and then proceeded to spend the rest of the thread begging the question of whether the Bible is a good support for opinions.


Quousque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

In any right/wrong debate where there are very little actual facts to support either position (gay marriage, abortion, and such), idiots like you always make up some fucking "inalienable right" or another. How many has the UN pulled out of their ass now?

Fact: Gay people are human beings.
Fact: Some of them are American citizens.
Fact: The ones that aren't lucky enough to live here where there exist laws against hate crimes, and perhaps live in a place like Uganda, they can be put to death for having a suspect sexual orientation; no questions asked. (Since when has it ever been okay to murder groups of people like that according to the UN?)
Fact: As for the American ones, they (should, and often do) pay their share of taxes in return for governmental services. Things like equal protection under the law and voting rights.
Fact: Currently non-heteronormative American couples are excluded from many of the rights and benefits of the marriage club, despite paying the same taxes that their straight, marriage-eligible fellows do. Things like tax breaks, or being covered by their would-be spouse's health plan.
Fact: There is no evidence supporting the claim that children who are raised by same-sex parents are at any sort of intrinsic disadvantage.
Fact: The anti-SSM arguments hinge entirely on appeals to ideology and emotion. They can't even be assed to give any kind of real definition of marriage to begin with, complete with supporting evidence as to why it's wise to define it as such without the aforementioned appeals to ideology and emotion.

Any questions?

Quote :

Fact: The ones that aren't lucky enough to live here where there exist laws against hate crimes, and perhaps live in a place like Uganda, they can be put to death for having a suspect sexual orientation; no questions asked. (Since when has it ever been okay to murder groups of people like that according to the UN?)

I only have one quibble with this: In the US, murder is illegal, period. Hate crime penalties just throw on harsher punishments based on motive. In third world countries, the legal system often punishes homosexuality itself directly, and/or specifically tolerates violence towards homosexuals.

Penguin wrote:

Quote :

Fact: The ones that aren't lucky enough to live here where there exist laws against hate crimes, and perhaps live in a place like Uganda, they can be put to death for having a suspect sexual orientation; no questions asked. (Since when has it ever been okay to murder groups of people like that according to the UN?)

I only have one quibble with this: In the US, murder is illegal, period. Hate crime penalties just throw on harsher punishments based on motive. In third world countries, the legal system often punishes homosexuality itself directly, and/or specifically tolerates violence towards homosexuals.

I wasn't saying they were the same. I was saying that Place 1 is bad, and Place 2 is much, much worse. I guess I forgot to leave out the part where hate crimes have never been sanctioned by the UN, whether they result in deaths or not.

Fair enough. I just tend to find the concept of "hate crimes" idiotic. I don't care why someone committed premeditated murder against someone who posed no threat to them; the fact that they committed premeditated murder is enough. The same rationale used to justify "hate crime" laws can be just as easily applied to things like the "trans panic defense."