Religion and Homosexuality

[shernajwine]

Not to be a bi*tch, but 99.9% of those words are Rich Deems' from 'godandscience.org'.

Jordan, the first italicized section was from godandscience, in my haste I forgot to link it, the rest were my words so about 50% of that was godandscience....but WHY does it matter?

[jcribb16]

Quote from queenofnines:
Speaking honestly, I only added that last bit as an afterthought to warn people of your affection for that site.  Saying "a creationist site should have the answer" was enough sarcasm on its own.
 
Quote from Sherna:
And why do people need to be warned about my using that website?

Queenofnines, maybe I should start warning people about your "atheists sites."  There's no need to balk at someone using a site that they like when you do the exact same thing.  Out of most all the non-believers in this forum, you are the most likely to point fingers, and try to intimidate others, sarcastically I may add, and expect them to listen to you and agree with all you say.  Your way is NOT the only way.  Other nonbelievers at least have the respect to look at other's links and discuss them.  They also at least give thought-provoking answers to debate with.  With you, it's more like you give none.  Only occasionally have you actually agreed to disagree or look at something from a different point of view.  No wonder people get argumentative back with you.

[jordandog]

Not to be a bi*tch, but 99.9% of those words are Rich Deems' from 'godandscience.org'.

Jordan, the first italicized section was from godandscience, in my haste I forgot to link it, the rest were my words so about 50% of that was godandscience....but WHY does it matter?

Maybe me saying 99.9% was exaggerated, but I plugged in exact searches from ALL italicized parts and they came up as written, with maybe a word or 2 switched around. It doesn't matter, other than being given credit for something not originally your's. I am sorry if it was not the right thing to do, but I get put off when anyone does that. I should have assumed you just forgot to link it because you do not normally do that ie take credit. Momentary burr up the toosh, sorry, sincerely.

[roguetodd]

Actually, it doesn't say anyone's allowed to marry in the Constitution.  Because marriage isn't in it.  lol

This was my point exactly. The whole argument with legalizing gay marriage is that it is unconstitutional. For this argument to even be slightly valid, marriage should be defined in the Constitution period. Otherwise, nobody is infringing on anything for denying them marital rights. Thusly making this argument, and the argument for gay rights ultimately pointless, given the current circumstances of course.

But by no means do I think they should be discriminated against professionally or with their Constitutionally given rights. They are people just like the rest of us.

P.S

So is a straight guy just sitting on the beach and a little devil comes up on his shoulder and whispers, "Hey, look at that guy's package!"  And the straight guy goes, "Shut up, Satan!  That's a sin!  I'm not gay!"  And Satan tinkers with his brain...tinker, tinker, tinker.  "Come on, you know you want some!"  Straight guy: "Hmm, I wasn't attracted to men 5 minutes ago, but now they're suddenly so appealing!!"

I lol'd.

[shernajwine]

Quote from queenofnines:
Speaking honestly, I only added that last bit as an afterthought to warn people of your affection for that site.  Saying "a creationist site should have the answer" was enough sarcasm on its own.
 
Quote from Sherna:
And why do people need to be warned about my using that website?

Queenofnines, maybe I should start warning people about your "atheists sites."  There's no need to balk at someone using a site that they like when you do the exact same thing.  Out of most all the non-believers in this forum, you are the most likely to point fingers, and try to intimidate others, sarcastically I may add, and expect them to listen to you and agree with all you say.  Your way is NOT the only way.  Other nonbelievers at least have the respect to look at other's links and discuss them.  They also at least give thought-provoking answers to debate with.  With you, it's more like you give none.  Only occasionally have you actually agreed to disagree or look at something from a different point of view.  No wonder people get argumentative back with you.

Thanks for backing me up jcribb.

I have come to the conclusion that, when they do not have an answer for what I pose to them, if I used information from that site in any post that stumps them for an answer, they attack my use of that site instead of admitting they don't know or that they could be wrong.

It's an avoidance tactic, so they can bring the focus onto something else besides their lack of an effective argument. They are just making an issue of something that doesn't really matter, so the spot light is off them because all they can do is say things like "I'm not qualified to answer that" or "I'm tired, I'll get back to you on that" (and then of course never get back to me)

The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think.

When pitted fact against fact, evolution can’t stand up against creation. Therefore, the facts are bypassed for an easier target. A straw man is built and then pulverized. The easiest way to attack creation is to define it in terms that you can attack. Instead of rebutting the facts creation science presents, it is easier to just call it religion and put it into an ‘unscientific’ category and then ignore it

If you listen closely you will notice that evolution debaters claim their authority based on their belief in evolution. They use circular reasoning to establish this claim to authority. Those who reason inside the box are intellectually elite and those outside the box are intellectually dishonest. They boldly assert that they are the only freethinkers while at the same time refusing to allow thinking that does not fall into the standard of the day. Anyone or any idea that falls outside of evolution is belittled.http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml

[jordandog]

I have come to the conclusion that, when they do not have an answer for what I pose to them, if I used information from that site in any post that stumps them for an answer, they attack my use of that site instead of admitting they don't know or that they could be wrong.

It's an avoidance tactic, so they can bring the focus onto something else besides their lack of an effective argument. They are just making an issue of something that doesn't really matter, so the spot light is off them because all they can do is say things like "I'm not qualified to answer that" or "I'm tired, I'll get back to you on that" (and then of course never get back to me)

It seems that any and all of us who are on the non-believing end of things just got backhanded with those words. You have never been one to throw us all into the same pile before, but the use of all the they(s), them(s), and their just did - intended or not...you just surprised me!

[amyrouse]

Just for the sake of argument, not necessarily my personal views.

Homosexuality: DENIED basic rights on account of one's sexuality

Show me in the constitution, where it says that everyone is allowed to marry?

The fact of the matter is, denying them marriage technically isn't unconstitutional. Unethical, perhaps(it's subjective).

We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Is it just to disallow a couple to legally marry because their lifestyle is considered a sin to someone else's religion, especially since our federal government has guaranteed freedom of religion?  Where are the blessings of liberty for these folk?

This was my point exactly. The whole argument with legalizing gay marriage is that it is unconstitutional. For this argument to even be slightly valid, marriage should be defined in the Constitution period. Otherwise, nobody is infringing on anything for denying them marital rights. Thusly making this argument, and the argument for gay rights ultimately pointless, given the current circumstances of course.

But by no means do I think they should be discriminated against professionally or with their Constitutionally given rights. They are people just like the rest of us.

The 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  

So...if state law says that people have a right to get married...why are some denied based on sexuality?  It usually comes down to religious ideology...and we all know what the Constitution says about religion...

NOTE: This is not me bashing anyone's religion...that's not how I roll...

[shernajwine]

I have come to the conclusion that, when they do not have an answer for what I pose to them, if I used information from that site in any post that stumps them for an answer, they attack my use of that site instead of admitting they don't know or that they could be wrong.

It's an avoidance tactic, so they can bring the focus onto something else besides their lack of an effective argument. They are just making an issue of something that doesn't really matter, so the spot light is off them because all they can do is say things like "I'm not qualified to answer that" or "I'm tired, I'll get back to you on that" (and then of course never get back to me)

It seems that any and all of us who are on the non-believing end of things just got backhanded with those words. You have never been one to throw us all into the same pile before, but the use of all the they(s), them(s), and their just did - intended or not...you just surprised me!

Well, I used "they" because I was referring to more than one person. But you did add your comment as to my using that site, earlier in the thread. I'm just pointing it out that there is no legitimate reason to be concerned about how often I use a site, or what the title of it is. This is not a real argument about the issues being discussed. If you disagree with the information from the site, fine, you are entitled to your opinion....however, when I am making a point and I reference something that backs my point....attacking my source or using my source as some backhanded insult to me, is not addressing the argument, it is avoiding it.

[roguetodd]

Just for the sake of argument, not necessarily my personal views.

Homosexuality: DENIED basic rights on account of one's sexuality

Show me in the constitution, where it says that everyone is allowed to marry?

The fact of the matter is, denying them marriage technically isn't unconstitutional. Unethical, perhaps(it's subjective).

We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Is it just to disallow a couple to legally marry because their lifestyle is considered a sin to someone else's religion, especially since our federal government has guaranteed freedom of religion?  Where are the blessings of liberty for these folk?

This was my point exactly. The whole argument with legalizing gay marriage is that it is unconstitutional. For this argument to even be slightly valid, marriage should be defined in the Constitution period. Otherwise, nobody is infringing on anything for denying them marital rights. Thusly making this argument, and the argument for gay rights ultimately pointless, given the current circumstances of course.

But by no means do I think they should be discriminated against professionally or with their Constitutionally given rights. They are people just like the rest of us.

The 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  

So...if state law says that people have a right to get married...why are some denied based on sexuality?  It usually comes down to religious ideology...and we all know what the Constitution says about religion...

NOTE: This is not me bashing anyone's religion...that's not how I roll...

I wouldn't take it as bashing. This is all in good fun for me.

But some of the populous that voted for non-gay marriage is non-denominational, how does that make this purely a religious problem? It isn't purely denied because it is a sin to some religions.

As for the Constitution reference. Is it just to tell a cocaine addict that they cant indulge in their habit because society has told them it is wrong? I'm sure they would absolutely love the liberty to snort/smoke wherever and whenever they like because that is how they pursue their happiness. But as a whole, the country decided to discriminate against these drug using people by making it a federal offense to possess or use such substances.

Another such people is illegal immigrants. They pursue their happiness and liberties by immigrating here illegally, yet there are laws set in place to stop this from happening and actually go to the extent of removing these people from our country.

Again, I'm not saying its right or wrong. Its just that the argument is based off of very shaky foundations and doesn't have much to stand on when courts allow Domestic Partnership and then they continue to push for more and more.

[jordandog]

I have come to the conclusion that, when they do not have an answer for what I pose to them, if I used information from that site in any post that stumps them for an answer, they attack my use of that site instead of admitting they don't know or that they could be wrong.

It's an avoidance tactic, so they can bring the focus onto something else besides their lack of an effective argument. They are just making an issue of something that doesn't really matter, so the spot light is off them because all they can do is say things like "I'm not qualified to answer that" or "I'm tired, I'll get back to you on that" (and then of course never get back to me)

It seems that any and all of us who are on the non-believing end of things just got backhanded with those words. You have never been one to throw us all into the same pile before, but the use of all the they(s), them(s), and their just did - intended or not...you just surprised me!

Well, I used "they" because I was referring to more than one person. But you did add your comment as to my using that site, earlier in the thread. I'm just pointing it out that there is no legitimate reason to be concerned about how often I use a site, or what the title of it is. This is not a real argument about the issues being discussed. If you disagree with the information from the site, fine, you are entitled to your opinion....however, when I am making a point and I reference something that backs my point....attacking my source or using my source as some backhanded insult to me, is not addressing the argument, it is avoiding it.

As far as adding my comment about the site earlier, you know it was NOT about the site, it was about ownership of words. I also know that you CANNOT say I have ever said a thing about that site or your use of it until the post in this thread. I have never attacked you for your use of it, I have never stated I disagree with everything on it , and the ONLY thing I know I have done is make a harmless/humorous quick remark when even YOU were joking about it. I don't want the "don't own it if it's not your's" thrown out about this by ANYONE. There's no way to not have been included in that and what you said was an insult and not expected out of you. It would have been VERY easy to use the word some. If you had, I would not have bothered writing any of this. It was an attack on a lot of people and NOT an attack about a site - big difference.

[shernajwine]

As far as adding my comment about the site earlier, you know it was NOT about the site, it was about ownership of words. I also know that you CANNOT say I have ever said a thing about that site or your use of it until the post in this thread. I have never attacked you for your use of it, I have never stated I disagree with everything on it , and the ONLY thing I know I have done is make a harmless/humorous quick remark when even YOU were joking about it. I don't want the "don't own it if it's not your's" thrown out about this by ANYONE. There's no way to not have been included in that and what you said was an insult and not expected out of you. It would have been VERY easy to use the word some. If you had, I would not have bothered writing any of this. It was an attack on a lot of people and NOT an attack about a site - big difference.

You are right, you have never attacked me for using that site. When you posted earlier pointing out that part of my statement was from that site, for one thing, you were incorrect in saying how much of it was from the site so I didn't appreciate that. But I still wasn't including you in my post to jcribb, and mostly because you and I never really debate! You point out certain things from my post to clarify it or question it but we never debate, so you did not even enter my mind.

 My use of the word "they"....jcribb quoted queen and myself in her post, I commented to jcribb using specific quotes from queen and falconer and used the word "they" as a plural for the ones I quoted, without actually using their names to point out that it was them specifically that I referred to. You ARE owning something that isn't yours. If you haven't done what I said in my post, and then assumed that "they" included you; then are assuming something about my character that you yourself said I don't do.

[queenofnines]

The whole argument with legalizing gay marriage is that it is unconstitutional. For this argument to even be slightly valid, marriage should be defined in the Constitution period. Otherwise, nobody is infringing on anything for denying them marital rights.

I'm sure there are plenty of laws/rights that aren't in the Constitution.  It's not the be-all end-all for this kind of thing.  They actually were going to add an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman; it got voted down, fortunately.  But like Amy says, freedom of religion...and religion is the main party saying homosexuality is wrong.  Therefore, it's unconstitutional because it's enforcing one group's version of religious morals on society at large.

Also, notice at many workplaces there is an Equal Opportunity Act poster saying it is unlawful to discriminate against race, gender, marital status, etc.  If it's wrong to discriminate against gays in the workplace, why is it okay to do it when it comes to marriage?

[queenofnines]

if I used information from that site in any post that stumps them for an answer, they attack my use of that site instead of admitting they don't know or that they could be wrong.

I have yet to be stumped?  lol  A lot of the time I just get fed up showing the fallacies in every little thing when it's already been done many times over and it will make no difference to you if I did so, anyway.

so the spot light is off them because all they can do is say things like "I'm not qualified to answer that" or "I'm tired, I'll get back to you on that" (and then of course never get back to me)

The spotlight is off because you expect unanswerable answers?  Or even the answers we do give, are never good enough for you despite how sound and reasonable they are.  For the record, jordandog, she's referring to me and Falconer here.  lol

The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it.

Evolution?!  There Christians go again, dragging subject matter in that doesn't relate at all.  What's next, The Big Bang?  This thread is for homosexuality!

As for intimidation...yes people should be discouraged from engaging in things that are harmful to themselves and/or society (dogmatic religion).  Just because you think the facts are being presented in an arrogant way does not mean they're invalid.

they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think.

Y'all just don't seem to get there's an objective way of looking at things, and then there's a religious way.  If religion was valid, it could be found when observing reality objectively.

When pitted fact against fact, evolution can’t stand up against creation.

This sentence wins the Irony Award.

Instead of rebutting the facts creation science presents, it is easier to just call it religion and put it into an ‘unscientific’ category and then ignore it

All of your arguments already have been rebutted by people who are qualified to do so.

But anyway, let's STAY ON TOPIC, people!!  No evolution talk in a gay thread!!!

[shernajwine]

Evolution?!  There Christians go again, dragging subject matter in that doesn't relate at all.  What's next, The Big Bang?  This thread is for homosexuality!

Marie brought up people born with both sexual organs

You said you would like to hear what Chrisitians have to say about this

I responded (and did not reference godandscience in my response)

You replied with a post, using sarcasm to warn people about me using a CREATION website.

Who is getting off topic here?

My responses after this have been about yours and falconers problem with me using that website, and since I normally use it when dealing with SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION, your bringing it up in response to my hermaphrodite post, made no sense.

[jcribb16]

It's a real shame that it APPEARS to us on here that ALL Christians are being lumped together as a "delusional, looney-bin, crazy, stupid" group.

I have never used any of those words, just for the record. Perhaps I should have qualified "you" as Christians and not just those in these forums. As for the rest of what you wrote, jcribb, I keep seeing the same thing over and over and I DO understand what you are saying. However, I cannot get around the thinking that by you collectively justifying your stance because of [any and all] religion and what is written in the bible, you are NOT holding a large number of people back from living their lives. That is how I feel and how I see it.

jordandog, I did put those words in quotes because they came from this forum.  I would like to acknowledge to those reading this thread that those words do NOT apply to anything you have said.  There are 2 or 3 others on here who speak these words freely without respect, so in my irritability, I failed to mention that those words do NOT include you.  Thank you for calling me on it and please accept my apology. 

Also, I must be knocked out by my meds right now, enough, that I'm not quite getting what you are saying in your last 2 sentences.  Please overlook my dumbness and clear the cobwebs for me, ok?  Are we good?   

As usual, I disappeared off FC at my normal time last night to get to work, so I didn't see this or the last few pages until now. I always 'worry' someone will think I am ticked of, pouting, or ignoring them when I don't post replies and just go 'poof'!
The last 2 sentences? I am simply saying I do not agree it is NOT discrimination and cannot say religion and the Bible are NOT holding people back from living their lives, that's all. Apology accepted and of course 'we're good'.

Thanks, jordandog, for the clarification.  I knew you would get back because you always do.  I'm also beginning to get used to your work hours. By the time you get on here, I have to go to work.  When I get back, you're catching some zzzzz......!

I do agree there is a lot of discrimination towards gays and their rights.  I also have to say that yes, it is not something looked upon by God in the Bible.  However, there are probably just as many non-christians as there are Christians who do discriminate.  I believe that's the point some are trying to get across in here.  I'm not discriminating against gays, personally, while their lifestyle choice is not my personal choice.  And I am a Christian.  I let them live their lives - after all, they are people and citizens of this country just as the rest of us.

I would like to compare how similar this conversation is to queenofnines and discrimination toward gays.  She treats Christians and their beliefs as "fairy tales, delusions, sarsasm, and literally claiming our beliefs as invalid." I cannot speak for the others, but I would say she is definitely discriminating against Christians instead of just accepting that that's the way we believe.  That isn't fair either on her part, and the thing is, it doesn't compromise anything in her life for us to believe as we do, yet she's constantly mocking believers.  If that's not discrimination.....

But I do digress badly here.  Thank you for responding back and for always being kind and honest when you do debate.