Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[LegendarySandwich]

I'm still thinking that you spend much less time and effort combating that discrimination, but if that's not the case, kudos to you for being more consistent than most gay-rights supporters.

Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

Yes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

Yes - that's part of the legislative process.

Opposing the rights of others?

[Voter]

Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

As I said awhile back: "If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all."

If people started campaigning  for polygamy rights, would anyone who opposed them be discriminating against them?

More generally, if someone claims any right, are those opposed necessarily discriminating against them?

If so, then yes, I freely admit I discriminate, as I don't agree that each person has the authority to declare what his rights are.

Yes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

By this definition, I'm not discriminating in my own eyes, as my treatment is not unfair. I think determining the matter through the legislative process is completely fair. You could disagree, claiming the treatment is unfair. This would bring us back to the root issue, which would probably be more productive.

Yes - that's part of the legislative process.

Opposing the rights of others?

They're not rights yet. That's what the process is trying to determine.

[Stevil]

Passing judgment behind their backs speaks to inner voice. That's why I'm being careful in answering. I've worked with gay people, for example, and never made any negative comments, expressions, etc. So, I'm "OK" with parts of your list.  But, I believe it to be sin, so I'm not OK by other parts.

If you are passing judgement by expressing your opinion to others then that goes beyond inner voice and becomes an action. it is good that you can collaboratively work with gay people, I hope them being gay didn't harm you in anyway.
You have said that you believe it to be a sin. Is this simply because the bible tells you so and your church supports this stance or have you as an individual thought about the sin of gays and why this should be opposed? I would like to hear why you think the sin of being gay should be opposed, i.e what harm or damage is it doing? I am still a bit confused as to your stance of Sex and Love though. Let's say two same gender people are just getting to know each other and fall in love but have not had sex yet. Do you feel these two hypothetical persons are committing sin by simply being in love?

I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage.

So, because it is Status Quo, you deem it to be a good law and would vote against change.
Hence if the law changes and gay marriage becomes law and then a referendum comes to oppose this new law, I presume you would not oppose the new law because it has become Status Quo?
BTW, please tell me what who the victims are and why you think gay marriage is harmfull? I presume you think it is harmfull because you are willing to take away the freedoms of grown adults, surely you wouldn't do this on a whim.

BTW I am for Polygomy. If the adults in question are consenting then what right do I have to tell them how to live their lives?

And here is an odd extreme that I strangely enough also support. I would be happy for a mother and son to marry. This could also be Father - daughter, father - son, mother - daughter. It may seem odd and disgusting, but by my philosophy, who am I to say that it is wrong for consenting adults to love.
There have been strange cases where people didn't know they were related in this way but found out after they were in love.
I am not worried about genetic issues as it is unlikely to happen in one generation, I doubt it is likely this would occur for many generations in a row, and I doubt this would be a common occurance. I just don't think it is the government's or churche's place to enforce such restrictions.
There you go, hopefully you can now see the extent to my tolerance.

[TheJackel]

Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

As I said awhile back: "If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all."

If people started campaigning  for polygamy rights, would anyone who opposed them be discriminating against them?

More generally, if someone claims any right, are those opposed necessarily discriminating against them?

If so, then yes, I freely admit I discriminate, as I don't agree that each person has the authority to declare what his rights are.

Yes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

By this definition, I'm not discriminating in my own eyes, as my treatment is not unfair. I think determining the matter through the legislative process is completely fair. You could disagree, claiming the treatment is unfair. This would bring us back to the root issue, which would probably be more productive.

Yes - that's part of the legislative process.

Opposing the rights of others?

They're not rights yet. That's what the process is trying to determine.

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

[LegendarySandwich]

Of course. It's a much, much less prevalent issue. In fact, there's not even really a controversy over it, as barely anyone is campaigning for the rights to marry more than one person.

As I said awhile back: "If there wasn't a push for gay marriage rights, gay church membership/clergy, etc., I doubt many Christians would say much about gays at all."

If people started campaigning  for polygamy rights, would anyone who opposed them be discriminating against them?

If on the basis of prejudice, yes.

More generally, if someone claims any right, are those opposed necessarily discriminating against them?

No.

If so, then yes, I freely admit I discriminate, as I don't agree that each person has the authority to declare what his rights are.

Each person has the authority to declare what his rights are, but that doesn't mean he'll get them.

Yes, by certain definitions I discriminate. So do you. Someone who supports gay marriage is necessarily discriminating against those who oppose it.

This is the definition I use:

discrimination: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

By this definition, I'm not discriminating in my own eyes, as my treatment is not unfair. I think determining the matter through the legislative process is completely fair. You could disagree, claiming the treatment is unfair. This would bring us back to the root issue, which would probably be more productive.

Then let's go there.

[Voter]

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

[LegendarySandwich]

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

No one should be forced to conform to any moral constructs. If you think gays shouldn't have rights, then that's your problem -- but don't try to make it law. Laws should only exist to allow us more freedom, not take it away.

[Whitney]

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

I think it is immoral to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs but you don't see me lobbying to have it declared illegal punishable under child abuse laws...this is because I actually understand what it means to live in a free country and can appreciate that in order to be truly free individuals that means we have to allow freedom for all despite how we may often disagree with the choices of others.

[Voter]

If you are passing judgement by expressing your opinion to others then that goes beyond inner voice and becomes an action. it is good that you can collaboratively work with gay people, I hope them being gay didn't harm you in anyway.
You have said that you believe it to be a sin. Is this simply because the bible tells you so and your church supports this stance or have you as an individual thought about the sin of gays and why this should be opposed? I would like to hear why you think the sin of being gay should be opposed, i.e what harm or damage is it doing? I am still a bit confused as to your stance of Sex and Love though. Let's say two same gender people are just getting to know each other and fall in love but have not had sex yet. Do you feel these two hypothetical persons are committing sin by simply being in love?

I define all sins Biblically. Outside of religion, what is sin?
I'm not opposing being gay. I'm opposing change in the definition of marriage.

I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage.
So, because it is Status Quo, you deem it to be a good law and would vote against change.

Incorrect conclusion. Laws aren't necessarily good because they're old.

BTW, please tell me what who the victims are and why you think gay marriage is harmfull? I presume you think it is harmfull because you are willing to take away the freedoms of grown adults, surely you wouldn't do this on a whim.

I'm not taking away the freedom of grown adults. Currently they have no right to marriage. I can't take away what they don't have. That's the main point you guys either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

BTW I am for Polygomy. If the adults in question are consenting then what right do I have to tell them how to live their lives?

If you are a member of a majority in a democracy, then you generally have the right to tell people how to live thier lives.

Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

And here is an odd extreme that I strangely enough also support. I would be happy for a mother and son to marry. This could also be Father - daughter, father - son, mother - daughter. It may seem odd and disgusting, but by my philosophy, who am I to say that it is wrong for consenting adults to love.

Who are you to tell me what I should think about such things?

There you go, hopefully you can now see the extent to my tolerance.

It apparently doesn't extend to me!

[Sophus]

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Is someone forcing you to marry another man?  

[Whitney]

Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

I don't know what you are talking about because compact florescent and LEDs turn on instantly and are plenty bright...but, whatever.

This is a good way to show that the vocal minority can (such as those who are against gay marriage/civil unions) can ruin it for others.

[LegendarySandwich]

You are essentially trying to rationalize Theocracy in accordance to your religious moral constructs as if everyone should by law be forced to conform to.

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

I think it is immoral to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs but you don't see me lobbying to have it declared illegal punishable under child abuse laws...this is because I actually understand what it means to live in a free country and can appreciate that in order to be truly free individuals that means we have to allow freedom for all despite how we may often disagree with the choices of others.

I agree with Whitney fully on this issue. The only thing I would change is that I would say that laws should only exist to expand our freedom, but that's really the same thing as saying they should restrict behavior that harms other individuals.

I define all sins Biblically. Outside of religion, what is sin?

We have a different word for sin -- it's evil, and it's all opinion, whether you like that conclusion or not.

I'm not opposing being gay. I'm opposing change in the definition of marriage.

Which basically means you oppose them being legally gay.

I actually think that marriage shouldn't be a government institution at all, but as long as it is, we should grant it to all individuals, regardless of what the definition has been traditionally. Things change. The Bible is outdated and isn't relevant to...well, anything in modern society really, if it ever even was in the first place.

I'm not taking away the freedom of grown adults. Currently they have no right to marriage. I can't take away what they don't have. That's the main point you guys either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

You're against the expansion of government-given rights that would do no harm to anyone else if they were passed. Or, to put it another way, you're against eroding unnecessary government restrictions on our natural rights (that is, the right to do whatever the fuck we want). It's the same damn thing.

If you are a member of a majority in a democracy, then you generally have the right to tell people how to live thier lives.

Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

We shouldn't.

Who are you to tell me what I should think about such things?

When did he say that you had to think like him? Troll.

Is someone forcing you to marry another man?

But Sophus, if gays were allowed to marry that would take away part of his right to tell others how to live their lives based on an old superstitious book written by goat herders! You wouldn't want that, would you?

[TheJackel]

No, I'm utilizing democracy to determine what moral constructs everyone should be forced to conform to. So are the gay rights advocates.

So you are using Democracy to vote in Theocracy correct? What happens to democracy when theocracy is installed?

Gay rights advocates only advocate that GAY's are people that can make up their own damn minds about marriage. This problem you are having probably stems from the fact that you may think "Marriage" is owned by by Christianity when it clearly is not. I think you believe that Christianity should have total control over marriage rights. I don't think you even understand what a Theocracy entails at this point. I suggest you study Theocracy and then consider the prospect of Atheists telling Christians they have no right to marry because they are religious.. (just as an example thought). Should I be using my position on religion to dictate your marriage rights?

[Stevil]

I define all sins Biblically. Outside of religion, what is sin?
I'm not opposing being gay. I'm opposing change in the definition of marriage.

Why would you be opposed to the definition of marriage being changed such that the discrimination against gays being married is removed from the defnintion of marriage?

I would not vote for a law taking away existing rights of gays, but I would vote against a law expanding such rights to include marriage.

So, because it is Status Quo, you deem it to be a good law and would vote against change.

Incorrect conclusion. Laws aren't necessarily good because they're old.

If you don't deem it as a good law then why don't you want it changed?

I'm not taking away the freedom of grown adults. Currently they have no right to marriage. I can't take away what they don't have. That's the main point you guys either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge.

Currently they have no legal right. I am talking about human rights, where by a human deemed old enough and with sound mind has the right to live their life as they please. e.g. Just because the Chinese goverment have written the laws that suit them it doesn't mean that there are no human rights violations in China.

BTW I am for Polygomy. If the adults in question are consenting then what right do I have to tell them how to live their lives?

If you are a member of a majority in a democracy, then you generally have the right to tell people how to live thier lives.

Again, you are talking about legal rights where I talk about human rights. Democracies aren't always fair. Just because something is popular on the day, it doesn't mean that it is right. There are organisations out there that are influencing large numbers of people's opinions e.g. Christian faith organisations.

Every morning I complain because it takes several minutes for the light in my closet to get bright enough to match clothes. I can't buy a reguloar bulb that turns on instantly for it. In this case, it's probably not even a majority that's telling me how to live. It was probably a vocal minority, but the majority was apathetic. That's living in society. We tell each other how to live our lives regularly.

I'm sure that lightbulb not turning on instantly inconveniences you a lot less than gays are being inconvenienced by not being allowed to marry.

Have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of a gay person, I know it is impossible because you do not think the same, but for a moment imagine being an adult and in love, and having the government tell you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love because you are gay (you could substitue this for something else, say because you have blue eyes) and that is against the law. You see the non gay (non blue eyed) people getting married and probably think your situation is unfair. Then you go into the living room of one of the non gay (non blue eyed) people and you ask why they voted that gay (blue eyed) people can't get married. They then tell you that they didn't think it was right. You then asked "but what does it matter to you if I get married or not?", They then say "it doesn't impact me at all, but I just didn't think it was right). They then go about living their lives ignoring the sad dilema they have put you in.

So my question to you is this (and I feel it is important, if nothing else, please respond to this question) "What does it matter to you if gay people get married or not?"

And here is an odd extreme that I strangely enough also support. I would be happy for a mother and son to marry. This could also be Father - daughter, father - son, mother - daughter. It may seem odd and disgusting, but by my philosophy, who am I to say that it is wrong for consenting adults to love.

Who are you to tell me what I should think about such things?

At no point in our dialogue within this thread have I told you what you should do. Only you are qualified to know what you should do. In the above paragraph I was giving you an insight into my mind as previously you had suggested people might be right to discriminate against Polygomists, my example was to show you that I am very tolerant.

There you go, hopefully you can now see the extent to my tolerance.

It apparently doesn't extend to me!

I have not shown lack of tolerance towards you. I am currently discussing your position with regards to something that I have a differing position on. I would not suggest that you should be discriminated against in any way.

[Voter]

Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

Most people would disagree with you. A man sitting on a public bench wearing nothing but a smile and an erection can't be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society, but most people, myself included, are happy that we've legislated morality to prohibit such behavior. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone defecating in public so long as they do so in a plastic bag and dispose of it properly (no harm being caused there), but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.