Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

I think it's funny people even take the time out of their day to debate something like sexual preference. Who gives a fuck? I don't understand why any religious people give a shit either. If what their religion says is true, they shouldn't worry about it, the gay people will be burning in hell when they die anyway(again, if their religion is correct), so they should let their God worry about judging them and they go on and worry about actual important things in their life. Like football.

 

Anyway...

 

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Timothy 6:1 - Paul in a letter to Timothy exclaims that all slaves must be obedient to their masters and realize that their (the masters) cause is honorable

 

Titus 2:9 - In a letter, Paul tells Titus that all servants must remain obedient, and to please them in everything they do

 

I understand that some translate the original texts for the above to refer to a man and wife depending on which version you read.

 

If you are in that boat, it is still relevant being that I don't think you want us to start taking rights away from women.

 

And yes, Paul tells Philemon to treat him as more than a slave... But he still returned him to Philemon's custody. Not exactly something an anti-slavery individual would do, is it?

 

If Paul was against slavery, why does he return Onesimus to Philemon's custody? Does that not establish ownership of one human being over another?

 

Like I said, I am not a religion major, so everything I am letting you know is everything that I have been taught. Being that that is the case, there are things that I can’t answer to because I simply don’t know enough. And if you actually want to know the answer to this, find out for yourself, I know I sure will now that you bought it up.

 

With that being said, Paul wasn’t the only one who told slaves to go back to their owners, and to be respectful, Peter did the same. The reason that Paul, and other New Testament writers did not call for the abolition of slavery isn’t because they felt as if it was right to treat others unfairly, it’s because they were never Social Revolutionaries. That wasn’t their goal. Every single author in the NT knew that the meaning of their entire LIFE was to proclaim the excellences of Jesus Christ, nothing more. The New Testament writers were much less concerned with making social wrongs right than they were with proclaiming the message that could make individuals in any situation right with God—namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Like I keep saying, these authors for the most part wrote these letters to Christians who were either new, or were falling short of what they were supposed to be doing. And not only that, but mostly all these authors’ goal was to 1. Teach people how to become Christian, and 2. Teach Christians how to live their lives. That’s really it. In essence, life isn’t always right, but being right with God, your only true master is the only that matters.

 

Eph. 6:5-8 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

 

Lastly, I think it’s important to add to all this that slaves in the times of Asia Minor were not exactly the same as slaves in recent history and as of today. A lot of times these slaves in the NT were either prisoners, people who owed there masters debt, or were literally just family servants who were properly fed, etc. The Bible, and specifically God himself has very well made it clear that kidnapping, and oppressing an individual is punishable by death (Exodus 21:16), as well as in Deuteronomy 23:15-16, which pretty much indicates that man can’t capture someone who is poor and needy and use him as a slave.

 

Even in 1st Timothy, one of the books written by Paul he makes it clear that slave trading is a sin.

1 Tim. 1:8-11, “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. (9) We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine (11) that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

 

Pretty much expanding on what was said already by Thanatos and oochymp...

 

Repped for clarifying your point of view. It's just too bad it's outdated. You don't get to decide who can and can't marry and marriage isn't an entirely Christian tradition.

 

Marriage and it’s sanctity is a Christian tradition, which is all that should matter to me, or any other Christian as it relates to this.

 

I have no saying in what others want to do, that’s there business, but the Bible is clear on marriage as well as it’s clear on homosexuality. This is all that should matter to Christian as it pertains to this topic.

 

Also, I think God cares more about how we treat one another than how well we followed an outdated rule book.

 

Well seeing as though it’s God’s holy book, and it’s complete, then why pick and choose which God cares more about? The Bible, God’s word is clear on the subject being discussed. And that’s all that matters to me.

[Socal 524]

:ghey:

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't know Dmac, it just sounds like excuses on top of more excuses.

 

But I suppose it's OK to oppress a group of people as long as it isn't you who is a part of one of those groups, am I right?

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Im a Christian. I strive to stand strictly on what the Bible says, and I strive to treat everyone around me regardless of their beliefs based on how the Bible tells me to.

 

I don't treat homosexuals any differently then I treat anyone else, but any of my friends who are homosexual know where I stand on this subject. If that's what you want to call "oppression", then so be it. But to me, my pastor, and really any Christian that I know personally, the Bible is pretty clear on this subject, and if anyone individually considers themselves Christians, idk how they can support homosexuality.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well seeing as though it’s God’s holy book, and it’s complete, then why pick and choose which God cares more about? The Bible, God’s word is clear on the subject being discussed. And that’s all that matters to me.

 

Hi. My name is Elisha. I once prayed to God to punish children who made fun of my baldness. The lord said "get 'em" to some bears and the children were mauled.

[Maverick 791]

Im a Christian. I strive to stand strictly on what the Bible says, and I strive to treat everyone around me regardless of their beliefs based on how the Bible tells me to.

 

I don't treat homosexuals any differently then I treat anyone else, but any of my friends who are homosexual know where I stand on this subject. If that's what you want to call "oppression", then so be it. But to me, my pastor, and really any Christian that I know personally, the Bible is pretty clear on this subject, and if anyone individually considers themselves Christians, idk how they can support homosexuality.

 

This.

 

You've come more well-prepared to this debate than I have my friend, but I'm with ya.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Slavery was an accepted part of life during the times of the Bible. It just was. There is no getting around it. I am not saying that these figures in the Bible are unholy or should not be looked upon for guidance. But it was accepted. It was part of their life. ]

 

Although, I can tell that it is a very uncomfortable subject for you and you won't admit to logic or truth... So let's just move on, shall we?

 

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

 

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

 

1 Timothy 5:10 having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.

 

Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.

 

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

 

At whatever Church you attend, do women still wear items to cover their heads? Are they forbidden to speak after entering such a holy place as the church?

 

Do you support women forgoing any type of school, finding a husband and being forever by his side. To put aside their own ambitions to please their superior male counter part? To put aside their life dreams and to be workers of the home alone?

 

You have quite a few sisters, don't you Dmac? While I may be crossing the line and getting a little too personal... Is the above the life you have come to accept for your sisters?

 

Women were never apart of leadership roles in or around the church, let alone in society. There were many women followers of Christ, but he never sent women out to teach of Him or heal the sick. He didn't appoint a women apostle.

 

And again.. I am not here to hate on Jesus (lol) or Paul who was also against women in power type positions.

 

It was the ACCEPTED CULTURAL TEACHINGS to have slaves, for women to act as inferior counter parts to men, and homosexuality to be forbidden.

 

Culture has changed.

 

We don't have slaves anymore (legally, anyway).

Women have more rights then ever...

 

Yet, that stuff is okay.

 

But the Bible, due to cultural happenstance, forbade homosexuality so those acts alone stand the testament of time and should still be seen as they were thousands of years ago while the rest of the world has evolved for the better?

Edited May 11, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Im a Christian. I strive to stand strictly on what the Bible says, and I strive to treat everyone around me regardless of their beliefs based on how the Bible tells me to.

 

I don't treat homosexuals any differently then I treat anyone else, but any of my friends who are homosexual know where I stand on this subject. If that's what you want to call "oppression", then so be it. But to me, my pastor, and really any Christian that I know personally, the Bible is pretty clear on this subject, and if anyone individually considers themselves Christians, idk how they can support homosexuality.

 

Here's the disconnect. I don't support homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts. It's a sin. Just like any sex outside of marriage.

 

That doesn't mean I think the government should pass a law to stop people from sinning when the only reason for that would be based on my religion. I am capable of walking in the other person's moccasins, as the saying goes. I can see what sort of precedent that would set. Government is made up of people, just like you and me, fallible people. And if I start giving them that power, I'm never going to get it back.

 

A conservative is for small government, period. That means we have to look beyond what most conservatives do, which is "I'm for small government, unless by having a larger government in this area, it would help something I believe in." No. This should not be a power of the Federal government. There is no non-religious reason to keep a gay couple from marrying. There just isn't. So to use a religious reason as your reasoning to prevent them from getting married is a violation of the separation of church and state.

 

Just because the government would agree with your beliefs in this particular area is not a good reason to give them the power to do so. You have to be able to look at the consequences of a particular decision, beyond just the immediate ones, to what type of precedent you're going to set for future disputes.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

This.

 

You've come more well-prepared to this debate than I have my friend, but I'm with ya.

 

You should see my Bible, it's filled with notes on this and other subjects that I never thought i'd need. lol. Only reason why I know what I know is cause my mom makes us go to all these religious things even when we don't want to. lol. She calls me when I'm at school to make sure I still go to Church and read my Bible. >_>

 

At whatever Church you attend, do women still wear items to cover their heads? Are they forbidden to speak after entering such a holy place as the church?

 

Do you support women forgoing any type of school, finding a husband and being forever by his side. To put aside their own ambitions to please their superior male counter part? To put aside their life dreams and to be workers of the home alone?

 

You have quite a few sisters, don't you Dmac? While I may be crossing the line and getting a little too personal... Is the above the life you have come to accept for your sisters?

 

If you are referring to Paul telling the Corinthians some of the original customs when it comes to women and men, here’s a passage that pretty much lets you know how how Paul views women in the new age of Church:

 

1 Corinthians 11:3-16: "3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. (5) But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. (6) For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (8) For man is not from woman, but woman from man. (9) Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (10) For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.(12) For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

(13) Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? (14) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? (15) But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.(16) But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

 

Paul makes it very clear that those were the way of the old, and by old customs I mean when Christians still had to sacrifice animals to ask for forgiveness from God. And that it is no longer necessary, acknowledging that if churches still do them, it’s ok, but it’s no longer needed.

 

Jesus himself makes it clear during his time on the earth, that we are all worthy to talk to God as long as we are covered by the Holy Spirit. That is the only covering we need. Doesn’t matter if you are man, women, child, you are a child to God if you are a Christian.

 

And there is no limitations as to what a women can and can’t do as long as they also follow the guidelines that are set for their sex. There are examples all over the Bible, from the book of Genesis, to the book of Jude of them. Like men have orders to follow, so do women, and my sisters know that and they live life like it (except my older sister who’s decided Christianity is not for her). They have my mom to follow for example, she is as Godly as Godly gets. Yet, she has a doctoral degree, and she has a job as a teacher here, but she is a mom first, and she almost got fired from her job because she has decided to leave work numerous times for days because she has had things to take care of at home. Nowhere in the NT does it say that women cannot get an education, But, their job as a woman comes first. It’s a misinterpretation and misunderstanding to get that impression.

 

Women were never apart of leadership roles in or around the church, let alone in society. There were many women followers of Christ, but he never sent women out to teach of Him or heal the sick. He didn't appoint a women apostle.

 

And again.. I am not here to hate on Jesus (lol) or Paul who was also against women in power type positions.

 

Paul couldn’t of been against women in power positions. You know why? Because he recommended Pheobe to the church of the Romans, and she was a deacon, you know? The second most important position in a church after the Pastor? (Romans 16:1-2). He also mentioned Priscilla[a] and Aquila, Priscilla being the wife of Aquila, they were both preachers, and he mentions them in Acts, Romans, and 1 corinth as great people for Christians to go to for questions. In all of Paul’s books, he makes a TON of recommendations and makes shout outs to a lot of powerful women in the Bible.

 

And like I said, there are numerous strong, and successful women in even the old testament. One of my younger sister’s name is Deborah, and Deborah was a judge of Israel that was allowed to be a Judge by God himself. There is an entire book in the Bible committed to Esther, and she is a woman.

 

It was the ACCEPTED CULTURAL TEACHINGS to have slaves, for women to act as inferior counter parts to men, and homosexuality to be forbidden.

 

Culture has changed.

 

We don't have slaves anymore (legally, anyway).

Women have more rights then ever...

 

Yet, that stuff is okay.

 

I have already said all I can say about slaves mentioned in the Bible and in that period, saying anything more than that would be me doing a disservice to every Christians anywhere because I would be speaking on a matter I don’t know enough about.

 

But the Bible, due to cultural happenstance, forbade homosexuality so those acts alone stand the testament of time and should still be seen as they were thousands of years ago while the rest of the world has evolved for the better?

 

Because homosexuality is an act, it’s a choice, it’s not like with black people or women who were born that way –Made by God that way-- homosexuality is a choice. It’s clear in the Bible that God wants everyone to be treated equally regardless of race, sex, or gender. It’s also clear in the Bible that the act of homosexuality is a sin. Supporting the act of homosexuality is literally going 360 against God’s will for man and women, and that’s something that can never change since the beginning of time. Period.

 

Here's the disconnect. I don't support homosexuality, or rather homosexual acts. It's a sin. Just like any sex outside of marriage.

 

That doesn't mean I think the government should pass a law to stop people from sinning when the only reason for that would be based on my religion. I am capable of walking in the other person's moccasins, as the saying goes. I can see what sort of precedent that would set. Government is made up of people, just like you and me, fallible people. And if I start giving them that power, I'm never going to get it back.

 

A conservative is for small government, period. That means we have to look beyond what most conservatives do, which is "I'm for small government, unless by having a larger government in this area, it would help something I believe in." No. This should not be a power of the Federal government. There is no non-religious reason to keep a gay couple from marrying. There just isn't. So to use a religious reason as your reasoning to prevent them from getting married is a violation of the separation of church and state.

 

Just because the government would agree with your beliefs in this particular area is not a good reason to give them the power to do so. You have to be able to look at the consequences of a particular decision, beyond just the immediate ones, to what type of precedent you're going to set for future disputes.

 

Like I’ve said a trillion times now, what the Government does, isn’t really my problem. Would I personally if I could make laws, make it impossible for gays to marry? Yea, but that's because of my belief, which directly controls my moral views. But since I have no intentions on controlling how others live there lives, nor would I ever want to... it doesn’t matter.

 

I honestly could care less. If the Government doesn’t allow for gays to get married, then I fully support them for it, and if they allow it, then they allow it. God gave us the freedom of choice, who are we to not give others the same?

[WindyCitySports 407]

Im a Christian. I strive to stand strictly on what the Bible says, and I strive to treat everyone around me regardless of their beliefs based on how the Bible tells me to.

 

I don't treat homosexuals any differently then I treat anyone else, but any of my friends who are homosexual know where I stand on this subject. If that's what you want to call "oppression", then so be it. But to me, my pastor, and really any Christian that I know personally, the Bible is pretty clear on this subject, and if anyone individually considers themselves Christians, idk how they can support homosexuality.

You are completely ignoring everything that we have said in this thread. No one ever said that you abuse homosexuals or that you treat them differently in your interactions with them. This is about whether or not they have the right to marry in the United States.Just like you aren't some sort of homo-phobic radical, we aren't hippies that live in a van parked in the middle of the forest. In fact, many of the people you have been arguing with here are religious, and most of them (with the exception of BWare and Philly) would consider themselves conservatives.

 

So that said, no one accused you of treating homosexuals badly in your everyday life. What we are saying is that your justification of banning people from marrying each other by law through use of the Bible is wrong. Almost none of us on here have even made it clear whether we are comfortable with the idea of gays marrying (with the exception of a couple). All that most of us have been saying is that the LAW should not ban it and that something that makes others feel uncomfortable is not justification for it to be illegal.

Edited May 11, 2012 by WindyCitySports

[Vin+ 3,121]

Civility in P&R is unheard of.

 

Well done, gentlemen. Well done.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

You are completely ignoring everything that we have said in this thread. No one ever said that you abuse homosexuals or that you treat them differently in your interactions with them. This is about whether or not they have the right to marry in the United States.Just like you aren't some sort of homo-phobic radical, we aren't hippies that live in a van parked in the middle of the forest. In fact, many of the people you have been arguing with here are religious, and most of them (with the exception of BWare and Philly) would consider themselves conservatives.

 

So that said, no one accused you of treating homosexuals badly in your everyday life. What we are saying is that your justification of banning people from marrying each other by law through use of the Bible is wrong. Almost none of us on here have even made it clear whether we are comfortable with the idea of gays marrying (with the exception of a couple). All that most of us have been saying is that the LAW should not ban it and that something that makes others feel uncomfortable is not justification for it to be illegal.

 

Like I’ve said a trillion times now, what the Government does, isn’t really my problem. Would I personally if I could make laws, make it impossible for gays to marry? Yea, but that's because of my belief, which directly controls my moral views. But since I have no intentions on controlling how others live there lives, nor would I ever want to... it doesn’t matter.

 

I honestly could care less. If the Government doesn’t allow for gays to get married, then I fully support them for it, and if they allow it, then they allow it. God gave us the freedom of choice, who are we to not give others the same?

[Thanatos 2,847]

Dmac, I was simply clarifying my position.

 

I thought you were under the impression that if one is fine with the government allowing it, that amounted to de facto support of the position.

 

The problem I have with your view is this one sentence: "If the Government doesn’t allow for gays to get married, then I fully support them for it."

 

You also, of course, say, if they allow it, they allow it. Not trying to twist your words. It simply seems to me that you supporting the government banning gay marriage simply because it aligns with your beliefs, allows a dangerous precedent to be set. I don't want the government making decisions based on Christianity only, even if it happens to be something I agree with, because I can see where that might, and probably will, lead.

[Socal 524]

This whole thread is tldr

[Duck Fallas 209]

I think it's funny people even take the time out of their day to debate something like sexual preference. Who gives a fuck? I don't understand why any religious people give a shit either. If what their religion says is true, they shouldn't worry about it, the gay people will be burning in hell when they die anyway(again, if their religion is correct), so they should let their God worry about judging them and they go on and worry about actual important things in their life. Like football.

 

Anyway...

 

Religious (read: Christians) people are the most judgmental group you will ever encounter, even though their holy books proclaim "Judge NOT lest ye be judged..." Sure they each say they aren't passing judgement, but they immediately follow that statement up with a judgement. It is kind of like people saying "No offense" right before they say something offensive.

[NaTaS+ 958]

DMac can you sum up your stance in one line? Give me a tldr; I think being gay is bad. Or I think the Government should ban gay marriage. I just dont know where you're coming from. It seems like you're ok with the position Obama took but dont agree with it because Christians should shun fags. I don't want to debate your stance, just wondered what your position was.

 

Thanks, man.

[.AirMcNair. 1,232]

Religious (read: Christians) people are the most judgmental group you will ever encounter, even though their holy books proclaim "Judge NOT lest ye be judged..." Sure they each say they aren't passing judgement, but they immediately follow that statement up with a judgement. It is kind of like people saying "No offense" right before they say something offensive.

 

I, to a point, disagree with the whole "judge not" thing. It's impossible not to judge someone/someone's preference. Whether it's something as simple saying that someone is a good person or a bad person, or you get in to the details of why you like/dislike someone. In my post I said "let your God judge them", but what I meant by that wasn't the fact that the person couldn't have a preference or whatever, but not to take the time out of the day to hate or debate something that is a preference for a human, and is not something that effects them in any way whatsoever. Let the God take care of that.

 

I can't really blame anyone whose religion says you shouldn't judge..it's impossible not to judge.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Religious (read: Christians) people are the most judgmental group you will ever encounter, even though their holy books proclaim "Judge NOT lest ye be judged..." Sure they each say they aren't passing judgement, but they immediately follow that statement up with a judgement. It is kind of like people saying "No offense" right before they say something offensive.

Sounds pretty judgmental to me.

I'd say the more accurate statement is that there are judgmental jerks in every category of people.

[Duck Fallas 209]

Sounds pretty judgmental to me.

I'd say the more accurate statement is that there are judgmental jerks in every category of people.

Absolutely judgmental of me, but I am not contradicting what my deity commands by passing judgement. Benefit of being an atheist.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Duck Fallas

[blotsfan 2,112]

But it sort of defeats the point of saying how Christians are more judgmental than the rest of the population.

[Duck Fallas 209]

But it sort of defeats the point of saying how Christians are more judgmental than the rest of the population.

I was not trying to say that they are more judgmental than other groups, I was merely making the statement that they are directly disobeying the word of their god by judging people.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Religious (read: Christians) people are the most judgmental group you will ever encounter, even though their holy books proclaim "Judge NOT lest ye be judged..." Sure they each say they aren't passing judgement, but they immediately follow that statement up with a judgement. It is kind of like people saying "No offense" right before they say something offensive.

 

I was not trying to say that they are more judgmental than other groups, I was merely making the statement that they are directly disobeying the word of their god by judging people.

 

First, saying we're the most judgmental group of people you will ever encounter *does* say that they are more judgmental than other groups.

 

Second, that verse is the single most taken out of context verse in the entire Bible.

 

That is NOT what it means. Again, we look at the surrounding context. It's a warning against judging *if you're not willing to be judged on the same matter yourself.*

 

God does want us to judge, to use the morals we have to judge actions and even others:

 

1Cor. 6:2-3: Do you not know that the saints [the saved; Christians] will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Prov. 3:21: My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight;

John 7:24: Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Jer. 22:3: Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness...

Phil. 1:10: so that you may be able to discern [judge] what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ...

Phil. 1:7: It is right for me to feel this way about all of you [judge you]...

 

Here's the context, (Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus is talking to his disciples):

 

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

 

Notice the last part. He does want you to take the speck out of your brother's eye, just make sure you are clean in that same area first. It would make no sense for me to help an alcoholic if I too was an alcoholic.

 

We judge people all the time. If someone is looking at child pornography, I judge them to be seriously messed up in the head. The idea that you cannot judge someone or you're being "judgmental" is simply wrong. I have moral standards and judging people by them is appropriate.

 

That said, merely because I think someone is falling short in an area doesn't mean I shun them. We're all fallible human beings. It simply means that I believe they're falling short in that area. If I know them well, I will bring it up with them. That's what friends do. If my friend is, for example, doing cocaine, I will bring up the issue with him, telling him I don't think that's a good idea, and he shouldn't be doing drugs. If I'm not allowed to make moral judgments on someone, then I can't give them advice based on those judgments.

 

As far as your generalization goes, I could say that atheists seem to be the most derisive group of individuals I've ever met. Most that I've met seem to be of the opinion that they are "better" than people of faith because they're "past all that nonsense."

 

Fortunately, this does not seem to be the case on here. It has been the case in my experience, however, as very few took the time to actually have a conversation, but rather dismissed things out of hand, or stooped to ridicule rather than actually talk about it.

 

We all have our radicals and morons, and the media loves to play up Christians that do so because they should be holding themselves to a higher standard than that.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

DMac can you sum up your stance in one line? Give me a tldr; I think being gay is bad. Or I think the Government should ban gay marriage. I just dont know where you're coming from. It seems like you're ok with the position Obama took but dont agree with it because Christians should shun fags. I don't want to debate your stance, just wondered what your position was.

 

Thanks, man.

 

I appose homosexuality, and gay marriage, and being that Obama claims to be a Christian, I don't see how he can support gay marriage personally.

 

I could never support anyone gay wanting to get married, period. And while I don't like the idea of the government telling people how to live there lives, I will always support it if it's in accordance with my beliefs.

 

My bad if my posts are too long, I tend to have the same problem with talking in real life. lol.

[NaTaS+ 958]

I appose homosexuality, and gay marriage, and being that Obama claims to be a Christian, I don't see how he can support gay marriage personally.

 

I could never support anyone gay wanting to get married, period. And while I don't like the idea of the government telling people how to live there lives, I will always support it if it's in accordance with my beliefs.

 

My bad if my posts are too long, I tend to have the same problem with talking in real life. lol.

 

Thanks for the summary and no worries on the length of the post, I just wanted to be sure I understood your position. It's seems natural enough given your religious views.

 

Do you think one day Christians will accept homosexuality? I know the Catholics (Pope) have changed their view on evolution given the scientific evidence. Maybe homosexuality is evolutions way of population control. Do you believe homosexuality is natural or an abomination or choice/lifestyle?