I could care less about what a Christian thinks is immoral or not.
Are you a good person?
If you are dropping the simile then it becomes moot and there is no argument because you are no longer comparing them.
An analogous example does not require equivalence on every level in order to be accurate or descriptive. You are creating a false construct to knock down an argument you can't otherwise argue against.
Arguing that someone's sexual practices, that vary between heterosexuals and homosexuals is a basis for marriage discrimination is indeed, a stupid argument.
Someones sexual practices with the same sex.
Now demonstrate how it is discrimination and how it is stupid and stop reminding us of what you think and give us reason why we should alter our views.
What I find even more interesting is how a married, or unmarried couples sexual AND married life is....*drum roll*..none of your business, or mine, or Joe the Plumber's. If I wanted a Christian poking their nose in my bedroom I'd go pick up some hot repressed Catholic girl.
It is God's business.
If I want to spank a girl while humming the national anthem on her nether regions it's none of your business. So what you consider immoral or moral sexual practices is irrelevant.
Are your opinions on the matter irrelevant as well?
Not according to the APA and most other scientists.
So in response to my refutation of your argument against me... you repeat what I just refuted? How is this meaningful debate?
As you don't care about the facts, why are you still talking?
I was making a statement that if you consider Homosexuality to be caused by a neurological alteration than it
would by definition be a neurological disorder regardless of whether the scientific community admits it or not in their fear of the politically correct.
Now stop making ad hominem arguments or repeating your argument again as if perseverance alone wins you debates and actually respond and interact with my points.
I'm sorry, did you just say that the bible gave women equal rights, gave other races equal rights, allowed integration, respected others rights, helped with equality and stopped prudishness? 'cause if you did I think I'm going to die laughing.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
We are talking about the same Bible right?
Depends on if you know your scripture.
Women with equal rights? Please! Women were expected to be subservient to their fathers
Biblical, all children were expected to be subservient to their fathers (and mothers!)
Women are never told to be 'subservient' to their husbands.
They are told to submit and subject themselves to their husbands but that expresses an entirely different concept of humility and voluntary placement of your own needs bellow another's.
Men are in fact given far more binding and far more severe commands by Paul as to how they should act towards their wives.
"Love your wives...
AS CHRIST LOVES THE CHURCH!"
That is a heavy weight indeed.
In fact in the same passage in Ephesians... all Christians are told to submit to each other anyway... which utterly mitigates the command to the wife.
Where were the equal rights there?
"There is no slave or free, male or female, Scythian, Greek, re Barbarian... but Christ is in all."
If a woman was raped in the old testament she was expected to marry the rapist.
You have that backwards.
The man who raped her had the obligation in the tiny community where it occurred to take care of the woman he violated without the option of ever divorcing her for the rest of her life.
How is forcing the rapist who robbed her of her purity
In the middle ages, when the church was in power, women were used as pawns to get what their fathers wanted.
How does a vague and unsupported reference to the activities of some fathers who claimed to be Christians in the middle ages have any impact on what the Bible says about how women should be treated?
Gave African Americans equal rights? Churches in the south were some of the biggest proponents of segregation during the civil rights movement.
Christians (I would say the true Christians) were also the most proactive abolitionists. William Wilberforce is a prime example.
How dare you approach history in a hypocritically fake and biased fashion through utterly ignoring one thing that destroys your argument in favour of harping on something that would be mitigated by the 'neglected' elements!
That is shameful.
How do the actions of some deranged persons wanting cheap labour have to do with what the Bible says about how we treat our neighbors and the like?
According to the Bible... there would be no white or black in God's eyes (from an ontological perspective)... and thus should not be in our eyes.
The Bible not only condones slavery, but encouraged it as long as the slaves were not of your religion or nation.
You are using a term with a very specific meaning to apply to the Old Testament where various practices were far different than those of the Americas and British empire.
As for Roman slavery which had few standards and was similar to modern slavery (except without the racial element), the Bible has Paul telling Philemon that Philemon's slave Onesemos should be treated as Philemon's
brother.
While the Bible does not directly assault the institution of slavery... it
does utterly undermines it in the Christian community.
Old Testament slavery is a mixed bag. Ranging from a wonderful system of bond servanthood where a poorer person signs a contract to work for another who would provide food and shelter. Often poor families would sell their children to wealthier families where the child would be fed and well cared for as part of the family (similar to adoption in a sense) whiler the poor family would be supplied with money and thus be better off also.
To those captured in war and placed into forced servitude as prisoners of war.
To those who are forcefully and unjusatly kidnapped into slavery like Joseph (but even then he was treated as one of the family as per the culture)... or oppressed wholy and unjustly into forced labour. All cases of that nature that I am aware of are wholly condemned either through direct statement or clear implication.
I don't see much with the whole respecting other people's rights...Mind backing that up? The same with equality, I'm not buying what you're selling yet, might want to try a better sales pitch with actual facts next time.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
There is no Jew or Greek, Male or Female, Slave or Free.
Hold no standards of respecting certain people over others because of their status or any otyher arbitrary concept.
It's all "knees together and kiss me not" with them until the wedding night.
You think this is bad? You think them following what they believe is prudish and bad?
You can't even mention S-E-X without them having an apoplectic fit and get all self-righteous about it.
Please describe what you are calling 'self-righteous'.
