Forcing your beliefs on others

[JesusWalks78]

Your collective attitudes towards homosexuality for one Ranging from antagonizing statements such as "gays have the right to marry, just someone of the opposite sex" to terms such as "sodomites" and going on into realms of discussion including the jailing or other restrictions on the liberty of homosexuals.

I have never demonised anyone...in fact I have stated several times it is the act of homosexuality that is wrong, and that is to be hated not the individual who has fallen into the lifestyle. We must fight sin at every turn....that includes murder, rape, thieves, gluttony, lust all of them.

I take the same stance with all these sins as with homosexuality, take what is written and use it. Unfortunately all anyone wants to talk about are homosexuals...I have never started a thread on homosexuals...I didi start a thread on Gluttony, but people are not interested in that or other sins.

The fact that I haven't put you on ignore yet means you still hold credibility and interest to me and haven't gone beyond what I see as debate and into nastiness

Many here are against what i believe, that is in Jesus Christ, God the Father and the sacredness of the scripture that the omniscient, omnipotent God who is perfect therefore makes no mistake.

Anyone that says the word of God is not correct is admitting that God is not omnipotent (cannot ensure that his word is correct and maintain that correctness).

 

[jesusxchick]

Learning from you mistakes in this case would be educating yourself to the facts of homosexuality.

You seem to wish to remain wrong, which is certainly not learning from your mistakes.



Fair enough. But refusing to debate with me doesn't make you any less wrong.

Well, since I'm not even talking about homosexuality, your statement is wrong. And where in my statement you even think I was heading towards homosexuality, I have no idea. I'm not adding to anyone else's statements. I'm expressing MY views on what the topic starter put, which is forcing your beliefs on others, not homosexuality or anything else.

And when you're debating, no one is wrong. Everyone has an opinion. That's why we have sepereate minds and don't share one big brain. It's what debates are for, people's opinions and you're going to run into others who have different opinions. It doesn't make them or you wrong, it's just the way it is.

So you might want to slow your roll there dear boy.

 

[TheMissus]

We're also considering frequency.

It has been shown that virtually all men with SSA engage in sodomy on a regular or near regular basis. Most married couples do not do so at near the same frequency, if at all. Going back to the biker analogy: i have ridden a bike, but I am not a biker in the same sense that Lance Armstrong is.

Why does frequency matter? So you can split hairs?

Besides, you'll find quite a lot of straight married couples who engage in sodomy at least once a week. Ask your married buddies how often they give or receive oral sex and you might be shocked how many Sodomites surround you.

 

[NPH]

That's stating a fact. People with same sex attractions do have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and I don't have the right to marry someone of the same sex either. It doesn't matter who you're attracted to, because marriage isn't about attractions. If I fell in love with my sister, I could not marry her. I cannot marry a minor either. I cannot marry someone who is already married, etc. If you think that stating a fact is antagonizing then I recommend a little self examination.

Just like saying a christian in an Islamic nation is free to believe in God ... so long as it's Allah.

And actually, at one time if you fell in love with your sister your god would have no problem with you marrying her. Just check out Abraham and Sarah.

As far as "sodomites". It refers to someone who engages in sodomy. It is an accurate description of someone who does that behavior. If I ride bicycles, then calling me a biker is not hateful. All we are doing is accurately describing reality. If this term does no fit with PC Newspeak, then oh well.

Bull and you know it. When used, especially by christians, it is a perjorative term denigrating a particular group of people.

Anyway, when it comes to tolerance, I think that very often the people who espouse that virtue are the worst violators. As in "Do what I say, not as I do", or "You have to tolerate us but we don't have to tolerate you"

As soon as you see gay folk seriously saying christians should not be allowed to marry then you get to make this statement and be taken seriously.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Why does frequency matter? So you can split hairs?

Besides, you'll find quite a lot of straight married couples who engage in sodomy at least once a week. Ask your married buddies how often they give or receive oral sex and you might be shocked how many Sodomites surround you.

You'll also be surprised to find there are a large number of gay couples who have sex but do not engage in sodomy.

Straight people always seem to "know" what goes on in the bedroom of gays. Such colorful imaginations.

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

WalkswithChrist does.



An empty charge. No one here isn't tolerating you.



It's a derogatory word used to highlight a single action that bugs you. And it leaves out lesbos. Don't discriminate in your hatred, that's just wrong.

It's no different than callin a black person a monkey.

Lesbians can be conveniently ignored whenever a poster is ranting about gays. They're generally an afterthought. They don't fit any of the "sodomy" or "AIDS" or "short-term relationships" or "bad parent" myths, either; lesbian relationships are generally safer, saner, longer, less disease-prone, and more secure that heterosexuals.

The secret? All this talk of sodomy, infidelity, and sexual disease...these are actually traits of men!!! They have nothing do to with orientation whatsoever.

Shhhh.

Trickster

 

[NPH]

Lesbians can be conveniently ignored whenever a poster is ranting about gays. They're generally an afterthought. They don't fit any of the "sodomy" or "AIDS" or "short-term relationships" or "bad parent" myths, either; lesbian relationships are generally safer, saner, longer, less disease-prone, and more secure that heterosexuals.

The secret? All this talk of sodomy, infidelity, and sexual disease...these are actually traits of men!!! They have nothing do to with orientation whatsoever.

Shhhh.

Trickster

(Zoidberg voice) It's funny because it's true!

 

[Cerberus~]

Well, since I'm not even talking about homosexuality, your statement is wrong. And where in my statement you even think I was heading towards homosexuality, I have no idea. I'm not adding to anyone else's statements. I'm expressing MY views on what the topic starter put, which is forcing your beliefs on others, not homosexuality or anything else.

Oh yea, I kinda got a little confused there. I guess we're all just wrong.

 

[RavenPoe]

Remember that "tolerance" means acceptance, not agreeing with you. It is not intolerance to refuse to tolerate the intolerance of others.

Accepting that one of you follows Christ, one follows the Goddess and another follows the Flying Spaghetti Monster I hear so much of is tolerance. Not putting up with someone trying to change who I worship or how I live is not intolerance, it's exercising my right to be me and harm none.

Intolerance is asking another to change their life for you.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Why does frequency matter? So you can split hairs?

No I wasn't. I didn't even bring it up. You are splitting hairs.

Bull and you know it. When used, especially by christians, it is a perjorative term denigrating a particular group of people.

You mean like homophobe, bigot, and hatemonger?

As soon as you see gay folk seriously saying christians should not be allowed to marry then you get to make this statement and be taken seriously.

So you admit it. My side should be tolerant of your beliefs but you don't need to be tolerant of ours . . . Pure hypocrisy.

Let's see: we think same sex courtship is wrong, and you think us saying that is wrong. So we think that people do not have the right to marry any dang person they choose, and you think we do not have the right to stand up for that belief. So stop trying to deny us the right to stand up for what is right.

As I said, Tolerance Touters are walking storehouses of hypocrisy.

 

[TheBellman]

Let's see: we think same sex courtship is wrong, and you think us saying that is wrong. So we think that people do not have the right to marry any dang person they choose, and you think we do not have the right to stand up for that belief. So stop trying to deny us the right to stand up for what is right.

As I said, Tolerance Touters are walking storehouses of hypocrisy.

That's just dishonest. Nobody is saying you shouldn't have the right to say whatever you like; we are merely disagreeing with what you say. YOU are the ones denying others rights; we are not attempting to deny you of anything.

 

[KarateCowboy]

That's just dishonest. Nobody is saying you shouldn't have the right to say whatever you like; we are merely disagreeing with what you say. YOU are the ones denying others rights; we are not attempting to deny you of anything.

Not so. We are not denying anyone any rights. Rather, we are standing up for what is right and holding up principles through self-government, and you are condemning us as bigots for it.

 

[TheBellman]

Not so. We are not denying anyone any rights. Rather, we are standing up for what is right and holding up principles through self-government, and you are condemning us as bigots for it.

And THAT's just an attempt to change the subject. You made a false claim in trying to equate people disagreeing with your opinion with people denying something of others. At least be honest enough to admit it.

Tolerance is about allowing others to act as they will (provided it does not harm you); it is NOT about allowing others to deny you of something.

It is INtolerant to deny homosexuals the right to marry; it is NOT intolerant to argue with those who advocate so doing.

You said:

we think that people do not have the right to marry any dang person they choose, and you think we do not have the right to stand up for that belief. So stop trying to deny us the right to stand up for what is right.

That is just dishonest, because nobody is trying to deny you any right. Nobody has said you don't have the right to stand up for that (or any other) belief. You, on the other hand, are all for denying homosexuals the right to marry. One group is being tolerant here; it ain't you.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Isn't there a distinction between a law that says all priests must marry any that desire it and no law that prevents mutually consenting adults from marrying? In the first case, which no one is arguing for, there *might* be a case that it's forcing beliefs. But in the second case, the 'burden' of who is putting up with who's beliefs is distributed evenly.

 

[RavenPoe]

Against gay marriage? Don't have one!!

We are not denying you the right to treat gay marriage as wrong as per your beliefs, but you are denying us the right to treat gay marriage as right per our beliefs by trying to make your beliefs dictate the law of the land.

 

[TheMissus]

No I wasn't. I didn't even bring it up. You are splitting hairs.

Umm, you brought up frequency. See, here:

Originally Posted by KarateCowboy
We're also considering frequency.

It has been shown that virtually all men with SSA engage in sodomy on a regular or near regular basis. Most married couples do not do so at near the same frequency, if at all. Going back to the biker analogy: i have ridden a bike, but I am not a biker in the same sense that Lance Armstrong is.

So why does frequency matter?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Isn't there a distinction between a law that says all priests must marry any that desire it and no law that prevents mutually consenting adults from marrying? In the first case, which no one is arguing for, there *might* be a case that it's forcing beliefs. But in the second case, the 'burden' of who is putting up with who's beliefs is distributed evenly.

No. There is a verse that says if a priest marries it may be to only one wife. As far as marriage laws, the Bible condemns homosexual partnership through and through.

Against gay marriage? Don't have one!!

Right. "Against pedophilia? Don't do it!"
or how about
"Against corporations adopting? Don't do it!"

"Against rape? Don't commit one!"

We are not denying you the right to treat gay marriage as wrong as per your beliefs, but you are denying us the right to treat gay marriage as right per our beliefs by trying to make your beliefs dictate the law of the land.

And if same sex "marriage" were legal, it would be your beliefs dictating the law of the land, so don't try and spini it off as if we're doing something wrong here.

Virtually every society has condemned homosexuality. So to try and spin it off as if we are some kind of abnormal religious weirdos is just plain dishonest. However, that does not stop you guys.

Umm, you brought up frequency. See, here:

Well, Nitz brought up the use of the term, and I just pointed out why we are using it. Then you came in and started splitting hairs about "Well normal couples do it sometimes too blah blah". So that's why I brought up the difference in frequency --because you kept going on about it.

That is just dishonest, because nobody is trying to deny you any right. Nobody has said you don't have the right to stand up for that (or any other) belief. You, on the other hand, are all for denying homosexuals the right to marry. One group is being tolerant here; it ain't you.

Pure bull. People with same sex attractions do have a right to marry, just as people who are attracted to little boys, or people who are attracted to their siblings, or normal people. So don't start saying they don't have the right to marry that is an outright lie. They just have attractions that stand outside of what everyone is allowed to do. So the question is not a matter of equal rights. They have the same rights as I. Here is an elementary concept that some just don't get: SAME mean EQUAL. Say it again: SAME is EQUAL. Once people can understand that we have a start. So the real question is: should EVERYONE be able to marry ANYONE they are attracted to. The answer, I believe, is no. That is because having studied anthropology I have looked at marriage through the ages and have seen that marrying for love is not the greatest common denominator. Just look at Japan. Japan is the most Westernized of the Oriental countries, and even today about 1/3 of marriages are arranged marriages. So, we do not need an institution recognized by the government to affirm our tingly feelings. However we do need a way of managing the natural union of a man and woman in the formation of a biological, natural family where the result is biological offspring. That is what we call 'marriage'.

As for being tolerant: you're not fooling me. And if you were tolerant of my beliefs you would not be on a Christian site telling us how our beliefs are all wrong, because you'd just live and let live and leave us be. Instead you are actively fighting our beliefs, trying to change them or invalidate them. That is anything but tolerant.

 

[RavenPoe]

"Against pedophilia? Don't do it!"

A harmful act which does not involve consent given from both parties.

or how about
"Against corporations adopting? Don't do it!"

Adopting babies? I am unfamiliar with this topic so I cannot comment.

"Against rape? Don't commit one!"

A harmful act which does not involve consent given from both parties.

And if same sex "marriage" were legal, it would be your beliefs dictating the law of the land, so don't try and spini it off as if we're doing something wrong here.

No one's "beliefs" should be dictating law of the land. Same sex marriage, or civil union, would just be extending the same rights and freedoms to all. Right now beliefs of some are denying rights to others. Allowing gay marriage would not infringe on your right to not like it.

Personally, I feel that if religous people consider marriage a sacred thing than the government should not recognize marriage at all. Marriage will be done by the church and only recognized by the church. Civil unions or patnerships will be issued by the governemnt to all regardless of gender and will convey the rights normally held by marriage. Naturally one has to be of age to enter into this union.

Virtually every society has condemned homosexuality. So to try and spin it off as if we are some kind of abnormal religious weirdos is just plain dishonest. However, that does not stop you guys.

I do believe we've addressed this in another thread but I state again - mostly Christian society has condemned homosexuality. It was an accepted part of many other cultures.

Pure bull. People with same sex attractions do have a right to marry, just as people who are attracted to little boys, or people who are attracted to their siblings, or normal people. So don't start saying they don't have the right to marry that is an outright lie. They just have attractions that stand outside of what everyone is allowed to do. So the question is not a matter of equal rights. They have the same rights as I. Here is an elementary concept that some just don't get: SAME mean EQUAL. Say it again: SAME is EQUAL. Once people can understand that we have a start. So the real question is: should EVERYONE be able to marry ANYONE they are attracted to. The answer, I believe, is no. That is because having studied anthropology I have looked at marriage through the ages and have seen that marrying for love is not the greatest common denominator. Just look at Japan. Japan is the most Westernized of the Oriental countries, and even today about 1/3 of marriages are arranged marriages. So, we do not need an institution recognized by the government to affirm our tingly feelings. However we do need a way of managing the natural union of a man and woman in the formation of a biological, natural family where the result is biological offspring. That is what we call 'marriage'.

Persons would of course have to be consenting and of an age to consent. It is highly illogical to think that just because we allow gays to marry that next we're going to allow a woman to wed her own unborn child. Such extremes are unbecoming of reason and logical thought.

As for being tolerant: you're not fooling me. And if you were tolerant of my beliefs you would not be on a Christian site telling us how our beliefs are all wrong, because you'd just live and let live and leave us be. Instead you are actively fighting our beliefs, trying to change them or invalidate them. That is anything but tolerant.

I am quite tolerant of your beliefs. I'm allowing you to keep them, just not to allow them to dictate laws that govern my life.

I am on this site because I was invited here. I'm sorry if you feel that the prescence of one who does not agree with you shows intolerance, but from what I've seen most Christians enjoy the chance to discuss back and forth with people of all different faiths. I listen to the points of many people and am pleased by the fact that so many can be civil about it. Just because the debate forum is hosted by one side and extends an invite to all, doesn't mean that it is intolerant for others to accept.

 

[fillerbunny]

As for being tolerant: you're not fooling me. And if you were tolerant of my beliefs you would not be on a Christian site telling us how our beliefs are all wrong, because you'd just live and let live and leave us be.

It's not just me- there are plenty of Christians here who disagree with your views as well. Should they leave too?

Instead you are actively fighting our beliefs, trying to change them or invalidate them. That is anything but tolerant.

I could care less about changing others' beliefs. What I take exception to are those who post malicious lies under the guise of 'truth', and those who attempt to use legislation to foist adherence to their religious principles upon me.

Tolerance doesn't mean one has to allow themselves to be vilified, slandered, or stepped on just because somebody else feels the need to do it.

It doesn't mean sitting back and allowing members of a religious majority to turn our country into a theocracy, to make second-class citizens of those of us who don't share their beliefs.

 

[TricksterWolf]

As for being tolerant: you're not fooling me. And if you were tolerant of my beliefs you would not be on a Christian site telling us how our beliefs are all wrong, because you'd just live and let live and leave us be. Instead you are actively fighting our beliefs, trying to change them or invalidate them. That is anything but tolerant.

Not true. Speaking one's mind isn't intolerance, and you are not intolerant for speaking your mind.

Enforcing laws that would shut someone up completely, or to prevent them from the right to engage in a voluntary contract with another party, is intolerant. Advocating such activity is also intolerant.

Using "pedophilia" as a comparison to homosexuality, as if the two were remotely comparable, is just mean.

Trickster