|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 3:22:48 GMT
If you can treat gay people just as you would a son or daughter and show them that love, then you are not sinning for lack of charity. And I don’t think you would disown your child nor prevent him or her from marrying the person they love. Why anyone else? I might not disown them, but, I might probably voice any problems I might have regarding whatever life decisions they have. Just as all parents would.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 3:26:32 GMT
I do not have any ill will against people with same sex attraction. But you do. You think that gay people should not be treated as equal under the law as straight people. That's as simple and clear an intention of ill will as one could ask for.I wouldn't expect anyone to change their values just appease another.I haven't told you what your opinion should be. But I've informed you that the opinion you hold is, by the standard that you yourself set, a bigoted one. I do not believe that they should be assaulted or verbally harassed in anyway though. Anybody who does a harm a gay or lesbian person in anyway should be arrested. I'm sorry, but telling me that my opinion is bigoted simply because you disagree with it, is being a dictator.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 27, 2023 4:56:50 GMT
If you can treat gay people just as you would a son or daughter and show them that love, then you are not sinning for lack of charity. And I don’t think you would disown your child nor prevent him or her from marrying the person they love. Why anyone else? I might not disown them, but, I might probably voice any problems I might have regarding whatever life decisions they have. Just as all parents would. Of course. But if he or she decides their life otherwise, you can accept that God is merciful.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 5:26:14 GMT
I might not disown them, but, I might probably voice any problems I might have regarding whatever life decisions they have. Just as all parents would. Of course. But if he or she decides their life otherwise, you can accept that God is merciful. When have I ever said that God Is not Merciful. I believe in a Merciful Father.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 27, 2023 5:32:03 GMT
Of course. But if he or she decides their life otherwise, you can accept that God is merciful. When have I ever said that God Is not Merciful. I believe in a Merciful Father. Then you don't have to worry about other people's sin or try to stop them from it. Let God do it.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 5:37:53 GMT
When have I ever said that God Is not Merciful. I believe in a Merciful Father. Then you don't have to worry about other people's sin or try to stop them from it. Let God do it. I can still pray for them too (& likewise, hope that they pray for me too).
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 27, 2023 5:41:24 GMT
Then you don't have to worry about other people's sin or try to stop them from it. Let God do it. I can still pray for them too (& likewise, hope that they pray for me too). Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 27, 2023 10:10:45 GMT
But you do. You think that gay people should not be treated as equal under the law as straight people. That's as simple and clear an intention of ill will as one could ask for.I wouldn't expect anyone to change their values just appease another.I haven't told you what your opinion should be. But I've informed you that the opinion you hold is, by the standard that you yourself set, a bigoted one. I do not believe that they should be assaulted or verbally harassed in anyway though. And you think that is the only thing that would constitute ill will? If someone told you they thought that Catholics should be denied legal marriage by the state, you don't think that would be expressing ill will toward Catholics? Of course, it would be. And it would be bigoted, as well.By my count, I am the third poster who just recently said your opinion is bigoted. And I notice a fourth. Yet, you didn't apply the word "dictator" to them. I could speculate as to why you've saved that word for lucky me, but I'll leave it go.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 27, 2023 12:19:33 GMT
I do not believe that they should be assaulted or verbally harassed in anyway though. And you think that is the only thing that would constitute ill will? If someone told you they thought that Catholics should be denied legal marriage by the state, you don't think that would be expressing ill will toward Catholics? Of course, it would be. And it would be bigoted, as well.By my count, I am the third poster who just recently said your opinion is bigoted. And I notice a fourth. Yet, you didn't apply the word "dictator" to them. I could speculate as to why you've saved that word for lucky me, but I'll leave it go. What other opinion are atheist sodomites going to have? They can't find "bigotry" to whine about anywhere else, so they have to come here and do it?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 13:09:48 GMT
I do not believe that they should be assaulted or verbally harassed in anyway though. And you think that is the only thing that would constitute ill will? If someone told you they thought that Catholics should be denied legal marriage by the state, you don't think that would be expressing ill will toward Catholics? Of course, it would be. And it would be bigoted, as well.By my count, I am the third poster who just recently said your opinion is bigoted. And I notice a fourth. Yet, you didn't apply the word "dictator" to them. I could speculate as to why you've saved that word for lucky me, but I'll leave it go. Do you believe that a person who happens to be completely or even partially blind should have the legal right to drive? Does the fact that they do not constitute bigotry? The comparison between denying people the legal right to marry based upon their religion (or even their race, for that matter) to denying marriage depending upon the sex of the people getting married is different, it is not even a comparison between an apple & an orange. Tell me, Isapop? If an adult & youngster (way under the age of consent) both said they wanted to marry, would you be for it? Of course not. Admittedly, you might suggest that they wait a few years, until the young person is of legal age, but, what if they want to marry here & now? Would denying them that right constitute bigotry? They might even argue that denying them their right to marriage constitutes age discrimination, based upon the fact that the young person is only a child or a pre-teen.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 27, 2023 14:13:01 GMT
And you think that is the only thing that would constitute ill will? If someone told you they thought that Catholics should be denied legal marriage by the state, you don't think that would be expressing ill will toward Catholics? Of course, it would be. And it would be bigoted, as well.By my count, I am the third poster who just recently said your opinion is bigoted. And I notice a fourth. Yet, you didn't apply the word "dictator" to them. I could speculate as to why you've saved that word for lucky me, but I'll leave it go. Do you believe that a person who happens to be completely or even partially blind should have the legal right to drive? Does the fact that they do not constitute bigotry? The comparison between denying people the legal right to marry based upon their religion (or even their race, for that matter) to denying marriage depending upon the sex of the people getting married is different, it is not even a comparison between an apple & an orange. No, it is not apples to oranges. I will explain why. 1) There is a valid reason (too obvious to state) why blind people are denied drivers licenses. So, supporting such a denial is not bigoted. 2) There is no valid reason for the state to deny to Catholics the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to non-Catholics. To support such a denial constitutes both ill will toward Catholics and bigotry. 3) And there is, likewise, no valid reason for the state to deny to gay people the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to straight people. To support such a denial also constitutes both ill will toward gay people and bigotry. Now, if you want to disagree with #3, here is your chance to offer one valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract. If you're going to offer "It's against God's plan", that isn't valid. We don't live in a theocracy where clergy of the favored religion tell us what God wants, and we pass laws accordingly. If you're going to offer, "Gay couples can't make a baby", that isn't valid. Legal marriage carries no requirement to have children. If you have something else, let's hear it. And if you have no valid reason, then supporting such state denial against gay people (just as supporting it against Catholics) is ill will and bigotry.The valid, and therefore, non-bigoted reason to prohibit child marriage is that any reasonably enlightened society recognizes that children cannot give meaningful consent. So, obviously, the law will need to set some minimum age. (It's hard to believe this has to be explained to anyone.)
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 14:44:29 GMT
Do you believe that a person who happens to be completely or even partially blind should have the legal right to drive? Does the fact that they do not constitute bigotry? The comparison between denying people the legal right to marry based upon their religion (or even their race, for that matter) to denying marriage depending upon the sex of the people getting married is different, it is not even a comparison between an apple & an orange. No, it is not apples to oranges. I will explain why. 1) There is a valid reason (too obvious to state) why blind people are denied drivers licenses. So, supporting such a denial is not bigoted. 2) There is no valid reason for the state to deny to Catholics the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to non-Catholics. To support such a denial constitutes both ill will toward Catholics and bigotry. 3) And there is, likewise, no valid reason for the state to deny to gay people the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to straight people. To support such a denial also constitutes both ill will toward gay people and bigotry. Now, if you want to disagree with #3, here is your chance to offer one valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract. If you're going to offer "It's against God's plan", that isn't valid. We don't live in a theocracy where clergy of the favored religion tell us what God wants, and we pass laws accordingly. If you're going to offer, "Gay couples can't make a baby", that isn't valid. Legal marriage carries no requirement to have children. If you have something else, let's hear it. And if you have no valid reason, then supporting such state denial against gay people (just as supporting it against Catholics) is ill will and bigotry.The valid, and therefore, non-bigoted reason to prohibit child marriage is that any reasonably enlightened society recognizes that children cannot give meaningful consent. So, obviously, the law will need to set some minimum age. (It's hard to believe this has to be explained to anyone.) Marriage is between one man & one woman. The only correct type of sexual intercourse is penis into the vagina. Not penis into the anal crevice or either form of genitalia into the mouth ( !!!!). And for the record, I personally oppose anal & oral sex acts between straight couples as well.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 27, 2023 15:25:15 GMT
No, it is not apples to oranges. I will explain why. 1) There is a valid reason (too obvious to state) why blind people are denied drivers licenses. So, supporting such a denial is not bigoted. 2) There is no valid reason for the state to deny to Catholics the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to non-Catholics. To support such a denial constitutes both ill will toward Catholics and bigotry. 3) And there is, likewise, no valid reason for the state to deny to gay people the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to straight people. To support such a denial also constitutes both ill will toward gay people and bigotry. Now, if you want to disagree with #3, here is your chance to offer one valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract. If you're going to offer "It's against God's plan", that isn't valid. We don't live in a theocracy where clergy of the favored religion tell us what God wants, and we pass laws accordingly. If you're going to offer, "Gay couples can't make a baby", that isn't valid. Legal marriage carries no requirement to have children. If you have something else, let's hear it. And if you have no valid reason, then supporting such state denial against gay people (just as supporting it against Catholics) is ill will and bigotry.The valid, and therefore, non-bigoted reason to prohibit child marriage is that any reasonably enlightened society recognizes that children cannot give meaningful consent. So, obviously, the law will need to set some minimum age. (It's hard to believe this has to be explained to anyone.) Marriage is between one man & one woman. In your church that is so, and no one forces your church to marry any gay couple. But we're talking about legal marriage (in the eyes of the state), not church marriage (in the eyes of God).In case you are unaware, legal marriage carries no requirement for the couple to have sexual relations at all, let alone of any particular variety. So, it's clear now: You can offer no valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract...just as there is no valid reason to deny legal marriage to Catholics. Supporting such a state denial to either group is both ill will and bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 27, 2023 15:31:45 GMT
It's only a matter of time before churches will be forced. Anyone who tells you differently is either stupid or lying.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 27, 2023 15:37:26 GMT
Marriage is between one man & one woman. In your church that is so, and no one forces your church to marry any gay couple. But we're talking about legal marriage (in the eyes of the state), not church marriage (in the eyes of God).In case you are unaware, legal marriage carries no requirement for the couple to have sexual relations at all, let alone of any particular variety. So, it's clear now: You can offer no valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract...just as there is no valid reason to deny legal marriage to Catholics. Supporting such a state denial to either group is both ill will and bigotry. Yes, I am well aware that not all couples consummate their marriage. Nonetheless, marriage is the pledging of one's own body to another, even if or when they choose not to engage in sexual acts. 2 male bodies do not make sense together; 2 female bodies do not make sense together; rather it is the coming together of male & female that make sense together.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 27, 2023 15:39:58 GMT
It's only a matter of time before churches will be forced. Anyone who tells you differently is either stupid or lying. And if that attempt is ever made, it will be just as wrong as it is to deny legal marriage to gays. (If you ever see any prominent individual or any organization advocating for that, immediately bring it to our attention.)
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 27, 2023 15:43:58 GMT
In your church that is so, and no one forces your church to marry any gay couple. But we're talking about legal marriage (in the eyes of the state), not church marriage (in the eyes of God).In case you are unaware, legal marriage carries no requirement for the couple to have sexual relations at all, let alone of any particular variety. So, it's clear now: You can offer no valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract...just as there is no valid reason to deny legal marriage to Catholics. Supporting such a state denial to either group is both ill will and bigotry. Yes, I am well aware that not all couples consummate their marriage. Nonetheless, marriage is the pledging of one's own body to another, even if or when they choose not to engage in sexual acts. 2 male bodies do not make sense together; 2 female bodies do not make sense together; rather it is the coming together of male & female that make sense together. As long as it makes sense to the couple, then why should you fret? Does it not sink in to you that you have no valid reason gay people are unable to meet the requirements for legal marriage? All you do is say things that have no bearing upon legal marriage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 16:01:00 GMT
No, it is not apples to oranges. I will explain why. 1) There is a valid reason (too obvious to state) why blind people are denied drivers licenses. So, supporting such a denial is not bigoted. 2) There is no valid reason for the state to deny to Catholics the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to non-Catholics. To support such a denial constitutes both ill will toward Catholics and bigotry. 3) And there is, likewise, no valid reason for the state to deny to gay people the same contract called legal marriage that the state offers to straight people. To support such a denial also constitutes both ill will toward gay people and bigotry. Now, if you want to disagree with #3, here is your chance to offer one valid reason why gay people are unable to, or must be prevented from being granted that state legal marriage contract. If you're going to offer "It's against God's plan", that isn't valid. We don't live in a theocracy where clergy of the favored religion tell us what God wants, and we pass laws accordingly. If you're going to offer, "Gay couples can't make a baby", that isn't valid. Legal marriage carries no requirement to have children. If you have something else, let's hear it. And if you have no valid reason, then supporting such state denial against gay people (just as supporting it against Catholics) is ill will and bigotry.The valid, and therefore, non-bigoted reason to prohibit child marriage is that any reasonably enlightened society recognizes that children cannot give meaningful consent. So, obviously, the law will need to set some minimum age. (It's hard to believe this has to be explained to anyone.) Marriage is between one man & one woman. The only correct type of sexual intercourse is penis into the vagina. Not penis into the anal crevice or either form of genitalia into the mouth ( !!!!). And for the record, I personally oppose anal & oral sex acts between straight couples as well. Which penis/vagina sexual positions are Clusium approved? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 27, 2023 16:11:41 GMT
Yes, I am well aware that not all couples consummate their marriage. Nonetheless, marriage is the pledging of one's own body to another, even if or when they choose not to engage in sexual acts. 2 male bodies do not make sense together; 2 female bodies do not make sense together; rather it is the coming together of male & female that make sense together. As long as it makes sense to the couple, then why should you fret? Does it not sink in to you that you have no valid reason gay people are unable to meet the requirements for legal marriage? All you do is say things that have no bearing upon legal marriage. clusium , My late husband and I did not have children, intentionally. We both grew up in "dysfunctional" families, and we didn't want to pass that burden on to children. We were legally married, despite our intention to not have biological (or adopted) children. Why (in your world) can't two same-sex people decide to be legally married, just because they can't have biological children together? Just because it doesn't "make sense" to you? Why does this bother you so much, what other people do that does not negatively affect your life? Does the phrase "live and let live" have any meaning to you?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 27, 2023 16:13:29 GMT
It's only a matter of time before churches will be forced. Anyone who tells you differently is either stupid or lying. And if that attempt is ever made, it will be just as wrong as it is to deny legal marriage to gays. (If you ever see any prominent individual or any organization advocating for that, immediately bring it to our attention.) What for? To say I told you so? I think you can remember that on your own.
|
|