Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

#326
#326
VolByBirth said:
You know gays that are Christians? I'm just not sure I follow their logic on that one. That's like playing for UT and calling yourself a 'Bama fan.
Click to expand...

My best friend is a music professor, he is gay, and he is a deacon in his church as well as pursuing a divinity degree.

I'm less concerned about gay Christians than I am about small-minded people who think that gays are little more than satan worshipers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#327
#327
VolByBirth said:
You know gays that are Christians? I'm just not sure I follow their logic on that one. That's like playing for UT and calling yourself a 'Bama fan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know a few of them. They believe that God loves all of those that believe in Him. I find their belief in God more sensible than those of murderers and those who harm and hurt others.
 
#330
#330
MG1968 said:
My best friend is a music professor, he is gay, and he is a deacon in his church as well as pursuing a divinity degree.

I'm less concerned about gay Christians than I am about small-minded people who think that gays are little more than satan worshipers.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've read on here about 3.4M times that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

I just find it odd that someone would choose to follow the teachings of a book that calls their way of life an sin/whatever it says. So like I said, it's like playing for UT and liking a team that hates you. Doesn't make sense --- but in the end, whatever works for a person.

Let's be clear - I do not believe in the Bible or Christianity. I believe being gay means nothing -- as in they are to be considered no different than heterosexuals. They're people and should be allowed all the same opportunities and rights as others.
 
#332
#332
VolByBirth said:
I'm pretty sure I've read on here about 3.4M times that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

I just find it odd that someone would choose to follow the teachings of a book that calls their way of life an sin/whatever it says. So like I said, it's like playing for UT and liking a team that hates you. Doesn't make sense --- but in the end, whatever works for a person.

Let's be clear - I do not believe in the Bible or Christianity. I believe being gay means nothing -- as in they are to be considered no different than heterosexuals. They're people and should be allowed all the same opportunities and rights as others.
Click to expand...

As a non believer myself I can say there isn't a single believer out there who does not sin in some way or another according to the bible. It's my understanding that a sin is a sin is a sin and non weigh heavier than another in eyes of God. Which is why I don't understand this outrage to gays.
 
#333
#333
burntorangeVOLffle said:
As a non believer myself I can say there isn't a single believer out there who does not sin in some way or another according to the bible. It's my understanding that a sin is a sin is a sin and non weigh heavier than another in eyes of God. Which is why I don't understand this outrage to gays.
Click to expand...

This is very much the way I feel; it seems that homosexuality is one of, if not the, great evils of our time for many. I really think that some people need to have some big monster to fear/hate, and homosexuality fills that need at this time.

Ultimately gay folks are just like everyone else, and many of us lead quite mundane lives. We simply want to find a partner to love and live life as productive members of society. Part of that is also the ability to provide protection and security for our families. Honestly, gay people really aren't monsters; we're much more alike than many think.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but maybe helps to explain why this whole issue has blown up so much which, FTR, I think has been overblown.
 
#334
#334
Thought this was a nice comment by Pawlenty when asked about this by a reporter...

"Now you have the police power of government intimidating and threatening people, being used to intimidate and threaten people, based on their free speech rights and their religious views," Pawlenty said Saturday of city officials' objections to president Dan Cathy's public disavowal of gay marriage. "I mean it’s chilling. I mean it’s stunning, it is jaw-dropping. And so I think strong people who see this need to stand up and say no we don’t do that in the United States."
Click to expand...

Personally, I would like to see the citizens of Boston and Chicago boycott their mayors (by voting for someone else) for using a government position to speak out against a business that has done nothing wrong. There is something horribly ironic about what they are doing.
 
#336
#336
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Thought this was a nice comment by Pawlenty when asked about this by a reporter...



Personally, I would like to see the citizens of Boston and Chicago boycott their mayors (by voting for someone else) for using a government position to speak out against a business that has done nothing wrong. There is something horribly ironic about what they are doing.
Click to expand...


the actions of the Boston and Chicago officials should be highlighted as example #1 in the "big government is a terrible idea and this is why" pamphlet.
 
#338
#338
BigOrangeCrush32 said:
Whose Morals? yours? not mine....Mr Cathy is on my moral side.....and those of the majority of the US....
Click to expand...

There was a time when the majority of the folks in this fine country thought that they were superior to people of color, so I wouldn't line up behind a majority equals right defense if I were you.

I do believe that time will tell on this, and one day we will look back on this argument as being as stupid as the argument that different races shouldn't intermarry.
 
#339
#339
TruthIsOutThere said:
There was a time when the majority of the folks in this fine country thought that they were superior to people of color, so I wouldn't line up behind a majority equals right defense if I were you.

I do believe that time will tell on this, and one day we will look back on this argument as being as stupid as the argument that different races shouldn't intermarry.
Click to expand...

Do you also believe that government has the right to define marriage?
 
#340
#340
TruthIsOutThere said:
I'm intolerant for disagreeing with those that are openly intolerant about a gay loving couple's ability to enter into marriage?

F it - guess I'm intolerant then.
Click to expand...

That's the point...I am intolerant because I do not believe in Gay Marriage...but your not intolerant bc you disagree with my values....?
 
#341
#341
TruthIsOutThere said:
There was a time when the majority of the folks in this fine country thought that they were superior to people of color, so I wouldn't line up behind a majority equals right defense if I were you.

I do believe that time will tell on this, and one day we will look back on this argument as being as stupid as the argument that different races shouldn't intermarry.
Click to expand...

See that is where you are wrong....I will never look on this as being stupid....I will never believe that marriage is anything but btw a man/woman
 
#343
#343
BigOrangeCrush32 said:
See that is where you are wrong....I will never look on this as being stupid....I will never believe that marriage is anything but btw a man/woman
Click to expand...

And, while mostly in secret, many people still believe is segregation/racism. And much like those people are now, you will soon be drowned out as a minority. Change is coming. Fight it all you want -- fewer and fewer people rely on a book written by men thousands of years ago as some sort of benchmark for morality or any applicability to current times. I'm not saying you will change, I'm just saying that others will (or the religious will die off with no one to further their ideology).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#344
#344
VolByBirth said:
And, while mostly in secret, many people still believe is segregation/racism. And much like those people are now, you will soon be drowned out as a minority. Change is coming. Fight it all you want -- fewer and fewer people rely on a book written by men thousands of years ago as some sort of benchmark for morality or any applicability to current times. I'm not saying you will change, I'm just saying that others will (or the religious will die off with no one to further their ideology).
Click to expand...

Reaching much?
 
#345
#345
OrangeEmpire said:
Reaching much?
Click to expand...

Nope. He responded to a quote that was referencing racism. I responded with the same analogy.

If referring to the Bible and religion becoming less significant -- not at all. Simple statistics show people simply don't look to religion as their moral compass. I expect that will continue. Maybe, maybe not.
 
#346
#346
VolByBirth said:
Nope. He responded to a quote that was referencing racism. I responded with the same analogy.

If referring to the Bible and religion becoming less significant -- not at all. Simple statistics show people simply don't look to religion as their moral compass. I expect that will continue. Maybe, maybe not.
Click to expand...


You dont think its cyclical?

Are you just referring to christianity?

The United States?
 
#347
#347
OrangeEmpire said:
You dont think its cyclical?

Are you just referring to christianity?

The United States?
Click to expand...

It's certainly possible it's cyclical if referring to religion. But even in its next, stronger iteration I'm sure it will be different. And by cyclical, I'm not talking about decades but many, many generations.

I just think calling marriage a religious institution doesn't make sense. Just because some book lays claim to it doesn't matter. You can't call "dibs" on the marriage card. It's also become a Gov't and legal issue when certain advantages are attached to being married.

I personally don't understand why people care, but I'm sure I care about things they don't (see gun control). In the end, I still think we're trending to acceptance of gay marriage.
 
#348
#348
VolByBirth said:
It's certainly possible it's cyclical if referring to religion. But even in its next, stronger iteration I'm sure it will be different. And by cyclical, I'm not talking about decades but many, many generations.

I just think calling marriage a religious institution doesn't make sense. Just because some book lays claim to it doesn't matter. You can't call "dibs" on the marriage card. It's also become a Gov't and legal issue when certain advantages are attached to being married.

I personally don't understand why people care, but I'm sure I care about things they don't (see gun control). In the end, I still think we're trending to acceptance of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Where, in your opinion, did the history of marriage originate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#349
#349
VolByBirth said:
It's certainly possible it's cyclical if referring to religion. But even in its next, stronger iteration I'm sure it will be different. And by cyclical, I'm not talking about decades but many, many generations.

I just think calling marriage a religious institution doesn't make sense. Just because some book lays claim to it doesn't matter. You can't call "dibs" on the marriage card. It's also become a Gov't and legal issue when certain advantages are attached to being married.

I personally don't understand why people care, but I'm sure I care about things they don't (see gun control). In the end, I still think we're trending to acceptance of gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Imo, having govt define marriage is deplorable.

Why in the world would you willingly give that right to the govt

Gay marriage is trivial, one should fight to live as free as humanly possible
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#350
#350
vollygirl said:
Where, in your opinion, did the history of marriage originate?
Click to expand...

It started culturally. And yes, I realize religion is a driving force of most cultures -- but the Bible is not the driving force of all cultures. Many cultures outside of Christianity (and religion altogether) have forms of marriage (both currently and pre-Biblical). A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Hell, we should just change the name. For those that aren't Christian we're being "joined" or "bonded" (in the non-S&M sense of course). Christians can have their term and requirements satisfying their strict definition (which mind you had been altered dramatically throughout history). I dont suspect many gays want to married by a Priest in the style of Christianity -- but maybe I'm wrong.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top