Hillary Clinton declares 'gay rights are human rights'

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Marriage is a religious union that the government decided to get involved in. The only group that should have a say in what a marriage is - is the church.

Martin Luther said regarding marriage: "So many lands, so many customs,' says the common proverb. For this reason, because weddings and the married estate are wordly affairs, it behooves those of us who are 'spirituals' ("clergy") or ministers of the church in no way to order or direct anything regarding marriage, but instead to allow every city and land to continue their own customs that are now in use." He saw it as a sacred contract, but one that should be governed by civil law.

And Tribesman is right. Marriage had nothing to do with any sort of church or ceremony outside of telling someone "I marry you" until the church decided to bring themselves into it.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Betonov

If the church would be willing to marry gays, 3/4 of the gay-haters would become gay supporters and the laws would have been passed the first week making the marriage valid in no time.

There are many different churches in the world. Some of them have no problems with gay marriage. If we're going to use a religious basis of marriage, we're just going to have to decide which religion we're basing it on first.

[yubba]

If the lord said that marriage is between a man and women and that man should not lay down with another man or with animals I guess that's pretty good for me. So what do the animal rights groups think about the governments move to repeal the beastiality law in the military ????
So, are they going to start putting sheep pens on subs now ????
What's the next step up from small animals, and if one's morality is ruled about getting one's freak on then there is a problem.

[Betonov]

The lord can kiss my ass. Nobody voted him into the office

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

The lord can kiss my ass. Nobody voted him into the office

Maybe not but he sure owns you.

You just can't keep away from any thread that even mentions him.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe not but he sure owns you.

Prove it. Until then, it just is a claim, and superstitious hear-say.

And since you raise the claim, the burden of evidence is up to you.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Prove it. Until then, it just is a claim, and superstitious hear-say. And since you raise the claim, the burden of evidence is up to you.

Prove what? Show me a religious thread that he hasn't posted in. God owns you as well by the same token. You're both like moths to the flame of your hatred.

[Scurvy]

Originally Posted by August

Prove what? Show me a religious thread that he hasn't posted in. God owns you as well by the same token. You're both like moths to the flame of your hatred.

Or, as I like to say, God lives in their heads, rent-free.

I visit numerous forums and can't understand why so many atheists trend toward being militant.

Not saying that anyone I've seen here is, but there's a huge number that go out of their way to not only voice their opinion, but attempt to offend or belittle anyone who is a Christian.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Prove what? Show me a religious thread that he hasn't posted in. God owns you as well by the same token. You're both like moths to the flame of your hatred.

What an egg-dance you already have started!

My demand that you shall prove your claim that I or anyone is owned by any deity, has been precisely aimed by me not at your claim about Betonov, but your claim on a god owning somebody. I even quoted you on that.

And you know it.

You just egg-dance.

And now, your evidence for your claim that people are owned by "God" , please. You raise the claim - the burden of evidence is up to you. All others, just live and care their business - they must not prove to you that you are wrong.

Or admit that you personally just believe that you are owned by said "God", and that it is your private, personal hobby to believe so, not to be generalised in content of statement.

It's a bit rich that you relgiuous people often accuse others of generlaisng their arelgious demands, but implying a right for such egneralsiation for yourself so often and with the bgreatest naturalness and non-chalance. It is this arrogance in public that displays an attitude of a natural right to just force others to witness ones own confessions constantly, that brings people like me or Betonov on the scene - not what you believe in private, in the stilness of your home or cabins.

I have no problem with people beieving something, as long as it is not inhumane or cruel. I have a problem with people constantly trying to tell me what they believe in, and trying to reform the public communal space according to their relgious demands, claiming public territory that simply is not theirs.

Betonov maybe was harsh in his word selection, and forum rules maybe even are in discouragement of such wording. On the other hand, it gets silently tolerated in other contexts as well. So why should religion get a special protective status, then - once again sorting it out and putting it above other themes in "respectability" that it claims to deserve, but cannot show why that should be so? we mock politicians. We use words against ideologies and cultural features. And so we do both with rtelgion, too.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190423

[Armistead]

I tire of old biblical culture and laws being forced on others simply because we call it tradition. Women had no rights in the bible, they were owned by the husband or father and many of the laws dealt with women in cruel fashion. Biblically men took on many wives and concubines and in cases God stated he even provided more wives. These traditions continued for hundreds of years among jew and gentiles after Christ. These traditions were slowly done away with. Slavery was another accepted tradition that was only put away with by war and secular law.

We run our nation on a constitution, not old biblical law or commands, to deny two loving people a right to marry, raise children and share property is pure hate.

To say marriage between a man and a woman is what builds soceity is rather silly, 70% divorce, millions of kids not provided for, etc..."normal" marriage hardly holds any claim to morality. Seems it would be better to embrace marriage as a good thing for any two loving people.

Tired of all the gay parades, etc...give people equal rights and all that stuff would go away.

We have a gay couple in our neighborhood that have lived together for over 20 years here, they raised two wonderful kids. They're denied many rights themselves and for their kids. Can't understand why Christians would want to deny medical coverage for children if one spouse could provide for it

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

*wall of text*

Dude you are way off base. I imply none of what you're ranting about.

"Owned" in this case is like how an addictive drug "owns" it's user, not that a diety "owns" your fealty. As if I would suggest any such thing with you of all people.

Of course I should guess that it'd be a typical European response to think otherwise with your history of ownership by various kings and potentates. You guys tend to slip into Unruly Peasant Mode at the drop of a hat!

[1480]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I tire of old biblical culture and laws being forced on others simply because we call it tradition. Women had no rights in the bible, they were owned by the husband or father and many of the laws dealt with women in cruel fashion. Biblically men took on many wives and concubines and in cases God stated he even provided more wives. These traditions continued for hundreds of years among jew and gentiles after Christ. These traditions were slowly done away with. Slavery was another accepted tradition that was only put away with by war and secular law.

We run our nation on a constitution, not old biblical law or commands, to deny two loving people a right to marry, raise children and share property is pure hate.

To say marriage between a man and a woman is what builds soceity is rather silly, 70% divorce, millions of kids not provided for, etc..."normal" marriage hardly holds any claim to morality. Seems it would be better to embrace marriage as a good thing for any two loving people.

Tired of all the gay parades, etc...give people equal rights and all that stuff would go away.

We have a gay couple in our neighborhood that have lived together for over 20 years here, they raised two wonderful kids. They're denied many rights themselves and for their kids. Can't understand why Christians would want to deny medical coverage for children if one spouse could provide for it

BUT it's the same secular laws that actually are prejudiced against them. No where in either the old or the new books actually profess to killing homosexuals but as I posted before Islam a whole another story.

The same secular laws that did not allow women or blacks to vote for many years. And as others who have posted before, the founders wanted to keep religion completely out of the picture. So, once again putting the cart before the horse.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by 1480

No where in either the old or the new books actually profess to killing homosexuals

Leviticus 20:13

And one can infer the same from Romans 1: 24-32

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Leviticus 20:13

And one can infer the same from Romans 1: 24-32

That's right. The Old Testament takes a very hard line, but Jesus himself had said nothing on the topic and the writings of the Evangelists are scant and much more loosely defined.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe not but he sure owns you.

No receipt, no deal


And I'm not a militant atheist
I'm just sarcastic