@BrianK

Quote:

We can look at history and see that when blacks could get married some Christians stood against that. They lost their jobs. That when mixed race couples got married, Christians stood against that. They lost their jobs. So indeed you are right this will impact some Christians. What you overlook, or don't mention, is today we're impacting gays. Another set of people. You choose Christians who discriminate. I choose Christian's who don't discriminate + gays.

You are completely disingenuous to continue to compare the civil rights movement with gay rights! True Christians never stood against black/mixed race people getting married. Your country has a severely chequered period of its history where persecution against blacks continued despite slavery being abolished. This did not happen in the UK due to Christians such as Granville Sharp fighting for tolerance and equality for black people.

Homosexuals are another group of people but that are defined by a sexual practise that they have CHOSEN to partake in! If they feel the state is not rewarding their chosen sexual activity then are free to try a different one or abstain from sex all together. What they are not entitled to do is nudge the liberal brigade into attempting to redefine marriage so a few of them can have a white wedding and legally call it a marriage ceremony rather than calling it a marriage anyway but knowing full well that it isn't. Let's be honest even if the legal definition of marriage was redefined, we'd all know that same-sex marriage was just a sham and not reflective of the special union one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We all have an in-built conscience and I don't think anyone will be able to completely rid themselves of the nagging thought that this was a sick social experiment gone wrong and a failed attempt to get an ailing Tory party elected for a second term.

And for the record, there is no such thing as Christians who support redefining marriage. There are false churches and people that pander to David Cameron and attempt to please everyone by foolishly believing they are showing love to homosexuals by allowing marriage to be destroyed to pander to a small minority within the gay community who want 'marriage' in name. By doing so these backslidden churches completely reject the teachings of the Bible, hurt the homosexuals they should be counselling and attempt to spread disunity amongst Christians who are valiantly defending marriage.

Last edited by BigD on 16-Jan-2013 at 12:09 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

You are completely disingenuous to continue to compare the civil rights move ment with gay rights

Discrimination is ugly in all it's forms!

"True Christians" is just an ugly version of the 'No True Scotman' fallacy.

Glad to hear the UK didn't discriminate against blacks. But you do indeed have your own checkered past of discrimination against minorities and undesireables. Anti-Jew in the 1500s for example. And the need to pass the Race Relations act in 1965 illustrates this well.

Homosexuality is more than a sexual mechanical act. Your characterization of it exemplifies your degrading opinion of your fellow man.

And to end on another 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. If you read the Bible you should understand that God is the judge at the end of days. Not you, It's up to your God to judge a true Christian or not. To allow them into heaven, or not. Do you realize that Jesus said gays can get into heaven too? In fact I quoted the book, chapter, verse, and text here. Sure that ex-Saul called Paul disagreed but never met Christ.

@BigD

The reason why I asked you previously why you don't still discriminate against women is very simple.

Society has changed. Today in Western Europe, we don't consider women to be second class citizens anymore. It's clear that you agree with society since you let your personal property, a woman, your wife, work.

Society no longer thinks that gays are second class citizens today in the West now either. That is why we no longer murder gay people.

We did in the past. It still happens in part of the world not as progressive as us, but in this part of the world where society has realised how wrong it was in the past to have slaves and to consider women to be property, our society now considers gay people to be normal and to have the same rights and protections as the rest of us.

How sad that you still hang on to the past.

That you don't murder your wife because she leaves the house without a male family member with her at all times, PROVES you no longer follow the Bible as it is written. So why do you still persecute homosexuals?

The highest court has now confirmed what we have known all along. Gay people should be treated the same as anyone else. To not treat gay people the same is discrimination. YOU are discriminating.

So please tell us why?

You previously held the European Courts in high regard. You were keen to point out how they would correct our views. Instead, they corrected yours.

Why can you not accept their ruling?

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

You previously held the European Courts in high regard. You were keen to point out how they would correct our views. Instead, they corrected yours.

Two out of 5 judges voted to overthrow the UK court's ruling. This was hardly a cut and dried verdict and common sense would dictate that Lillian should have been accommodated as there was enough staff to cover the civil partnership ceremonies.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

No common sense says that they should do the job that they are paid to do. I would love to not deal with all the drunk, bigoted, loudmouth dregs that come through the hospital and leave it to my colleagues. However I can't because it's not fair on my colleagues, I am paid to do my job, I cannot discriminate and my internal conscience tells me it's the right thing to do because of the above mentioned reasons. People like yourself think that because you consider yourself "true Christians" it gives you some form of immunity from working laws and practices and also the ability to discriminate at will because your so called "conscience" says otherwise. That's what annoys me. All it boils down to is someone cherry picking what jobs they want to do and using religion as a scapegoat.

Just like you using every argument you have thrown at us as some weak form of validity for your own prejudices.

So there will be no nagging feeling in my conscience as mine is clean.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

I noticed you never answered my main question.

"That you don't murder your wife because she leaves the house without a male family member with her at all times, PROVES you no longer follow the Bible as it is written. So why do you still persecute homosexuals?"

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

He better not allow his woman to talk in church (I Corn. 14:34, I Tim. 2:11 * 2:12, 1 Pet. 3:1) or attend without a covered head (I Corn. 11:5)

@BigD

Quote:

Homosexuals are another group of people but that are defined by a sexual practise that they have CHOSEN to partake in! If they feel the state is not rewarding their chosen sexual activity then are free to try a different one or abstain from sex all together.

Yes indeed, and Jews are another group of people but that are defined by a religious practise that they have CHOSEN to partake in! If they feel the state is not rewarding their chosen religious activity then are free to try a different one or abstain from faith all together. By changing a few words of your statement, I have re-created the "justification" for two thousand years of persecution of a minority group that includes the extermination of approximately six million by christians acting on the orders of a christian.

Quote:

This did not happen in the UK due to Christians such as Granville Sharp fighting for tolerance and equality for black people.

Yes, we all know how you love to cite Sharp as a model christian, however when he died the vicar would not allow a funeral sermon to be preached in the church because Sharp had been involved with the British and Foreign Bible Society, which was Nonconformist. The fact that Sharp stood for racial equality was what set him apart from the mainstream of christianity.

Quote:

What they are not entitled to do is nudge the liberal brigade into attempting to redefine marriage

Any minority group who can demonstrate that they are the victims of prejudice and discrimination are absolutely entitled to seek to end their second class status, and if you were the kind of christian Granville Sharpe was you would be fully supporting the proposed changes in law, but it is clearly easier to cite Sharpe than it is to emulate him. Instead you cry that by ending your own privileges the reast of the world is somehow discriminating against you, just because it no longer discriminates in your favour.

Quote:

And for the record, there is no such thing as Christians who support redefining marriage

The only way that you could accurately and justifiably make this claim would be if you were two thousand years old and called jesus christ. Other than that it is not for you to decide who is or is not a christian. It was people like you who declared Granville Sharpe to be "no true christian"

Quote:

attempt to spread disunity amongst Christians who are valiantly defending marriage.

This is one hell of a claim considering that I had to defend the sanctity of my marriage from a christian.

Quote:

This was hardly a cut and dried verdict and common sense would dictate that Lillian should have been accommodated as there was enough staff to cover the civil partnership ceremonies.

So having established that one opinionated woman can overthrow the democratic decisions of parliament and refuse to carry out her duties for homosexuals, do we then permit her to refuse to carry out marriages for people of mixed religion because it contradicts her religious prejudices. In your dishonest claims that there was no threat to my marriage from christians, you repeated the prejudice that only christians can have a "true marriage" and cited a justification for refusing to perform marriages between christians and non christians. Once you have established the principle that Ladele gets to pick and choose what parts of her job she does, you have set up a privileged status for bigoted skivers to get paid for doing nothing.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @BigD I noticed you never answered my main question.

BigD avoiding the tough questions, I'm not surprised.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

If SpaceDruid sticks to the subject of this thread I'll answer him. If he continues to misquote, ridicule and try and pretend he cares what the Bible says I'll happily ignore him and get the thread back on topic. At no point can he justify that statement that I treat women as second class citizens. I see no reason to have a stupidly non-informed religious discussion with him when he thinks that Hitler was raised as a Catholic and hence automatically a Christian . There's no starting point there, he's delusional if he believes that. He said he'd butt out of this thread and he should have stuck to his word because he seems to think he no longer needs to debate a change to the definition of marriage despite it being a very controversial issue that in no way commands an automatic pass through parliament.

SpaceDriod Quote:
Quote:

Only you tried that already and it failed miserably. Stalin? He might have been an atheist, but he also had a moustache. So did the Catholic Hitler. Perhaps facial hair is the cause of evil? But didn't Jesus have a beard?

Pointless. Why answer such mad directionless statements.

He should take a leaf out of Liam Fox's book and see sense;

The Telegraph: Cameron's plans are 'divisive' and 'ill-thought through', says Liam Fox

Quote:

“The principle of altering the accepted legal status of the majority of the population in order to satisfy what appears to be a very small, if vocal, minority is not a good basis on which to build a tolerant and stable society and should be enough reason in itself to think twice about changing the law.”

Last edited by BigD on 17-Jan-2013 at 12:06 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 16-Jan-2013 at 11:47 PM.
Last edited by BigD on 16-Jan-2013 at 11:43 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@fairlanefastback

I should probably point out (To save you reading the thousands of posts D has made) that any Christian that D doesn't agree with isn't a "true Christian", which we are to deduce also means the Pope.

Also he refuses to accept the overriding evidence that Hitler was a Catholic despite all evidence to the contrary, because it interferes with his attempt to claim that atheists are immoral murders (Stalin and Pol Pot are also used in his argument).

Given he doesn't think Catholics are Christian anyway, why would Hitler being one matter?


@BigD

You've got an invisible friend that tells you to do stuff. Oh yes, I'm the delusional one.

The subject of this thread is government expenditure. You've run this thread to thousands of posts discussing everything but.

Quote:

At no point can he justify that statement that I treat women as second class citizens.

You really do have very poor reading comprehension don't you? It's the Bible that's telling you to treat women as second class citizens, not me. I'm pointing out that you are not following the Bible's instructions regarding the treatment of women. Despite it repeating this many times.

But you have decided to follow the Bibles instructions regarding gay people, despite it only being mentioned once (and then later contradicted by Jesus).

All I am doing and have been for some time now, is asking you why you have chosen to follow some parts of the Bible, but not others. It's not a difficult question to answer, unless it's something you haven't actually thought about.

The fact that you have either failed to address this perfectly reasonable question, or avoid it like you have tried to do yet again, would indicate that you don't actually have a valid reason and your choice to do so is simple prejudice and nothing whatsoever to do with your religion.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

You don't give two hoots about the Bible's teachings so leave the interpretation of a book I care about and have taken the time to prayerfully read to me rather than continue to attempt to interpret it yourself. There are plenty of reasons why marriage should be protected without discussing the unrelated topics of the role of women in the church or head coverings

If you do want to seriously read the Bible then I suggest you read the Gospel of Mark which is the shortest Gospel and should give you a good introduction to the teachings of the Bible.

As previously stated not ALL Catholics are Christians, Hitler being one person in that category. Stating "I'm Catholic", most of time seems to denote someone who considers themselves as culturally of a Catholic persuasion rather than a follower of Jesus and someone that lives by the teachings of the Bible which denotes a 'Christian'. Surely you can see the difference? By the same measure not everyone that ticks 'Christian' on a census form has made a commitment to live their life for Christ and to follow the teachings of the Bible. The Quakers and United Reformed Church are more keen to please the liberals and the minority within the homosexual community that want to get 'married' rather than God; case in point.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

I've read the entire Bible (King James Version) three times.

And you still haven't answered why YOU are selective with parts that you follow and parts that you don't. It simple enough a question, why don't you answer it?

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 17-Jan-2013 at 01:18 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

I don't accept your statement that I'm selective. Of course the Bible must be interpreted depending on the context of the passage, the setting and whether it's written as a history or parable etc. Paul is quite clear in his teachings about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. He was an Apostle on par with Jesus' original Apostles and his teachings are the inspired words of God. Maybe you should buy a walk through the scriptures book to help you to study it more effectively if you are interested. If not why don't you get back to the thread!

Give me a good reason why marriage should be redefined? Homosexuals have Civil Partnerships and seem quite happy with that option, the register offices has seen a lukewarm take up and there is no good reason to think the take up of same-sex marriage would be any higher among the homosexual community. This seems more about liberals wanted a social experiment than any real-world desire for homosexuals to 'own' the word marriage. The BBC and liberal mouthpieces the world over call civil partnerships 'marriages' anyway so for the sake of a big gay ceremony, civil partnerships serve the UK's practising homosexuals just fine.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

I don't accept your statement that I'm selective. Of course the Bible must be interpreted depending on the context of the passage, the setting and whether it's written as a history or parable etc. Paul is quite clear in his teachings about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

The exact same book talks in the exact same way that women should be quiet in church. Yes you are clearly selective.

Quote:

Give me a good reason why marriage should be redefined?

Our societies have continued to expand marriage rights to those denied that right. Evidence from other US States and nation shows more positive happiness impact than negative impacts.

@BigD

Quote:

I don't accept your statement that I'm selective.

Does your wife only leave the house dressed like this?


If not, then both of you have selected to ignore the part about how women must dress when outside.

You post frequently on Sundays, so you've selectively chosen not to follow the rules regarding that day's specialness.

If the Bible is a true account of your Gods instructions, then what gives you the right to decide what parts to ignore and which to follow?

I'm not picking on you here, these choices on what rules to follow are decided by religious society and have changed over the centuries. Now you don't have slaves and allow your partner to work. Thats wasn't a choice you made yourself, that was the message your 20th/21st century church gave you when you were learning.

Religion hasn't stood still over the last 2000 years. It's continuously evolved as society has changed. Your wife working is a direct result of the Suffragettes changing Western society's views on the role of women in the late 19th and early 20th century.

In their day, they were subject to the same objections and challenges from both the establishment and churches that gay people have faced in more recent times. A battle for equality that is still being fought to this day as the recent farce over women priests shows (and the inequality between wages for both sexes).

In your particular case, you don't object to your wife working or leaving the house unsupervised, but other Christians do. In the same parts of the world where Christians were recently burning to death gays and Muslims, the woman are still regarded as second class citizens because they never had the Suffragette movement. Womens equality in the West is directly related to events that took place in the West and Christianity in the West is different than Christianity in Africa because of this.

It's the same book being read in both continents and as far as I'm aware, Jesus hasn't come back with new instructions for mankind, so the only conclusion anyone can draw from this is that the Christians in the West have been selective in what parts of the Bible are relevant to todays society.

That selection has come about because society has changed. It's changed regarding the status of women and it's changed regarding the status of homosexuals. But most importantly of all and the thing that you have just kept ignoring through this entire thread, it's changed regarding the status of marriage.

So to answer your question
Quote:

Give me a good reason why marriage should be redefined?

Because it's the right thing to do.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

You have not decided to debate my point that the Bible needs careful study to understand the context and meaning of some passages. The teachings on marriage and homosexuality however seem quite clear;

Genesis 2:24 (New International Version)
Quote:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Seems pretty clear what the definition should be right there!

Quote:

Because it's the right thing to do.

You've yet to demonstrate how that is the case beyond the fact you think that homosexuals can form life long unions on par with marriage, with science providing the tools to allow them to reproduce with 'Frankenstein-type' methods of conception such as three-parent embryos, IVF and surrogate mothers for gay men etc. Civil partnerships fit the bill in providing public acknowledgment of same-sex unions without the simply inaccurate assumption that they are exactly the same as marriage apart from the legal rights granted. Common sense. This isn't a new American civil rights movement scenario, it is a group of misinformed liberals attempted to redefine and destroy marriage!

Last edited by BigD on 17-Jan-2013 at 07:50 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Thread

Lillian Ladele's case is further evidence that the Government's protections for churches (quadruple or otherwise) are not worth the paper they are to be written on;

Daily Mail editorial;
Quote:

“how depressingly predictable that the court found the rights of a sexual minority trumped those of Christians. “Indeed, these rulings add great weight to this week’s warning that once gay marriage becomes law, churches may be sued if they refuse to embrace it.”

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

if you need help you can read the link below

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

@BigD

While the Bible may define marriage for you in your way you cannot disagree that other disagree with your reading. (yeah you don't consider them to be Christians but again your Bible doesn't give you the ability to be their judge.)And many others the Bible has no influence, some no books do and some have their own book of beliefs. Do note the government is under no obligation to follow your version of your God.

Quote:

Lillian Ladele's case is further evidence that the Government's protections for churches (quadruple or otherwise) are not worth the paper they are to be written on;

With viewing your Christian background I could see why you might be worried that non-Christians return the favor and torture and kill your faith as your faith has done to others. However, I would add there's nothing apparent on the horizon that is driving that fear. Most atheists I know don't care about your prattle. They just want you all to stop forcing your beliefs on those that don't agree with you,

And that is the case of gay marriage! Allowing gay marriage ensures your faith is not enforced. Instead it allows the person to make that decision. If some chick wants to marry another chick so be it. It's their beliefs in action. There is no requirement they must follow your beliefs. You can still be married to the opposite sex. Nothing here changes that.