Eh. I was ranting about lousy scholarship and not gay marriage for a reason. ;) But since you asked other questions, I'll answer.
I can't say that despite my faith in the Bible, that I entirely have come to peace with or approve of slaughtering enemy tribes. To a point I understand: Look at the Palestine and Israel situation. But I don't think I could do it, even if I was ordered by God specifically.
Why are we formulating secular law, based on a book used only by a certain amount of the population ?Despite my Christianity, that's something I'm not entirely sure I want. In theory, it could be awesome. In practice, we have Saudi Arabia. I don't really wish to become the Western version, as devoutly as I believe the Bible. As you noted, there's also that whole 'secular' concept. For me, it's been a complex issue. Whether it -should- be being argued/voted on, people do and it becomes a matter of voting or not for an amendent/law. At that point it's a personal choice and no longer fully or mostly a debate what about what -should- define
( ... )
runequester: I was going to reply, but found I didn't have a lot to add. I don't feel I can necessarily vote for gay marriage, but I find it.. idiotic that we can argue that only the scary gay people should be penalized for not living according to the Bible re: benefits, social security, taxes and so on. I can't justify that and definitely believe that benefits need to be federalized. At the end of the day, making someone destitute or denying them healthcare isn't 'christian' either and definitely doesn't bring them to God.
"Why do we extend government protection to equal rights to groups that want to take that right away from other citizens ?
So KKK members and some PETA members should no longer have equal rights or civil protections? I'm not sure how you defeat the 'enemy' by becoming them. If someone else is an asshole, my being an asshole doesn't usually change them or hasn't yet anyway."
I'm not necessarily jumping into this debate because runequester made a lot of points I agree with, but I think the assumed answer to that question is that no group or person should be allowed to alienate the rights of another.
I seriously doubt anybody thinks that because there is no gay marriage, nobody should be allowed to be married - nobody's saying 'THEN TAKE AWAY ALL RIGHTS', they're trying to make you understand for just one second what it would be like to be the group with your rights threatened or nonexistant. what if you had no religious freedom? what if you couldn't get married because you like men, and God only advocated it for people of the same gender? That's just an attempt for the people protesting so hard to stop and think for two seconds what they're trying to put someone else through. It's often the opposite - because straight people can abuse the shit out of marriage (and many barely even understand the religious background TO marriage), why are gay people held under the microscope? It's like they're saying, AS LONG AS IT IS A PENIS AND VAGINA (neither of which were..earned by the carrier) THEN THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND HAVE ALL THESE BENEFITS BECAUSE CLEARLY GOD SEES THEM AS MORE DESERVING THAN TWO VAGINAS/TWO PENISES
( ... )
I told you this on aim, but I will clarify here. I do get the example and what it was supposed to say. I am also used to a good many people (christian and non), that are thrilled to become the enemy. The evil atheists are presecuting you? Civil suits, letters of complaint, fight the power!!! Atheists: There's a trace of religion, we must beat it to death with clubs! ACLU: We will defend people, but selectively and you can desecrate unpopular religions with crosses dipped in urine as art, but Lord forbid you be homophobic or racist!! Those people -exist- and they are why, when I hear things like that, I go 'ieeeee'. Hate doesn't conquer hate
( ... )
Reply
I can't say that despite my faith in the Bible, that I entirely have come to peace with or approve of slaughtering enemy tribes. To a point I understand: Look at the Palestine and Israel situation. But I don't think I could do it, even if I was ordered by God specifically.
Why are we formulating secular law, based on a book used only by a certain amount of the population ?Despite my Christianity, that's something I'm not entirely sure I want. In theory, it could be awesome. In practice, we have Saudi Arabia. I don't really wish to become the Western version, as devoutly as I believe the Bible. As you noted, there's also that whole 'secular' concept. For me, it's been a complex issue. Whether it -should- be being argued/voted on, people do and it becomes a matter of voting or not for an amendent/law. At that point it's a personal choice and no longer fully or mostly a debate what about what -should- define ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
So KKK members and some PETA members should no longer have equal rights or civil protections? I'm not sure how you defeat the 'enemy' by becoming them. If someone else is an asshole, my being an asshole doesn't usually change them or hasn't yet anyway."
I'm not necessarily jumping into this debate because runequester made a lot of points I agree with, but I think the assumed answer to that question is that no group or person should be allowed to alienate the rights of another.
Reply
Reply
Besides, I don't think denying things like healthcare or the right to visit dying loved ones brings them to God either.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment