The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 8

RicOlie_2 said:

The gay marriage laws coming into play seem to indicate that we are either no longer in the majority, or at least becoming part of the minority anyway.

 I'm pretty sure there are more Christians than homosexuals.  In the US there are more Christians than all other religions combined.  In the US, you have to at least pretend to be somewhat religious to get elected to most national government positions.

You may be turning into the minority on gay marriage, but religion is far from the minority in most aspects.

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

Well said. 

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The gay marriage laws coming into play seem to indicate that we are either no longer in the majority, or at least becoming part of the minority anyway.

 I'm pretty sure there are more Christians than homosexuals.  In the US there are more Christians than all other religions combined.  In the US, you have to at least pretend to be somewhat religious to get elected to most national government positions.

You may be turning into the minority on gay marriage, but religion is far from the minority in most aspects.

 Those who are against gay marriage seem to becoming the minority. Those who support it or have nothing against it (and this includes a lot of Christians) are becoming or are the majority now.

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

I am aware of that. I was replying to your comments that those who oppose gay marriage et al. are in the majority.

Lol, you might want to re-read what I posted.  You even quoted the part where I said the opposite!

LOL, I guess I'm asleep right now! :)

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

Warbler said:

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

 The Catholic Church accepts non-Catholic marriages for those who aren't members of the Church. If those people were to convert to the Church, they would not be required to remarry. The Catholic Church does not accept divorce as a valid end to marriage, but annulments do happen, but in this case the marriage is considered never to have taken place in the first place since not all the requirements of a valid marriage were met. For example, if something important was concealed from one party that would have otherwise prevented the marriage from taking place, the marriage is not considered valid because it wouldn't have happened if the secret was known beforehand.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 So what?  It's still a first world problem.

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

No, not the bashing of people necessarily, but the bashing of what they do.

Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 I can think of at least one person who got banned from tv because of blasphemy. You can argue I live in a country that culturally is still in the dark ages, and you would be right.

Far fewer people get in trouble over bashing Christianity.

talk disrespectfully about homosexuals and you get fired

would you show disrespect to a black gentleman?

I believe he meant practicing homosexuals. Black men are born black, homosexuals are usually born homosexual, but they choose to engage in sex acts.

talk disrespectfully about Christianity and that is perfectly ok, no big deal.  

so what? you don't lose any of your faith do you? so what's it to you?

 So what? The homosexuals don't become heterosexual, do they? So what's it to you if people criticize their actions?

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 So what?  It's still a first world problem.

 Yeah, I have to agree. Christians (and some others) in the Middle East are getting blown to pieces and we're complaining about people making fun of us!

Warbler said:

But I do think the situation shows what Ender was talking about before:

talk disrespectfully about homosexuals and you get fired

talk disrespectfully about Christianity and that is perfectly ok, no big deal.  

I can't tell you the numbers times I've heard people on tv talk just as bad about Christianity as Robertson did homosexuality and no one had any trouble with it whatsoever.

These days, no-one fears the Christians.  They aren't going to lose money over it.  As for the LGBT community, it seems to be a far different story.  Their PR machine can get pretty nasty and I'm sure they have their own lobbyists who are making fat change representing them.  Everything comes down to money, unfortunately. 

MrBrown said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 Carolin Kebekus' show was censored because of some jokes against catholic chucrch. Also she got sued, for one song, but the judge said, that satire was clearly visible.

 I didn't know this. 

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

for many being Christian, is what they are.  

Leonardo said:

Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 I can think of at least one person who got banned from tv because of blasphemy. You can argue I live in a country that culturally is still in the dark ages, and you would be right.

could you please name this person?  link? 

Leonardo said:

talk disrespectfully about homosexuals and you get fired

would you show disrespect to a black gentleman?

of course not,  I wasn't saying it ok to talk disrespectfully about homosexuals.   Making a comparison not saying it is ok to talk disrespectfully about homosexuals. 

Leonardo said:

talk disrespectfully about Christianity and that is perfectly ok, no big deal.  

so what? you don't lose any of your faith do you? so what's it to you?

 As RicOlie_2 pointed out,  I could easily make the same argument in regards to talking disrespectfully about homosexuality.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 So what?  It's still a first world problem.

 and that makes it ok?

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

 The Catholic Church accepts non-Catholic marriages for those who aren't members of the Church. If those people were to convert to the Church, they would not be required to remarry.

but if they do not convert, their marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church correct?

RicOlie_2 said:

The Catholic Church does not accept divorce as a valid end to marriage, but annulments do happen, but in this case the marriage is considered never to have taken place in the first place since not all the requirements of a valid marriage were met. For example, if something important was concealed from one party that would have otherwise prevented the marriage from taking place, the marriage is not considered valid because it wouldn't have happened if the secret was known beforehand.

 oh,  I know you can do annulments, but I only taking about divorce.    If one were to divorce and then try to marry someone else without getting an annulment, Catholic Priests would refuse to perform such a marriage, yes?    If the couple were then to decide to get married by a judge, the marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church, yes? 

It would be a marriage recognized by the law as law and legit, with all the legals rights and tax stuff that would apply, but it would not be recognized by the church.   Just like a gay marriage if that were to become legal.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

 The Catholic Church accepts non-Catholic marriages for those who aren't members of the Church. If those people were to convert to the Church, they would not be required to remarry.

but if they do not convert, their marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church correct?

No. I mean that the validity of their marriage is still recognized if they convert (EDIT: meaning that it is recognized beforehand).

RicOlie_2 said:

The Catholic Church does not accept divorce as a valid end to marriage, but annulments do happen, but in this case the marriage is considered never to have taken place in the first place since not all the requirements of a valid marriage were met. For example, if something important was concealed from one party that would have otherwise prevented the marriage from taking place, the marriage is not considered valid because it wouldn't have happened if the secret was known beforehand.

 oh,  I know you can do annulments, but I only taking about divorce.    If one were to divorce and then try to marry someone else without getting an annulment, Catholic Priests would refuse to perform such a marriage, yes?    If the couple were then to decide to get married by a judge, the marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church, yes? 

It would be a marriage recognized by the law as law and legit, with all the legals rights and tax stuff that would apply, but it would not be recognized by the church.   Just like a gay marriage if that were to become legal.

 That is correct.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

 The Catholic Church accepts non-Catholic marriages for those who aren't members of the Church. If those people were to convert to the Church, they would not be required to remarry.

but if they do not convert, their marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church correct?

No. I mean that the validity of their marriage is still recognized if they convert. It's still recognized if they don't convert.

I stand corrected on that point then.

RicOlie_2 said:

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

No, not the bashing of people necessarily, but the bashing of what they do.

 Telling someone that what they do is a sin and they are going to hell because of it is considered bashing by most non-religious people.

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 So what?  It's still a first world problem.

 and that makes it ok?

 It's more ok than a lot of other things that go on.  My point is that the "mistreatment" of Christians, at least in this part of the world, is way down at the bottom of the list of our problems IMO.