The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 20

Bingowings said:

I think people should be uncivil when people are using a book they claim is holy to selectively insult, and restrict the freedoms of others when the same book says you shouldn't.

I don't think people should be uncivil, but I think people should disagree with those who hold those views. I know I do (my personal view on that has evolved over time and I used to think differently). As a Catholic, I don't just rely on those books, but also on my own noggin, which is currently in agreement with those books for the most part. As I study those books, I gain further awareness of the truth in them, and find that I agree with them more and more and they make more and more sense when read in context.

Just stop thinking yourself into other people's bedrooms you perv.

 The Catholic Church only requires Catholics to follow its rules. It does fight laws that infringe upon Catholic beliefs, but it isn't because we want to control everyone, but because we have the right to practice our religion.

I think you're a great guy most of the time (on OT.com, that is), but I would appreciate if you would show some respect for my beliefs.

Your beliefs are mostly nice and sometimes evil so if I throw stuff at the evil stuff it's out of respect for the nice stuff.

Why should I respect the bits of your belief system that say I should be stoned to death?

It's evil.

It's not just silly or not for me, it's EVIL and not Christian so when some tit of a boob brings it up in her defense of her batshit crazy world view why should I respect it?

The Christian position on secular law is that the laws of man should be followed as laws of men. Render onto Caesar.

But the laws of God should be applied by the faithful in honour of God.

So if the laws of man say two guys can get married in the city of Rome, that's a law of man.

If the laws of God say two guys can't get married in the Catholic church that's a law of God. Keep it in the church guys.

If you are opening a public hotel and you object to two guys sleeping in the same bed. TUFF.

It's a public house not a church building.

When Christians campaign to stop non-Christians from doing something they don't approve of that's different. They should be stopped. Same goes for those pesky Buddhists too.

Bingowings said:

Your beliefs are mostly nice and sometimes evil so if I throw stuff at the evil stuff it's out of respect for the nice stuff.

I appreciate your relative civility, though your beliefs are a prime example of the impossibility of objective moral truth without a God.

Why should I respect the bits of your belief system that say I should be stoned to death?

That isn't a part of my belief system, and I can't decide if you are really that ignorant of it, or if you are just trying to cause trouble.

It's evil.

It's evil to stone people to death for something they do when one does not live in a theocracy (for which the Mosaic law was designed).

It's not just silly or not for me, it's EVIL and not Christian so when some tit of a boob brings it up in her defense of he batshit crazy world view why should I respect it?

You wrote above that my religion requires me to stone homosexuals to death, and now you are saying it isn't Christian. Which is it? Or are you trying to say something else that I'm not getting?

The Christian position on secular law is that the laws of man should be followed as laws of men. Render onto Caesar.

But the laws of God should be applied by the faithful in honor God.

So if the laws of man say two guys can get married in the city of Rome, that's a law of man.

Personally, I am opposed to gay marriage and adoption of children by gay parents, but I am largely OK with it being legal for them to live together, or whatever. I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

If the laws of God say two guys can't get married in the Catholic church that's a law of God. Keep it in the church guys.

Fair enough.

If you are opening a public hotel and you object to two guys sleeping in the same bed. TUFF.

It's a public house not a church building.

I agree in that circumstance, but there are other times that I think a person should be allowed to object to gay marriage like that man who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. I also think their employer should be allowed to fire them if they do that.

When Christians campaign to stop non-Christians from doing something they don't approve of that's different. They should be stopped. Same goes for those pesky Buddhists too.

 In some circumstances, yes. But I Christians should be allowed to condemn something on a scientific basis, like abortion. I believe abortion is wrong, partly because of my religion, but also largely because the scientific aspect of the issue is in support of the pro-life side.

No you can't have one objective truth without one unquestionable authority this is why everyone should just listen to me ;-D

This has nothing to do with God because even if everyone believed in a God they could still have different ideas about her.

You need one authority that nobody questions... no free will. A dictatorship with no resistance. Sound good?

The rational side to your stance on abortion would be open to evidence and perhaps counter persuasion. The religious side would not until the Pope said otherwise and even then there has been a tradition of decent.

It's evil to stone people to death. EVIL, not evil but...or evil with an excuse but evil.

If God ever said it was right and one time to stone people to death regardless of the reason then God was being evil that day (personally I doubt if God has much of say as to what is and ever was in the Bible).

But... this branch of the discussion came from you saying you agreed with the nutcase in the video.

If you do agree with  I can't respect your beliefs because she is clearly insane and as insane as I can be I want to be my own insane person not someone else's.

Then don't respect my beliefs. I don't want to make an enemy out of you Bingo, because I think you're a funny guy and I enjoy your posts most of the time, so please, let's get along.

:)

With respect I will get along with you just fine as long as you stop comparing my sexuality to horrid things or post your allegiance to other people who compare my sexuality to horrid things.

If you keep doing it I won't just not respect your beliefs I will vocally disrespect them and you until you stop.

My request is that you disrespect my beliefs, but not me. I will do likewise regardless of whether you do so or not, but I'm not going to renounce my beliefs just to make you happy and I don't expect you to do that either.

It's your choice of beliefs and your open declaration of them that causes us to clash.

They are on this subject in opposition to my own and for you to ask me to respect them is like asking a Jew to respect national socialism...a bit silly.

But if you keep your nose out of other people's pants particularly my own we should get along fine.

Your beliefs on Homosexuality stink but you might be nice.

Alright. I just don't want our strong disagreements in this thread and many religion threads carrying over elsewhere, but I think it's fair for you to show your disagreement in the appropriate places.

It's not just fair it's sort of obligatory under certain circumstances.

It's a discussion forum and when people bravely state views which are irrational and prejudicial and rooted in a tradition full of bloodshed and torture, hopefully people do the easy thing and counter them.

If someone were to say darker skinned people in some way were rightfully subjugated and enslaved and point to some ancient text, hopefully it would be seen as the obligation of those who feel otherwise to speak out and some of those people will be dark skinned.

Hopefully some of those will be light skinned.

In this case I feel a bit self serving what with me being in this particular targeted group but I have stood up for groups I haven't belonged to.

Okay ..... with all this recent conversation .... here is something you all should sink your teeth in to ..... you wanna see something really F$%ked up?

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=281146585301561&id=119311564818398

Be prepared ...............................

Not all holes have a prehensile beak.

Bingowings said:

Indeed if you are in a position of holding a view along those lines I would prefer it if you stopped being alive rather than opened your mouth or started typing on the subject.

 hmmmm . . . .   

An easier way of saying that, Bingo, is "I would prefer if you died..."

You know Bingowings about the people who think homosexuality is wrong.    I agree with you.    They are completely nuts and pervs and whatever else you want to say about them. . . in fact . . . . lets burn them!   BURN THE WITCH!!!!!  BURN ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE POPULAR VIEW OF HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!!!!!  

That is basically what happen to the woman that made the video,  she became the victim of a lynch mob.   Did you even bother to read the hateful comments spewed at her?  The wishes of death and rape on her?    I don't agree with everything she said but I don't think she is crazy.  Also, she didn't indicate her feelings towards the law and homosexuality, so to act like she is trying force something on you is wrong. 

Bingo, more and more I find you to be a rude intolerant insensitive jerk.  

RicOlie_2 said:

An easier way of saying that, Bingo, is "I would prefer if you died..."

 or foad.  ; )

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

 I suppose I phrased that badly, but I don't think governments should be involved with marriage any further than recognizing it. Ideally, I think that their should be organizations/businesses who perform marriages/unions akin to funeral homes arranging funerals and memorial services. Of course, if the government decided not to perform civil unions anymore, there would be a problem because such organizations would not be preëxistent. That's how I think it should be, but it is not necessarily a practicable option in our society right now.

Yes I would prefer it if people would die rather than becoming destructively obsessed with the genital friction of consenting adults to the point of political activism. The difference between Warbs FOADs and this is I'm serious.

Such people are too dangerous to live.

Look what they did to world after the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Least I be godwined :

She wasn't the victim of a lynch mob, she was opposed by justifiably angry people.

If she were a victim of a lynch mob the scene would look like this :

Going around saying consenting adults manipulating their genitals in private is akin to murder which is a capital offense in the USA is frankly insane.

Barking evil madness.

Her defense is the same text this lovely Iranian chap uses.

Honestly go away, rethink your life and come back refreshed or just go away.

Bingowings said:

Yes I would prefer it if people would die rather than becoming destructively obsessed with the genital friction of consenting adults to the point of political activism. The difference between Warbs FOADS and this is I'm serious.

Such people are too dangerous to live.

you're a bigot.

Bingowings said:

Look what they did to world after the fall of the Weimar Republic.

there is a HUGE difference between believing what she believes and being a Nazi.   She didn't say we should take homosexuals to a concentration camp and gas them. 

Bingowings said:

She wasn't the victim of a lynch mob, she was opposed by justifiably angry people.

not real lynch mob, but a figurative one.   justifiably angry?   again you need to read the comments shown in the response. 

Bingowings said:

Going around saying consenting adults manipulating their genitals in private is akin to murder which is a capital offense in the USA is frankly insane.

She didn't say that.

Bingowings said:

Barking evil madness.

Her defense is the same text this lovely Iranian chap uses.

Honestly go away, rethink your life and come back refreshed or just go away.

 You are the one that needs to go away.   

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

 I suppose I phrased that badly, but I don't think governments should be involved with marriage any further than recognizing it.

what about recognizing gay marriage?

RicOlie_2 said:

Ideally, I think that their should be organizations/businesses who perform marriages/unions akin to funeral homes arranging funerals and memorial services.

I would assume this would include churches.

Bingowings said:

Yes I would prefer it if people would die rather than becoming destructively obsessed with the genital friction of consenting adults to the point of political activism. The difference between Warbs FOADs and this is I'm serious.

Such people are too dangerous to live.

Look what they did to world after the fall of the Weimar Republic.

Least I be godwined :

She wasn't the victim of a lynch mob, she was opposed by justifiably angry people.

If she were a victim of a lynch mob the scene would look like this :

Going around saying consenting adults manipulating their genitals in private is akin to murder which is a capital offense in the USA is frankly insane.

Barking evil madness.

Her defense is the same text this lovely Iranian chap uses.

Honestly go away, rethink your life and come back refreshed or just go away.

 You realize that you're being hypocritical? You're saying that those who are speaking out against something they believe is wrong should die, but equating that same thing they think is wrong with murder, which is punishable by death in some states (but not of course believing it merits death) is absurd? To state it more clearly: you say we're wrong, we say no, we're not, to which you respond: "You should die for saying that, it's ridiculous."

I don't get the logic Bingowings.

Bingowings said:

is that triangle on their shirts suppose to indicate they are homosexual?

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:I don't think government should be involved in anything to do with marriage at all.

what about civil unions?    There has to be some way for the law to recognize a spouse as next of kin.   

 I suppose I phrased that badly, but I don't think governments should be involved with marriage any further than recognizing it.

what about recognizing gay marriage?

I think in this case gay marriage should be recognized (though don't quote me for it, I change my mind daily and I am undecided on the matter), but I would say it should be up to the organizations to decide whether or not they will marry these people.

RicOlie_2 said:

Ideally, I think that their should be organizations/businesses who perform marriages/unions akin to funeral homes arranging funerals and memorial services.

I would assume this would include churches.

 Yes, marriages in churches would be recognized.