therefore if a group set up church where gay marriage wasn't believed to be a sin and they wanted to marry homosexuals, they should be allowed to do it and the marriages recognized by the government?
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...
If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.
As I was saying in another thread, my moral compass is dictated by my empathy for other human beings. Her's was obviously dictated by her own selfish interests and a 2000 year old book. Without the book, she might have stopped and thought for even a single fraction of a second of her life about how other people feel and wouldn't have got "emotional whiplash" when she realised that somebody she knew to be a good person from personnal experience belonged to a group she had previously arrogantly and callously labelled as bad.
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.
Oh and I'd argue, the response she got is less about Athiest's intolerance of Christians and more about hatred of women.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
RicOlie_2 said:
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),
this might help you decide:
RicOlie_2 said:
The Catholic Church only requires Catholics to follow its rules.
Warbler said:
therefore if a group set up church where gay marriage wasn't believed to be a sin and they wanted to marry homosexuals, they should be allowed to do it and the marriages recognized by the government?
Theoretically, but then again, I have no fixed opinion on the matter (of the legality of gay marriage). I believe it is wrong, but I don't think everything that is wrong should be illegal. I think other Churches (I assume you mean a Christian Church) should be allowed to criticize that Church and condemn its practice of gay marriages though.
But again, as I said, I am undecided at the moment on whether or not it should be legal or not. I have definitely decided it's wrong, of course, but legality is a whole other issue.
Warbler said:
RicOlie_2 said:
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),
this might help you decide:
RicOlie_2 said:
The Catholic Church only requires Catholics to follow its rules.
Yes, that is what I base my opinion on, but since the Church is often opposed to legalizing it, I'm not sure which stance to take, especially since I don't know enough on the issue.
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...
If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world,
it is only your opinion that it was offensive and ill-thought out. Seriously you guys are acting like she posted a video of her protesting the funeral of a gay person.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it.
then you were overreacting. Basically all she was post that she thought homosexuality was a sin. Millions of Christians believe the same thing.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.
As I was saying in another thread, my moral compass is dictated by my empathy for other human beings. Her's was obviously dictated by her own selfish interests and a 2000 year old book.
that 2000 year old book tells her to love everyone.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Without the book, she might have stopped and thought for even a single fraction of a second of her life about how other people feel and wouldn't have got "emotional whiplash" when she realised that somebody she knew to be a good person from personnal experience belonged to a group she had previously arrogantly and callously labelled as bad.
I fail to see what is so bad about someone perspective of a group, changing because they find out a loved one is a part of said group.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality.
they are?
Ryan McAvoy said:
So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.
Since I do not understand all of it, I can't live it to the letter. In addition, the Bible makes it clear that no human can live it to the letter "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...
If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.
Sure, anger, but reasonable anger and not death threats. People should be able to say stuff like that without having people say she should die or be raped. The issue is not serious enough that those who are against homosexual sex should be killed.
As I was saying in another thread, my moral compass is dictated by my empathy for other human beings. Her's was obviously dictated by her own selfish interests and a 2000 year old book. Without the book, she might have stopped and thought for even a single fraction of a second of her life about how other people feel and wouldn't have got "emotional whiplash" when she realised that somebody she knew to be a good person from personnal experience belonged to a group she had previously arrogantly and callously labelled as bad.
Not everyone experiences empathy or thinks logically, so basing one's moral beliefs on that cannot, and does not, work for everyone.
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.
As I have said before, it has to be read in context. God was giving the rules for a theocracy, and the Israelites had a history of not being able to worship God properly and giving up on their religion in favour of immoral, idolatrous religions. Thus his rules were harsh back then. The New Testament says in many places that the old law is no longer necessary and it doesn't have to be followed to the letter and the old punishments are no longer applicable.
RicOlie_2 said:
I believe it is wrong, but I don't think everything that is wrong should be illegal.
exactly. There is a difference between what is and is not sin and what should and should not be illegal.
RicOlie_2 said:
I think other Churches (I assume you mean a Christian Church) should be allowed to criticize that Church and condemn its practice of gay marriages though.
of course they can criticize and condemn. The first amendment gives people the freedom to criticize and condemn whatever they like. I thank God we have that freedom. If we didn't, I honestly think that if it weren't for the 1st amendment, those that say they believe homosexuality to be a sin would be risking going to jail just for saying it. Just read Bingo's posts if you don't believe me.
Warbler said:
RicOlie_2 said:
I think other Churches (I assume you mean a Christian Church) should be allowed to criticize that Church and condemn its practice of gay marriages though.
of course they can criticize and condemn. The first amendment gives people the freedom to criticize and condemn whatever they like. I thank God we have that freedom. If we didn't, I honestly think that if it weren't for the 1st amendment, those that say they believe homosexuality to be a sin would be risking going to jail just for saying it. Just read Bingo's posts if you don't believe me.
Unfortunately though, we are losing the freedom to speak our minds. There are laws that put limitations on this, and people have gone to jail for things like praying in front of abortion clinics.
what laws are you referring to?
these people that went to jail for praying in front of abortion clinics, did they in any way block entrance to the clinics? Were they praying while standing on property belonging to the clinics and did they refuse a lawful ordering telling them to vacate said property.
You have the right to pray, but not to block entrance to some else's property. You have the right to pray, but if you are standing on someone else's property the owners have a right to tell you to get off their property.
Warbler said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality.
they are?
They were threatening to rape her and other awful things and the Bible says rape isn't much of an issue.
I can't be bothered to trawl through the Bible for all the nonsense it says, so here is just one quote (Remember if one quote is wrong, then they can all be considered wrong).
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
In slightly plainer speak...
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a virgin, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her"
A shekel is something like 25 cents now, so you can rape a virgin for twelve bucks fifty, bargain! (Cheaper than a Blu-Ray) and since she's forced to marry you, you get to keep raping for the rest of your life free of charge.
So like I said, if you support that ^ then fine quote away from the rest of the Bible and I won't object.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
RicOlie_2 said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.
As I have said before, it has to be read in context. God was giving the rules for a theocracy, and the Israelites had a history of not being able to worship God properly and giving up on their religion in favour of immoral, idolatrous religions. Thus his rules were harsh back then. The New Testament says in many places that the old law is no longer necessary and it doesn't have to be followed to the letter and the old punishments are no longer applicable.
Exactly, then let's all decide that the bits condemning gay people are "no longer applicable" and everybody will be happy. Nobody is saying that the Bible hasn't got great things in it too, live and let live.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Warbler said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality.
they are?
They were threatening to rape her and other awful things and the Bible says rape isn't much of an issue.
I can't be bothered to trawl through the Bible for all the nonsense it says, so here is just one quote (Remember if one quote is wrong, then they can all be considered wrong).
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
In slightly plainer speak...
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a virgin, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her"
A shekel is something like 25 cents now, so you can rape a virgin for twelve bucks fifty, bargain! (Cheaper than a Blu-Ray) and since she's forced to marry you, you get to keep raping for the rest of your life free of charge.
So like I said, if you support that ^ then fine quote away from the rest of the Bible and I won't object.
That's reading the Bible out of context. In our culture, that would not be applicable at all.
I am not sure "lay hold on her and lie with her" equals rape. And since, some translations instead of saying "he hath humbled her" say "he violated her" We must therefore conclude that the Bible considers rape a violation.
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Plus arguably the hateful and violent things people posted back are approved by the same passages from the Bible that disapprove of homosexuality. So again don't pick and choose from the bible if you are gonna claim to live it to the letter.
As I have said before, it has to be read in context. God was giving the rules for a theocracy, and the Israelites had a history of not being able to worship God properly and giving up on their religion in favour of immoral, idolatrous religions. Thus his rules were harsh back then. The New Testament says in many places that the old law is no longer necessary and it doesn't have to be followed to the letter and the old punishments are no longer applicable.
Exactly, then let's all decide that the bits condemning gay people are "no longer applicable" and everybody will be happy. Nobody is saying that the Bible hasn't got great things in it too, live and let live.
Everything in the New Testament is still applicable within the context of the culture at the time. Homosexual sex is condemned in both the New and Old Testaments and thus is wrong according the Bible. I don't cherry-pick the Bible, I take it as a whole and read it in context.
If you are going to pick apart the Bible, Ryan, at least make sure you know what you are talking about first.
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
...
Oh and I'd argue, the response she got is less about Athiest's intolerance of Christians and more about hatred of women.
No, it is about those atheists' and agnostics' intolerance of that Christian belief. I don't see how it could be attributed to hatred of women, that's just bizarre. It seems fairly obvious why they were angry at her.
RicOlie_2 said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
...
Oh and I'd argue, the response she got is less about Athiest's intolerance of Christians and more about hatred of women.
No, it is about those atheists' and agnostics' intolerance of that Christian belief. I don't see how it could be attributed to hatred of women, that's just bizarre. It seems fairly obvious why they were angry at her.
The extreme, sexually violent and repellent level of the response is down to it being a young pretty girl saying those things. If you re-read what I said, it says it was "More about" not wholly about.
As you say "It seems fairly obvious why they were angry at her" but the level of response is down to sexism first and foremost. In the same way that Anita Sarkeesian criticised the world of videogames and got a whirlwind of similar offensive and vile threats. That wasn't because the responders to Anita's video were all athiests, it was because they were all male-gamers and massive dickheads to boot.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...
If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.
I'm sure she expected anger, but not that much anger. If the level and type of insult contained in the unfriendly comments are largely due to her being a pretty young woman, how was she supposed to predict that? As far as I can see, that latter statement doesn't agree with the former. Why should she have expected those types of comments? That doesn't make sense.
RicOlie_2 said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
RicOlie_2 said:
Here is my current view on homosexuality and here is the angry response that the person who made the video received and the defense of her and her video.
I find it disgusting how some people treat those who respectfully disagree with homosexual sex. I'm glad people on this forum are more respectful (with a couple exceptions) then the people who gave such negative responses to the first video.
In response to the clip and it's fallout rather than your post...
If she decided to post a video that she knew to be offensive and ill-thought out to the rest of the world, then she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it. Especially the bit where she talks about finding out a "loved one" was gay.
I'm sure she expected anger, but not that much anger. If the level and type of insult contained in the unfriendly comments are largely due to her being a pretty young woman, how was she supposed to predict that? As far as I can see, that latter statement doesn't agree with the former. Why should she have expected those types of comments? That doesn't make sense.
Again if you re-read what I said I made no mention of she should "have expected those types of comments", I merely said she should have expected an angry response. I'm sure she never thought for a second that there were soooo many horrible people out there but she must have realised that feathers would be rustled on some level.
I hate that too many people seem to not see the tipping point between protest and harrasment/abuse. e.g. If you picket somebody's house/place-of-work everyday it's harrasment (For whatever issue) it was only a protest on day one, they heard you the first time.
A few of us SW fans can have a reasonable debate inside this thread, inside this forum, inside this website. But I wouldn't go spouting off on public forums like YouTube and Twitter or whatever to thousands/millions of complete strangers.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
And as I wrote, who's to say she didn't expect an angry response? I'm sure she's smart enough that she did. But the types of comments there and the number of them are probably what caused her to delete her Youtube channel.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Again if you re-read what I said I made no mention of she should "have expected those types of comments", I merely said she should have expected an angry response.
when you "she should have expected an angry response" and fail to make clear that you don't mean those types of comments, will logically assume you do mean that she should expected those types of comments.
Ryan McAvoy said:
I hate that too many people seem to not see the tipping point between protest and harrasment/abuse. e.g.
I agree.
Warbler said:
I am not sure "lay hold on her and lie with her" equals rape. And since, some translations instead of saying "he hath humbled her" say "he violated her" We must therefore conclude that the Bible considers rape a violation.
Yeah, but in Deuteronomy it's treated like a property crime, as is causing a miscarriage.
Warbler said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
Again if you re-read what I said I made no mention of she should "have expected those types of comments", I merely said she should have expected an angry response.
when you "she should have expected an angry response" and fail to make clear that you don't mean those types of comments, will logically assume you do mean that she should expected those types of comments.
Do we have to quibble over every word? The rest of my quote was "she should have expected anger. Personally, I felt my anger rising watching it". Since that sentence didn't make "clear" my own levels of anger did you "logically assume" I myself had also sent her death threats, since there are obviously no inbetween areas between agreeing and all out lunacy??
I just got angry because a lightbulb popped and I had to go to the kitchen to trip the fuse. I was sure to physically threaten the fuse box and call it a whore ;-)
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
I never meant to imply that you sent her any of those messages. sorry.