YouTube account canceled

[TMF]

Pansies. I get it :rofl:

I knew that you would.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I respect your argument as you are the first person who has said if they are all consenting adults polygamists should get the same rights as gays.

 

As far as comparing the decent, Christian people of the south to the middle east. I don't know about everyone else, but I personally find that very offensive. You don't think the confederate flag should be banned from public display do you?

No, I don't think the Confederate flag should be banned, although I do think that most of the people who fly that flag and try to say there is no reference to race implied is either being disingenuous or blatantly dishonest.  I do find it curious as to where you came up with that question in this discussion.

However, speaking to my comparison, I will stand by it with one clarification.  I am not suggesting that the majority of Christians in this region actually propose to establish a theocracy or would kill people to enforce it.  However, much like the extremists in that culture, they are completely intolerant of lifestyles or beliefs that are not the same as theirs.  In the past five years I have lived in Tennessee, I have seen multiple incidents where people propose to limit the personal liberty of others under the banner of Christianity.  That is the comparison I was making.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I don't know that I would call them a Church as the bible is pretty clear on gay marriage. Its also clear about adding or tacking things away

The Bible is also "pretty clear" on all sorts of behaviors that their parishioners partake in, yet you don't suggest that their denomination is not legitimate.  This is the point of my comparison that you took offense to.  I am an Episcopalian who attends church with gay and lesbian couples and know of one member of the church staff that is gay.  I was raised a Southern Baptist, spent quite a bit of time in a Christian Missionary Alliance church and a Lutheran church, attended a small rural non-denominational Christian church for a while, went to a Nazarene church a couple of times, and explored the Catholic church.   I find my current Episcopal church to be one of the most genuine and Christian-like out of all of the churches I have attended in my life.  

Many Biblical scholars would point out that your interpretation of what the Bible does say about homosexuality is inaccurate.  Here is one such scholar who spoke at my church several months ago.  Dr. Rev. Rebecca Wright is a Methodist minister and a professor at Suwannee, so I give her argument some serious weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR6ZzhYHS6s

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR6ZzhYHS6s

Edited July 2, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[TMF]

No, I don't think the Confederate flag should be banned, although I do think that most of the people who fly that flag and try to say there is no reference to race implied is either being disingenuous or blatantly dishonest.

That is a very general statement. I know of folks with confederate tattoos that voted for Obama and support gay marriage. I don't fly the Confederate flag, but if I suddenly decided to I don't think it would make me a racist. It isn't a qualifier in my book. Honestly, I don't think a swastika is either. Racism exists in intent. Usually that is pretty easy to determine.

[daddyo]

I found this article today and thought it was relevant to the discussion. I think the writer makes some good points.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gay-marriage-fight-now-becomes-a-religious-liberty-fight/article/2532529

[East_TN_Patriot]

That is a very general statement. I know of folks with confederate tattoos that voted for Obama and support gay marriage. I don't fly the Confederate flag, but if I suddenly decided to I don't think it would make me a racist. It isn't a qualifier in my book. Honestly, I don't think a swastika is either. Racism exists in intent. Usually that is pretty easy to determine.

Allow me to clarify.  People, in my experience tend to fit into three groups: 1) People who are very well aware of the racial connotations of the Confederate battle flag and display it specifically for that reason while lying about it, 2) People who are actually ignorant of the reason why some would be offended by the display of the flag due to the history of racism that is associated with it, 3) those who are displaying it for the purpose of "southern heritage" and try to act as if the racial issues in the Confederacy aren't really a big deal, pretend as if they are not important, or that people should "get over it".  Frankly, to me it would be like German people flying the Nazi flag trying to say it's about "heritage, not hate" and that Jews should just get over it.   Anyone who claims that slavery was not the primary driving force behind the US Civil War is, again, either ignorant of history, being disingenuous, or being dishonest.  Yes, it was a states' rights argument, but slavery was overwhelmingly the policy that drove the dissension of the Southern states.  Even the declaration of secession by South Carolina that started the Civil War specifically mentioned slavery multiple times as the reason for their exit from the union.  It is the very rare person who really knows the history of the Confederacy.  Rather, they are believers in what has been called the "myth of the lost cause", which is an inaccurate and nostalgic interpretation of the Confederacy and the Civil War. I was one of those people until a few years ago.

Edited July 2, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[East_TN_Patriot]

I found this article today and thought it was relevant to the discussion. I think the writer makes some good points.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gay-marriage-fight-now-becomes-a-religious-liberty-fight/article/2532529

I do think that religious organizations should generally be able to decide whether they want to do same-sex ceremonies or not, but I would say again that the views of these same churches should not be the deciding factor whether legal privileges are given to same-sex couples or not.  

As far as private businesses denying services to same-sex couples, I can understand why a private business owner would like to be able to pick-and-choose their clients, but the law does not allow business to discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics like race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc.  I would compare it to businesses who refuse to provide services to gun owners by prohibiting concealed carry.  

Edited July 2, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[daddyo]

Allow me to clarify.  People, in my experience tend to fit into three groups: 1) People who are very well aware of the racial connotations of the Confederate battle flag and display it specifically for that reason while lying about it, 2) People who are actually ignorant of the reason why some would be offended by the display of the flag due to the history of racism that is associated with it, 3) those who are displaying it for the purpose of "southern heritage" and try to act as if the racial issues in the Confederacy aren't really a big deal, pretend as if they are not important, or that people should "get over it".  Frankly, to me it would be like German people flying the Nazi flag trying to say it's about "heritage, not hate" and that Jews should just get over it.   Anyone who claims that slavery was not the primary driving force behind the US Civil War is, again, either ignorant of history, being disingenuous, or being dishonest.  Yes, it was a states' rights argument, but slavery was overwhelmingly the policy that drove the dissension of the Southern states.  Even the declaration of secession by South Carolina that started the Civil War specifically mentioned slavery multiple times as the reason for their exit from the union.  

 

You do know that there was slavery in the North, too, right?

[TrickyNicky]

Nynick82, dude, his comment was because you quoted somebody, but added zero content.
 
And you just did it again.
 
Maybe you think quoting is "liking" or something?
 
- OS

 


I thought he was making a reference to my extremely profound question about smilies? Two Nicky's? Just what the world needs... ;)


 

I don't know that I would call them a Church as the bible is pretty clear on gay marriage. Its also clear about adding or tacking things away

Ok, really hope this works... :rofl:

This has got to be the most obtuse statement yet in a thread awash in ignorance. Are you really stating that because its not your church that its no church at all?


We really need to get Saur Craut involved in these convos, right now its a total sausage fest in here and it's starting to feel a little homo. Just sayin.

[Chadastrophic]

I've seen various denominations of churches that cater to gay folks. So those churches can't hold gay marriages?


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

I don't know that I would call them a Church as the bible is pretty clear on gay marriage. Its also clear about adding or tacking things away

If that's the case why are there so many different religions? Some based off the same bible with different interpretations?

Hope you picked the right one, Lol.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[Rowdy]

Well that was sunshiny.

More like the cold, hard truth.

[TMF]

Allow me to clarify.  People, in my experience tend to fit into three groups: 1) People who are very well aware of the racial connotations of the Confederate battle flag and display it specifically for that reason while lying about it, 2) People who are actually ignorant of the reason why some would be offended by the display of the flag due to the history of racism that is associated with it, 3) those who are displaying it for the purpose of "southern heritage" and try to act as if the racial issues in the Confederacy aren't really a big deal, pretend as if they are not important, or that people should "get over it".  Frankly, to me it would be like German people flying the Nazi flag trying to say it's about "heritage, not hate" and that Jews should just get over it.   Anyone who claims that slavery was not the primary driving force behind the US Civil War is, again, either ignorant of history, being disingenuous, or being dishonest.  Yes, it was a states' rights argument, but slavery was overwhelmingly the policy that drove the dissension of the Southern states.  Even the declaration of secession by South Carolina that started the Civil War specifically mentioned slavery multiple times as the reason for their exit from the union.  It is the very rare person who really knows the history of the Confederacy.  Rather, they are believers in what has been called the "myth of the lost cause", which is an inaccurate and nostalgic interpretation of the Confederacy and the Civil War. I was one of those people until a few years ago.

 

I don't agree.  That is like saying that the Revolution was fought over simply taxes.  Sure, that was a driving force, but it was really about being subjected to tyranny.  Nobody likes to have a finger pointed into their chest and told, "because I'm going to MAKE you do this." 

 

I was ready to revolt over Bloomberg's soda ban, and I don't even drink soda or live in New York.  I just don't like the idea of someone who is a thousand miles away and doesn't represent me trying to tell me what to do, even if my actions are wrong.  Let that be decided by my leadership.

 

There is no question that slavery was evil.  I don't think that automatically makes anyone associated with the Confederacy evil though.  Just like I don't think everyone who sported a swastika in WW2 was evil.  Over a dozen of my ancestors fought on the side of the Confederacy.  I don't believe they did because they cared about some rich ahole and his slaves.  Our family never owned slaves.  Many of my family members fly the Stars and Bars in their front yard.  I don't necessarily agree with it for different reasons than you, but I can tell you it isn't because they are racists and it isn't because they're ignorant.

Edited July 2, 2013 by TMF

[TMF]

Geez, we've effectively hijacked this thing ETP.  Let's get back to tackling this queer problem.

[mikegideon]

Geez, we've effectively hijacked this thing ETP.  Let's get back to tackling this queer problem.

 

They're everywhere, I tell ya. :)

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Just gotta throw my 2 cents in on the Confederate flag. Show me one flag that doesn't have some race or religious views tied to slavery. Just look at the Union Jack, a young flag, in the UK has about 30 years of slavery tied to it. Even the American flag is linked to slavery. Just because we got rid of slavery doesn't mean the history of slavery under the US flag is gone.

I for one fall into another category of people who fly the Confederate flag. Yes I know slavery and race were a big part of it but I just don't care that you are offended by it. 1st Amendment baby. I fly it because my family, both sides, were in the south during the Civil War and it is therefor part of my family history. It doesn't mean that I am personally a true racist or that I currently support the views they did. I also don't fault the people who fly the Nazi flag as long they aren't openly racist. It is just a part of their family history.

Now back to the main topic, I have been following this thread and have yet to see one argument beyond religion as to why gays should not be allowed to marry or have the same rights. If we are going to run the country based off religion why not use Muslim, Hindi or Buddhism? Answer: Because the church should stay the **** out of politics. Separation of church and state should be both ways. I don't find it difficult to separate my personal and religious views from how my country should be run, why do so many?

[Murgatroy]

I agree with a portion of this thread and am ashamed by a different portion of this thread.

 

The most shocking thing for me though was discovering that my wife and I's marriage is of no account, as we weren't married in a Church. The horror of finding out that our marriage is a sham and should in fact be called a Civil Union is something that I am not sure how to face. I am worried I have to wake her right now to discuss this...

 

 

 

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Really? Are we twelve?

 

My brother is gay. I don't much care for him. My brother is a lazy good for nothing bastard that prefers to sit around and do drugs and bitch than to get up off of his ass and try to do something about his poor situation in the world.

 

Do I hate him because he likes to put his penis in other men's butts?

 

No. I hate him because he is a worthless drain on society.

 

 

 

I have a close friend who is gay. He spent his whole life in shame and hiding, battling a severe alcohol addiction stemming from the shame. He came from a good home, was never molested, had two parents who loved him. He is like me. He is honest, a damn hard worker and one of the finest friends ANYONE could have. I think he has every right to be as happy, or as miserable as me and my wife, I mean Civil Partner.

 

 

 

Marriages existed before Christianity. The religion argument is null.

 

I am a Mormon that sells Dr. Pepper. That is a pretty big sin of it's own right there in my group. The hell with the smoking or premarital sex.

 

However, I think that every man, woman and child in this great country of ours is entitled to the EXACT same rights.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Murgatroy

[East_TN_Patriot]

 

I don't agree.  That is like saying that the Revolution was fought over simply taxes.  Sure, that was a driving force, but it was really about being subjected to tyranny.  Nobody likes to have a finger pointed into their chest and told, "because I'm going to MAKE you do this." 

 

I was ready to revolt over Bloomberg's soda ban, and I don't even drink soda or live in New York.  I just don't like the idea of someone who is a thousand miles away and doesn't represent me trying to tell me what to do, even if my actions are wrong.  Let that be decided by my leadership.

 

There is no question that slavery was evil.  I don't think that automatically makes anyone associated with the Confederacy evil though.  Just like I don't think everyone who sported a swastika in WW2 was evil.  Over a dozen of my ancestors fought on the side of the Confederacy.  I don't believe they did because they cared about some rich ahole and his slaves.  Our family never owned slaves.  Many of my family members fly the Stars and Bars in their front yard.  I don't necessarily agree with it for different reasons than you, but I can tell you it isn't because they are racists and it isn't because they're ignorant.

There is simply no comparison between slavery and Bloomberg's soda ban and slavery does not deserve any justification whatsoever.    

I never said the people in the South were evil, even if we recognize slavery as evil today.  Historians agree that it's somewhat puzzling why thousands of non-slave holding Southerners decided to take up arms and revolt over the issue of slavery.  This is where the issue of states' rights enters the picture.  With that said, slavery was THE dominant issue in the decades leading up to the Civil War.  History is clear on this.  It dominated politics and social discourse, was the focus of many federal policies, and resulted in the beating of abolitionist Charles Sumner by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks in a debate over slavery.  The nation was divided politically and symbolically by the Missouri Compromise line dividing slave states and free states.  The debate was revisited every time a new state was admitted into the United States.  The debate was "decided" by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which also dealt with slavery and ultimately led to a small-scale war between pro-slavery and abolitionists in Kansas.  By the outbreak of the war, slavery was a dominant issue in presidential elections.  Economic growth in the South was tied to slavery and many businessmen in northern states that began to seek out sources of raw materials that they traditionally got from the South did so due to their distaste for slavery.  The Dred Scott decision that fueled the abolitionist movement was about slavery.  

I used to buy into the "states' rights" argument for the South, but the simple fact of the matter was that the concept was being used to justify the institution of slavery in the United States.  Essentially, the Southern states claimed that the federal government did not have the authority to outlaw slavery, but that it was a state level decision.  

 

You do know that there was slavery in the North, too, right?

By the time of the Civil War, slavery was a southern institution and was expanding.  Slavery had been made illegal in the northern states.  There were a handful of border states that were officially still part of the Union, but did not abolish slavery.  These states saw people enter the war fighting for the north and the south.  


Bringing this all back to the issue at hand, the same argument applies.  Do the states have the lawful authority to deny specific groups the benefits and protections of the law simply due to an arbitrary characteristic such as sexual orientation (or race as was the case with slavery)?  I say no.  The Constitution says no.  The political philosophy behind the Constitution says no.  

Edited July 2, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest copperhead_1911]

It's also fairly clear on a bunch of other sins practitioners regulary indulge in.

But when you repent them and ask for forgiveness knowing what you did is wrong that is what Christ died for our sins. 

 

According to most of what I know of gays very few think its a sin. SO therefore the logic fails

[Murgatroy]

But when you repent them and ask for forgiveness knowing what you did is wrong that is what Christ died for our sins. 

 

According to most of what I know of gays very few think its a sin. SO therefore the logic fails

And if they aren't religious, why should they repent?

 

If they burn in hell for being wrong, I am sure they will have lots of company that isn't gay.

[56FordGuy]

But when you repent them and ask for forgiveness knowing what you did is wrong that is what Christ died for our sins. 

 

 

But if one repents, then intentionally commits the same sin again, has there truly been any repentance? 

 

Lots of folks 'repent' of their sins every Sunday, only to go play out the same script again Monday through Saturday night. Yet they will be the first to turn out and rail against all the evils of secular society. 

 

There are a growing number of churches that do not believe homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex, not necessarily any physical acts) is a sin. Whether they're right or wrong I can't say, but the fact is they're out there. How does that fit into the equation? 

Edited July 2, 2013 by 56FordGuy

[RichardR]

Corruption is the simple answer, corruption of morality, of faith, of scripture, nothing is infallable, nothing is uncorruptable.

[Nynick81]

Corruption is the simple answer, corruption of morality, of faith, of scripture, nothing is infallable, nothing is uncorruptable.

I agree 100%

[scoutfsu]

Right up there with rampant, overzealous political correctness......religious fundamentalism is going to kill this world.

[Nynick81]

sin is religion based. Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion.

And to me, thats how it should be. The two should have nothing to do with each other. Edited July 2, 2013 by Nynick81

[Jesse]

The only gays i support are hot lesbos.