If you value traditional marriage, people assume you hate gays, and are homophobe. But that is not always the case at all. I find that the LGBT and Liberals are doing an excellent job at demonizing anyone who disagrees with them, and even bullying companies and people to conform to their way of thinking. Is it fair to force someone to agree with you? Can't it be respected that people who practice certain religions can't condone it, but still respect and love gay people?
sort by best latest
No Link, you're incorrect about the polygamy thing. Once again, you're going to reference a book you never read, and only heard about. Are any of your thought your own?
Lol, Loli please see the irony of that.
And it was more of a question on my part, though I'm looking at 3 notable people of the bible who had multiples wives/concubines...
Link, in the New Testament, the new covenant, it is made clear that monogamy is the only way to go. Just because polygamy was practiced in the OT does not make it right with God!
At what point was the Old Testament ever nullified? I don't think I've ever gotten an answer to that question.
It wasn't nullified. But many laws and ways are the old way and the New Testament changed things.
So it wasn't nullified, but some things suddenly don't apply anymore.
Odd. Such as? One example is fine...
You no longer stone people for committing adultery. When some guys wanted to stone a woman, Jesus told them "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone."
And for what reason was that not initially a rule? The need for a new testament to begin with causes a contradiction honestly.
Yeah, and why r only those that people seem 2 agree with the 'carried over' from the OT into the NT but not the ones now frowned upon? stoning is bad now, but gays MUST follow the Lev laws? Who decides what's carried over? Jesus said nil abt homos
Yeah, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence of said speech. I agree.
There are better ways to get that contract, than through marriage. Marriage sb left as a ceremony, but it has no valid contract, that is why the state makes presumptions when it comes time to divorce. A personal partnership contract is bett
Freedom of speech is bad if you are disagreeing with liberals. Then it's hate speech. Then you suffer name calling because it's easier to label people bigots than try to understand them or try to have debate.
Yet, you don't mind calling those who disagree with you names - 'sinners' etc (ignoring yr own). Which makes it difficult to debate. So, if you'd like to debate - I'm more than happy - and note, I've never called u or anyone names for disagreeing.
Everyone is a sinner. That includes me.
In order for people to be sinners, there would have to be a God. Shakespeare said, "There is no right or wrong. Thinking makes it so."
Christians can't be for same sex marriage because then it means they condone it. God says it's an abomination.
But merely disagreeing with it and going about your life rather than fighting laws for equality would still mean you are behaving in s Christian way, and not a bigoted way. Most have no issue of u just disagree.
You don't have to like it, believe in it, or do it. You just can't dictate what OTHER people do. That is where the line is drawn between simply disagreeing and becoming a bigot in my opinion.
Right, but when they bully establishments and make threats against other establishments that work with them, threatening to boycott, that goes over the line and makes them no better than the opposers.
Not giving money (boycotting) to something you don't believe in is a personal choice, Fighting equality is not a personal choice, it's trying to force your beliefs on others. Apples and oranges.
can you provide an example in the news? (Not the bakeries etc - that's actually a different issue). I've very recently seen I think it's Family Council etc demanding a boycott of something because of its positive stance on equality - who's the bully?
Google it, please. You'll find it. I read it a while ago on several sources. Sorry you can't understand that people are being forced to accept something they don't believe in and ostracized if they do.
I'll need a bit more to go on - yr example is very vague
Chik-Fil-A - people demanded it was boycotted beacuse they were against same sex marriage
I feel the cause of the protest stemmed from Chick fil la's active financial support to groups oppressing the LGBT community at the time...
Per Wikipedia anyways.
You might be right, I don't really know, just trying to help
One Million Moms, Family Council, WBC, Family First - calling for boycotts of many LGBT equality supporting companies a number of times. If you wish I can provide a list of LGBT supporting companies if u want to boycott. Google, IBM, HP, Apple, Kraft
Chik Fil-A was definitely boycotted because of the founder's religious views. Bakers and Photography companies do count as businesses. Sweet Cakes By Melissa was a bakery in Oregon that was shut down.
Interracial marriages were frowned upon because of racism. Same sex marriages are viewed as a sin and wrong by others. If people are given the choice to vote, they should vote accordingly to what they believe. No one thinks they are better!
Yet you are placing faith above others rights which is placing one above another. Seperation of church and state - whether it's against yr faith should not enter in2 law. I note how u ignored everything else. Yet u can't see how it is like racism.
I don't have enough room for everything else. I think that everyone has different opinions, and the Left should not force everyone to share their viewpoints. Could we argue they are bigoted and intolerant of the opposed?
No one is forcing you to change your views. You are entitled to them. But others are also entitled to their view on your view - which may be that it's bigoted. Yr views also should not be used to deny or create laws to strip others of rights.
The problem with that is that it's someone's rights over another.
Who's over who's Skyrim? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their opinion on another's opinion. What they can't do is use religion in te making of laws or denying rights to people - yr own constitution makes that clear. Freedom of and from.
But some people wouldn't agree about what rights people should have.
They're welcome to disagree - but if it is denying rights to a particular group, rights that are afforded to all others bar that group, then it's discriminatory. So, disagreement with the group is fine - as long as they are afforded the same rights.
But the so called rights are after changing the rules of the game....
Er, how? Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. Rights previously afforded to all adult aside from those who weren't heterosexual. So, afforded to all humans except some - therefore discriminatory, and unconstitutional.