Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Quote:

That confirms my point about persecution. When the church is persecuted, the members adhere to their faith. When the church becomes wholly integrated into the state, people fall away when the props are kicked out. That is what we are seeing in Europe right now. The props are being kicked out, and people are falling away.

Yeah right. There were many more Christians among the population back when Christians were fed to the lions, in comparison with when Christianty was enforced.
And we all know Christianty is much more persecuted in the US than in Europe, which is the obvious reason why so many people are flocking to it

Christian arenot being persecuted in america. There are some minister in jail for doing criminal act. There is than minister in jail for rapeing than woman of than other religion. He is in jail for criminal rape not because he is than christian.

[Az]

Interesting, historical accounts suggest that if Constantine had not converted and the Edict of Milan not put in place when it had, the Christians would have been exterminated within 10 years. It was that close.

Warm up the time machine, here I come.

[Ben Kenobi]

I used to be on your side of the issue, but unfortunately I opened mind. Look what has become of me. Close your mind before they get you too!

If your mind was open, why is it now closed?

I'm not afraid to listen to opinions different to mine, since that is how I bacame a Christian in the first place.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

I have critiques for each study. I am refraining from clicking on the link that says critiques, as a test of my own reasoning.

Each index case and his cotwin were given a Kinsey rating from 0 (exclusive heterosexuality) to 6 (exclusive homosexuality), although the precise method by which these ratings were obtained is, again, unclear.

Again, this is problematic, because you may say two twins are 'homosexual', but the meaning is unclear of what precisely makes one homosexual.

Now for the second example:

12 index cases were obtained.

That is too small a sample to derive any meaningful data.

Now from the third study:

Recruitment was through advertisements placed in homophile publications in several cities in the Midwest and Southwest of the United States.

Which, of course, is going to unduly bias your sample.

The third study, even with the biases, does not show a 1:1 correlation as found in the second study, but rather,

29/56 (52%) 12/54 (22%)

The fact that not all of the monozygotic twins showed a similar affinity, demonstrates that homosexuality is not genetic, but is rather influenced by environment.

[Ned]

Schwarznegger opposes constitutional amendment! "Gay marriage is a state issue."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...type=printable

[Ben Kenobi]

Che:

Where did I say Constintantine was forced? Rather I said when he seized control, HE FORCED the Roman Empire to convert, on pain of death. I was wrong about Constantine, however. It was a later emperor who forced the Roman Empire to convert or die.

Thank you for your first admission.

Secondly, was the penalty death for all those who did not want to become Christians? You have not provided any evidence supporting your argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

While your sources conveniently ignore the forced converstions following the converion of the leaders, however.

I provided one source that directly refuted your claim that people were forced to become Christians in England, that rather they were inspired to become Christians along with their liege. This implies voluntary and not coercive action.

As for your marriage being or not being valid. There was a time when men could do just that, grab a woman and claim her as his wife.

And why do we not do so now?

But people can be forced to believe things. Free will isn't as free as people like to think, and social pressure is very powerful in forcing people to conform.

Yes, but social pressure is an entirely different scope than promising to kill those who refuse to join a religion. You are making the latter claim, and not the former, so don't shift goalposts on me.

[Ben Kenobi]

There were many more Christians among the population back when Christians were fed to the lions, in comparison with when Christianty was enforced.
And we all know Christianty is much more persecuted in the US than in Europe, which is the obvious reason why so many people are flocking to it

First of all, that is not my claim. Anyone can point and say that there were many more Christians in the 9th Century than in the First or Second. However, that was not my claim. My claim is that the church grew fastest when persecuted.

Now, let us suppose we have a function. If we start at 0 Christians, and jump to a million or so, that is a huge jump in proportion. Let us suppose we have y representing time, and z representing the number of Christians, for a graph of the number of Christians over time.

The number that pertains to my argument is going to be d'd(y) or the first derivative of the function of y, or time.

Again, I would argue that under the persecution of the Roman Empire, you would have the most rapid growth in Christians.

[Ned]

Theodosius had a very hard time even convincing the Romans to abandon paganism. He was largely unsuccessful. There was no question as to executing anyone.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I provided one source that directly refuted your claim that people were forced to become Christians in England, that rather they were inspired to become Christians along with their liege. This implies voluntary and not coercive action.

The fear of being put to death could be a great source of Inspiration

[Ben Kenobi]

The best description if you want to get historical is slavery of a woman to a man.

Let us take this argument, and go along these lines. Why should a gay man have a right to another man's pension, just because they are married? Surely the one man is merely the property of the other.

Therefore I abandon that and say that marriage is what it is to the beholders, in other words, the would-be weds.

Whaleboy:

Do you believe that the state should be involved in marriage? If not, why should they accord benefits to married people?

As far as the state is concerned therefore, it is nothing more than a contract, and that surely comes under freedom of association.

Again, if you go down this line, why should the state provide benefits to a private association? Marriage is not a private association, because it requires witnesses in order to confirm that a marriage has taken place. No witnesses, no state recognition, hence no private association.

I can find no logical barrier to gay marriage, nor would I want to.

Why don't you want to? What is so frightening about considering the opposite side?

[Ben Kenobi]

The fear of being put to death could be a great source of Inspiration

As could social conformity, or heavens, genuine religious faith! Without evidence, your claim has no merit.

[Agathon]

Well, it took him a while, but our friend Fred at the Westboro Baptist Church has weighed in on the issue.

Surely you will condemn him Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bigotry implies an abense of respect. How can I possibily respect someone who believes in something so utterly foolish as a belief in something completely intangible, which they only believe in because they were convinced as to its existence by someone else.

Stop yourself Che. I believe you have just called yourself a bigot, under your own definition. You admit an absence of respect for those who believe in something intangible.

I admit, that it is not as firm, as the rocks that we kick, but if you start getting into metaphysics, you will realise, just how little of the truth that you see with your eyes, or feel with your hands.

Do we feel atoms? Yet do we not rigidly insist upon their reality? What about electrons, even though the best theories can only represent them as a cloud of probability?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

As could social conformity, or heavens, genuine religious faith! Without evidence, your claim has no merit.

Of course the source of Inspiration could be everything.
But to say "they were inspired" therefore also doesn´t exclude the possibility that some of the leaders gave their peasants the choice to either believe in the right God or to die

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Theodosius had a very hard time even convincing the Romans to abandon paganism. He was largely unsuccessful. There was no question as to executing anyone.

Islam didnot appeal to the rich or powerful in Mecca expect in afew case. It appeal more to the down trobbing and poor. That why Islam never allow force convertion and there where many time when too many people in a area where converting they held up the membership in Islam untril they determ that no force was use.

[Ned]

Charles, are you suggesting that Arab conquests from the borders of China to the borders of France had nothing to do with the spread of Islam?

[Ben Kenobi]

Surely you will condemn him Ben.

For what? The crime of strong verbs and adjectives?

Militant? Sure.
Sodomite? Sure.
Agenda? Sure.
Agitates? Sure.

Although he could be more tactful in the picture, people are allowed to make caricatures of folks in the media. Why should McEwen be protected?

[Ben Kenobi]

As for your source:

"denied the right to identify the partners with whom they share their lives."

How are they denied the right to identify that they are indeed partners?

Secondly no such right exists to receive state recognition for all partnerships.

[Ben Kenobi]

"they were inspired" therefore also doesn´t exclude the possibility that some of the leaders gave their peasants the choice to either believe in the right God or to die

No, it does not. It seems very disingenous to suggest that this would be the meaning of inspire. Inspire implies voluntary participation.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, are you suggesting that Arab conquests from the borders of China to the borders of France had nothing to do with the spread of Islam?

They where one of the few conquestor who didnot try to tell what belief the people who they conquent to have. In the Holy land Christian and Jew where free to workship freely their God. The Viking who trade in Badgath where allow to built temple to their God's and Goddress as the Viking allow Muslim that trade in Swenden to built than Mosque to pray in.

Only one Moslim ruler ever harm than place of workship of than other religion and he was replace by both the Caph and Sultain for burning down the Holyest Church of Christian in the Holy City. The Caph and Sultain gave manpower, money and material to rebuilt it. The Christian use this exception to prove the rule that Muslim where intolance while in fact Muslim where very tolance of other belief.

The Crusader from Europe kill Christian, Jew and Muslim in the Holy Land without reason, childern, old man, and woman. There where case they burn down Christian Churches also.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


For what? The crime of strong verbs and adjectives?

Militant? Sure.
Sodomite? Sure.
Agenda? Sure.
Agitates? Sure.

Although he could be more tactful in the picture, people are allowed to make caricatures of folks in the media. Why should McEwen be protected?

Ben, he's a hatemonger and a lunatic. He believes that the Columbia disaster was caused by homosexuals.

It's out of character for you to support hating people. What happened to forgiveness?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nice. Not only do we get the "You can't be in our club" argument, we get a nasty slur thrown in there as well. Is this an example of your Christian ethic?

Where is the nasty slur in what you quoted? Gay men are, by definition, butt****ers surely? (Or is my implication that gay men have gay sex a nasty slur? )

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Where is the nasty slur in what you quoted? Gay men are, by definition, butt****ers surely?

You are one post away from being toast. Discuss things in a civil manner or don't bother to post.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Where is the nasty slur in what you quoted? Gay men are, by definition, butt****ers surely? (Or is my implication that gay men have gay sex a nasty slur? )

Yes, I'm sure you're only defined by where you have put your penis. So how about gay virgins, or gay men who don't participate in that form of sex? Oh, wait, and then there's the fact this refers to lesbians as well...

You know, I had previously respected your point of view, but now you've just proven yourself to be another bitter hatemonger. Toodles.

[Rogan Josh]

Seriously, what are you objecting to?

These guys come on here and insult Christianity at every turn (not just this post either). They call Christians all manner of names, all of which are bigotted generalisations and slurs against many good people. Never, ever is there any talk of a ban. When I make a perfectly true statement about gay people, WHOAH, nasty man (how dare I make a true statement).

The problem is that Boris et al are so incredibly offensive and miltant that it is impossible to discuss these things in a 'civil' manner. No matter what one says, if you are not bowing down to the great phalic symbol, they just don't want to know. They are genuinely not interested in what people think - merely in getting what they want. And that is the bizarre thing, because none of this is anything to do with discrimination - it is about them trying to force the rest of us to hold the same opinions as they do.

Facists in disguise....

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Where is the nasty slur in what you quoted? Gay men are, by definition, butt****ers surely? (Or is my implication that gay men have gay sex a nasty slur? )

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
because none of this is anything to do with discrimination

I smell... hypocracy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
I think what MrFun meant was, "not only are you rude to religious people, you won't even hear them out?"

As to why you should respect us, communism is pretty stupid in my book, but I've never tried to shoot you down with sniping sideways comments, have I? Even if you have no respect, you could at least make an initial attempt to have manners.

I'm almost 37. It is unreasonable to think that I have not heard most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of religion. There are no new arguments, only the same old ones repeated endlessly. It's very arrogant to assume that where Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, etc. have all failed, you are going to succeed. I believe pride is one of the seven deadly sins.

Be that as it may, I doubt very strongly that Fun meant what you wrote. Fun was offended that I don't believe religion to be a legitimate belief. He seems to think that the mere fact that one holds a belief ought to shield it from criticism, though he's been quite happy in the past to troll me for my belief in communism.

I don't expect people to respect my beliefs. I have to fight for that, and I'm sure, even if I can swamp them with historical fact and logic, I don't get any respect. If religious people want me to respect their beliefs, they'll have to get it the old fashioned way. They'll have to earn it.

I have yet to see one legitmate reason to respect a belief in the supernatural. There is a great deal of difference in believe that real human beings can make a system of voluntary cooperation work, and believing in an invisible, intangible, unknowable being which created everything, is omnipresent, omnicient, and omnipotent. I've seen people cooperate. I have yet to see evidence of any diety.

God is a mass delusion. People who delude themselves are not respected. Why should I then respect an irrational belief?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Seriously, what are you objecting to?

Um, a blatant slur? If I went around referring to heterosexuals as "pussymongers," it would be insulting (and crass), now wouldn't it? Is it any different from someone referring to Christians as "jesus freaks?"

These guys come on here and insult Christianity at every turn (not just this post either). They call Christians all manner of names, all of which are bigotted generalisations and slurs against many good people. Never, ever is there any talk of a ban. When I make a perfectly true statement about gay people, WHOAH, nasty man (how dare I make a true statement).

First, the statement isn't "perfectly" true, as you've ignored in my previous post. Gay people aren't defined solely by their sexual activities any more than straight people are.

Second, who are "these guys" mthat are here insulting Christianity at every turn? I certainly don't, and MrFun, a Christian, certainly doesn't. Broad, sweeping generalizations are unbecoming, in addition to being fallacious.

The problem is that Boris et al are so incredibly offensive and miltant that it is impossible to discuss these things in a 'civil' manner. No matter what one says, if you are not bowing down to the great phalic symbol, they just don't want to know.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a time in any debate I've seen you where you haven't been anything but insulting to people with whom you disagree. I'm wondering where all this rage and bitterness come from in you. It's a shame, someone who is seemingly intelligent having so much bile in him.

But what have I said that's so offensive? Surely me stating my opinions about the issue of gay marriage is within my rights as are yours, so what gives offensive? My opinions?

They are genuinely not interested in what people think - merely in getting what they want. And that is the bizarre thing, because none of this is anything to do with discrimination - it is about them trying to force the rest of us to hold the same opinions as they do.

Oh lord, not this canard again. Nobody's trying to force you to think anything. If you're so fragile in your beliefs that changing a law is going to change your beliefs, well then I'm sorry. You're free to continue to believe whatever you want. But your freedom of beliefs stops at my front door, and what we're challenging is you forcing YOUR opinion on us. Gay marriage forces nothing on you except that you'll have to see something you don't like. Big deal, there's no right not to be offended by something.

Facists in disguise....

Hello, Mr. Godwin. Table for two?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
*SNIP*

Big deal, there's no right not to be offended by something.

Agree with the overwhelming majority of the post, although I'd say technically, what we think couldn't be subject to "rights", because laws and morality are abstract external social constructs...

Acting on or expressing a view could certainly be thought of necessitating a right, however.

Although if an "orwellian society" ever came to be, and ones thoughts were able to be externally perceieved... then perhaps you could have "thought police" and "thought laws". I wonder if those would naturally follow, however, or if we'd choose to keep personal thoughts, personal.