"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[polymath257]

Emphasis mine.  I cannot see such views as anything but hatred.

The belief is:

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Getting 'hatred' from that takes a special kind of anger.

OK,

1 is simply false.

2 is insanity if you assume 1

3 is meaningless

4 is only because you don't allow gay marriage

5 follows, but from insane assumptions.

[Brian37]

Emphasis mine.  I cannot see such views as anything but hatred.

The belief is:

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Getting 'hatred' from that takes a special kind of anger.

STFU! Our anger is your bullshit logic using it to justify bigotry and based on an old book of mythology.

I'd say the same thing to you if you were Hindu and claimed Vishnu hated gays.

Don't like gay sex, don't have gay sex. But do not fucking hand me any bullshit about marriage being a cure all when heterosexuals have affairs and get divorces in far greater numbers. You still have NO FUCKING RIGHT to dictate to LGBT and they do not owe you shit.

We don't give a fuck what your book says, you are not the boss of anyone. We are not a theocracy and we do not live in a dictatorship.

There is no discussion or debate. TOUGH SHIT if you don't like what consenting adults do. Your baggage and bullshit is your baggage and bullshit. How about GROWING THE FUCK UP!

Anger? FUCKING RIGHT! Act like a bigoted dick, we will be more than happy to treat you like one. There are ALSO Christians who support LGBT, so you do not even get to decide for them either. Supporting LGBT is not a violation of your rights.

[polymath257]

OK, exactly what do you think it wrong with being gay? If you take any of your statements and apply them to the issue of miscegenation (sexual relations between races), would you have the same conclusions, or would you see them as bigoted?

So, for example, if someone claims, based on the BIble (re: Ham and his descendants), that marriage between races is immoral, would you see that as bigoted or not?

BTW, I am on the side of it being bigoted.

I think that you are going to have a difficult time trying to justify miscegenation using the bible or Christian tradition.  However, lets say that there is another religion for arguments sake, which has a long and standing tradition that it is wrong to mix races.  I view bigotry

Merriam Webster gives the following definition of Bigot:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So what we see here, is hatred and intolerance towards a group of people.   So the question would be, does this person show these things?  Are there reasons apart from their disagreement on interracial marriage to think that it stems from hating black people (or white or whatever the case may be)?   Even on intolerance, I'm going to view this as more than saying that they think something is wrong.   Otherwise, we can't even be intolerant to intolerance.  Tolerance doesn't mean that we must agree, and even implies that we do not.  

When you talk about the reasons that something is wrong, I think this is part of a larger conversation.   Why is anything wrong?   Is there anything that is objectively wrong (moral realism).  Or is it all just subjective (opinion or something else).  This could be a case, where those who say it is subjective don't act like it is subjective.  How would you reason that murder is wrong, apart from a pragmatic point of view, which is really just arguing for convenience (not that it is really wrong).  You need to start with some objective basis, with which to reason that something is wrong, and not just that you dislike it (or pragmatism or whatever).  I think that we all have a sense of right and wrong, which is founded in God.  Not that you need to believe in God to necessarily know right and wrong, or that you need to believe and follow the Bible.  It's more basic and ingrained than that.  So in some sense, I think that it is the wrong question for reasons why it is wrong, because for a particular situation we may reason for why something is wrong or not, but we are reasoning from properly basic moral principles.  And of course if morality is subjective, then it's the wrong question to ask, because morals are relative and based on the subject, and you are acting like they are objective.

Even other primates have a sense of fairness and 'right and wrong'. It comes from being a social species.

What is the basis of morality? Avoidance of unnecessary harm. There. No deities are required. It is *all* about how we relate to other people. We can debate about what constitutes 'harm', of course, and that is how we improve morally. But the basic fact: unnecessary harm is immoral is still preserved.

In the case of gay marriage, to deny societal acceptance of an otherwise loving healthy relationship is to perpetrate unnecessary harm. Hence, it is immoral.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that you are going to have a difficult time trying to justify miscegenation using the bible or Christian tradition.

In the 19th and early-20th centuries, state courts in Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania cited religious reasons for preventing different people of different races from marrying each other. In the 1960s, the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia – the case in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage – wrote, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

After the Supreme Court invalidated bans on interracial marriage, Bob Jones University still argued that the freedom of religion provisions of the First Amendment allowed it to ban interracial dating and keep its tax-exempt status while doing so, because its “rule against interracial dating is a matter of religious belief and practice.” And after the Supreme Court rejected this argument, in 1983, the university continued to ban interracial dating until the year 2000.

Deja Vu All Over Again: Religious Objections To Interracial Marriage And Same-Sex Marriage

I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but I think that their case was pretty weak from both a Biblical and historical (practice) standpoint for the Christian belief to use that as a reason. It's just not supported.

[SteveII]

The belief is:

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Getting 'hatred' from that takes a special kind of anger.

OK,

1 is simply false.
2 is insanity if you assume 1
3 is meaningless
4 is only because you don't allow gay marriage
5 follows, but from insane assumptions.

LOL. That's the spirit of understanding the other side's position and then having a civil discussion!

BTW, that's a very strong claim. Prove it!

---

The belief is:

1. Marriage was ordained between a man and a woman from the beginning--with no ambiguity.
2. Sexual immorality is sex outside of marriage.
3. Sexual immorality is a sin.
4. Homosexual activity is outside of marriage (from 1)
5. Homosexual activity is a sin (from 2 and 3).

Getting 'hatred' from that takes a special kind of anger.

STFU! Our anger is your bullshit logic using it to justify bigotry and based on an old book of mythology.

I'd say the same thing to you if you were Hindu and claimed Vishnu hated gays.

Don't like gay sex, don't have gay sex. But do not fucking hand me any bullshit about marriage being a cure all when heterosexuals have affairs and get divorces in far greater numbers. You still have NO FUCKING RIGHT to dictate to LGBT and they do not owe you shit.

We don't give a fuck what your book says, you are not the boss of anyone. We are not a theocracy and we do not live in a dictatorship.

There is no discussion or debate. TOUGH SHIT if you don't like what consenting adults do. Your baggage and bullshit is your baggage and bullshit. How about GROWING THE FUCK UP!

Anger? FUCKING RIGHT! Act like a bigoted dick, we will be more than happy to treat you like one. There are ALSO Christians who support LGBT, so you do not even get to decide for them either. Supporting LGBT is not a violation of your rights.

Dude, that's not healthy. You need to see someone about your anger issues. Seriously. You can't even read a post or understand a point without sending it through some crazed anger filter.

[Brian37]

I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but I think that their case was pretty weak from both a Biblical and historical (practice) standpoint for the Christian belief to use that as a reason. It's just not supported.

What a inept super hero you have. If it is supposed to be clear, there wouldn't be countless interpretations of the same words or even different versions of the same book.

It still does not change that holy writings ARE used to justify being dicks to other humans. If nothing happens that your super hero doesn't want, then things like slavery and bans on interracial marriage, just like being dicks to LGBT are something your super hero does want.

Guess who said this? "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."  And no, this person was not an atheist, but it is a quote against pulpit politics because of others interpretations of the same book used to deny rights to them.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but I think that their case was pretty weak from both a Biblical and historical (practice) standpoint for the Christian belief to use that as a reason. It's just not supported.

What a inept super hero you have. If it is supposed to be clear, there wouldn't be countless interpretations of the same words or even different versions of the same book.

It still does not change that holy writings ARE used to justify being dicks to other humans. If nothing happens that your super hero doesn't want, then things like slavery and bans on interracial marriage, just like being dicks to LGBT are something your super hero does want.

Guess who said this? "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."  

I don't think that your reasoning follows.

I I have distrust also, if I notice, that their speaking for God resembles their own desires, more than the scripture.

[polymath257]

What a inept super hero you have. If it is supposed to be clear, there wouldn't be countless interpretations of the same words or even different versions of the same book.

It still does not change that holy writings ARE used to justify being dicks to other humans. If nothing happens that your super hero doesn't want, then things like slavery and bans on interracial marriage, just like being dicks to LGBT are something your super hero does want.

Guess who said this? "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."  

I don't think that your reasoning follows.  

I I have distrust also, if I notice, that their speaking for God resembles their own desires, more than the scripture.

I also have a lot of distrust if it follows scripture. Scripture tends to be rather evil.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't think that your reasoning follows.  

I I have distrust also, if I notice, that their speaking for God resembles their own desires, more than the scripture.

I also have a lot of distrust if it follows scripture. Scripture tends to be rather evil.

You seem to have a similar context problem to Brian.   So I don't mind disagreeing.

[Brian37]

What a inept super hero you have. If it is supposed to be clear, there wouldn't be countless interpretations of the same words or even different versions of the same book.

It still does not change that holy writings ARE used to justify being dicks to other humans. If nothing happens that your super hero doesn't want, then things like slavery and bans on interracial marriage, just like being dicks to LGBT are something your super hero does want.

Guess who said this? "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."  

I don't think that your reasoning follows.  

I I have distrust also, if I notice, that their speaking for God resembles their own desires, more than the scripture.

No, you distrust when you are not the boss. You trust like minded people, but good distrust is what keeps government neutral, not favoring one religion OR SECT over others.

Unlike you, wise people like Jefferson and Paine and Susan B Anthony <---Her quote, they all understood the dangers of pulpit politics. 

We are not like Saudi Arabia or Iran, or Russian Orthodox Christian authoritarian BECAUSE our First Amendment and our oath of office FORBID government favoritism on the issue of religion OR sub sect of even the same religion.

If you don't like what other Christians claim about OUR laws, even if there were no atheists or other religions, you're still stuck with all the sub sects of Christianity and they DO NOT ALWAYS AGREE.

That is the reason JFK once famously said, "I will not use my article of faith to legislate".

You stupidly fear the bullshit Idea that liberals, not just atheists, but the left want an all out ban on religions. NO WE DO NOT, we simply do not want to go back to the very bible based bigotry of the past. Just like Kurdish Christians in Iraq didn't like being bullied by Sunni MUSLIM Sadam.

Your petty insecurities do not impress us or fool us.

---

OK,

1 is simply false.
2 is insanity if you assume 1
3 is meaningless
4 is only because you don't allow gay marriage
5 follows, but from insane assumptions.

LOL. That's the spirit of understanding the other side's position and then having a civil discussion!

BTW, that's a very strong claim. Prove it!

---

STFU! Our anger is your bullshit logic using it to justify bigotry and based on an old book of mythology.

I'd say the same thing to you if you were Hindu and claimed Vishnu hated gays.

Don't like gay sex, don't have gay sex. But do not fucking hand me any bullshit about marriage being a cure all when heterosexuals have affairs and get divorces in far greater numbers. You still have NO FUCKING RIGHT to dictate to LGBT and they do not owe you shit.

We don't give a fuck what your book says, you are not the boss of anyone. We are not a theocracy and we do not live in a dictatorship.

There is no discussion or debate. TOUGH SHIT if you don't like what consenting adults do. Your baggage and bullshit is your baggage and bullshit. How about GROWING THE FUCK UP!

Anger? FUCKING RIGHT! Act like a bigoted dick, we will be more than happy to treat you like one. There are ALSO Christians who support LGBT, so you do not even get to decide for them either. Supporting LGBT is not a violation of your rights.

Dude, that's not healthy. You need to see someone about your anger issues. Seriously. You can't even read a post or understand a point without sending it through some crazed anger filter.

No, my anger is very healthy, your insecurities in trying to bully LGBT is what is unhealthy.

Your bullshit harms LGBT. I could give one shit less what you think of my use of language. If you don't want to be treated like a dick, don't act like one. 

I hate bigots and bullies.