Christians Endorse God's Hatred

[Raven]

fff said : I reject your code of ethics if you consider anything a 'sin'.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with that.

Jacob asked: Is the reason you don't consider anything a sin because you reject the concept of divine law?

In my case, yes. Nothing angry about it, it is a simple thing really. I do not believe there is a deity. If there is no deity then there is no divine law. If there is no
divine law then there is no sin.

There is right and wrong. But that we figure out for ourselves, no god needed.

[MindForgedManacle]

You guys are forgetting that sins are immoral in Abrahamic faiths. Under that view, God's commands are one's moral duties, and to transgress them is a sin.

[Zazzy]

Is it a sin for me to eat Chick-fil-A? Because I want to. The drag queens are doing it!

[Ryantology]

I never understood why Christians are considered hateful just because we will not endorse what we consider to be a sinful sexual perversion. I could care less if two guys want to swordfight in the night, but I fail to see why I am required to approve? And why does my approval matter to them anyway?

All anybody wants is for you and other Christians to stay out of the way and stop denying gay people the rights you enjoy. That does not require your approval of homosexuality. It does not require your endorsement of homosexuality. It does not mean that you have to like or tolerate gay people. It does not mean that you have to give up your prejudices. It only means that you need to stop forcing other people to adhere to your prejudices. Just because you think your religion is right and true doesn't give you the right to impose upon the lives of others.

Gay marriage does not harm you in any way. It does not harm anybody. It doesn't ruin marriage. It in no way makes it more difficult for Jesus-approved straight people to marry. When such simple, basic truths are this hard for Christians to comprehend, when Christians go so far out of their way to invent ridiculous reasons not to comprehend, when they paint a picture of oppression by gays who want to steal religious freedom from Christians, when you do so much to slander gay people in general, all on top of the well-established fact that Christians in America have loudly opposed previous examples of being forced, by law, to treat people who aren't like them as equals, why should it surprise you when the rest of us think that what you're really opposed to is the idea of people not like you being treated like equal human beings?

If Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love, why do you people spend so much of your time justifying your hatreds?

[Neo-Scholastic]

In point of fact, everyone already had exactly the same rights. Anyone could marry any one else so long as they were of the opposite sex. That was the rule for everyone. There was no discrimination. As a matter of public policy, a heterosexual man was equally denied the option to marry another man. Anyone who hopes to get Social Security some day has an interest in population growth, so as a matter of public policy it makes some sense to reward behaviors that could potentially generate more young people. Whether the justification for that policy was valid or not is an open question. It has nothing to do with hate and it is wrong to vilify Christians just because you disagree with their politics. Since the dawn of time, the sacramental and political aspects of marriage have been entwined. I personally think it is a good thing to separate them. If it were me, I would have removed public recognition of marriage altogether and dump everyone into a civil unions.

[Anomalocaris]

Plenty of people can state Pepsi is better than Coke, but it does not make it so.

Just as there is nothing wrong with Coke, there is absolutely nothing unnatural about homosexuality.

...its an exit not an entrance.

It is the poragative of man to repurpose nature for his own ends, so to speak.

I guess you christains would prefer to remain animals and not ever be men.

[Ryantology]

In point of fact, everyone already had exactly the same rights. Anyone could marry any one else so long as they were of the opposite sex. That was the rule for everyone. There was no discrimination. As a matter of public policy, a heterosexual man was equally denied the option to marry another man.

Just like how, in 1776, all men were created equal, as long as they didn't make the mistake of being born black. Or too poor to own land. Obviously, women were never in the equation to start with.

Anyone who hopes to get Social Security some day has an interest in population growth, so as a matter of public policy it makes some sense to reward behaviors that could potentially generate more young people.

Most gay people aren't going to have children regardless of whether or not they marry, so this is yet another stupid argument.

Whether the justification for that policy was valid or not is an open question. It has nothing to do with hate and it is wrong to vilify Christians just because you disagree with their politics.

As demonstrated with virtually no effort on my part, those justifications are nothing but a way for Christians to legitimize a hatred which is inspired by scripture.

Whether or not the justification for that policy is valid or not has everything to do with the motive behind the policy, and the Bible's stance on homosexuals makes it very clear that the religion holds them in contempt for being what they are. Lacking a single reason to suggest that the policy is valid, as you do, what else is it but hate?

Since the dawn of time, the sacramental and political aspects of marriage have been entwined. I personally think it is a good thing to separate them. If it were me, I would have removed public recognition of marriage altogether and dump everyone into a civil unions.

Aren't you just a saint.

I've gotten to see plenty of arguments against marriage equality, and every single one is easily reducible to ancient, superstitious hatred.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I never understood why Christians are considered hateful just because we will not endorse what we consider to be a sinful sexual perversion. I could care less if two guys want to swordfight in the night, but I fail to see why I am required to approve? And why does my approval matter to them anyway?

I don't think it's so much that people disapprove, it's that they insist on disapproving publically and, further, calling it a 'sinful sexual perversion' when in reality it's just two guys (or girls) making love to each other.

Ain't nobodys goddamn business. Not yours, not mine. So I wish people would just butt the fuck out (pun intended) when they insist in interfering in other people's lives when they have no moral, legal, or ethical right to do so.

[Esquilax]

In point of fact, everyone already had exactly the same rights. Anyone could marry any one else so long as they were of the opposite sex. That was the rule for everyone. There was no discrimination. As a matter of public policy, a heterosexual man was equally denied the option to marry another man.

Christ in a handbasket, I am so fucking sick of this intentional, slimy twisting of what's actually being argued, as if purposefully misrepresenting the actual position absolves you of having to answer for it.

"Oh, we've all got the same rights now!" No, we don't. You, as a heterosexual, have the right to marry someone that you love and are sexually attracted to (within the confines of consent and what's harmful or not, because if I hear one more argument about marrying dogs or children I'm going to explode) and in many states, a homosexual person does not have the right to marry the person they love and are sexually attracted to.

Why do christians feel the need to flee at top speed from what's actually being argued, on this issue? Why all the deflection, the irrelevant side issues like this one, and the argument about children, and god, and all that? Why don't you guys see that, if you have to lie to preserve your position, it probably doesn't deserve to be preserved to begin with?

[MitchBenn]

I never understood why Christians are considered hateful just because we will not endorse what we consider to be a sinful sexual perversion. I could care less if two guys want to swordfight in the night, but I fail to see why I am required to approve? And why does my approval matter to them anyway?

You don't have to approve. Just mind your own fuckin' business...

---

...its an exit not an entrance.

Then are you also against suppositories?

ROFLMFAO.