Yeah that was most definitely an avalanche of bullshit.
I did like the Star Trek original series reference, though, however misguided.
I prefer this one:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot
The only part of the above avalanche of bullshit I think is worthy of a response is this:
Churches don't perform marriages. They perform wedding ceremonies, an act which is completely unrelated to the civil laws that regulate and define marriage. Since you appear not to know what I mean by "a pluralistic society" (you asked for Bible verses to back up why people would accept that they live in a pluralistic society? ... I mean, really, come on, man!), it means that we are a nation of many faiths and other beliefs, and one religious group does not get to establish their personal religious beliefs in order to restrict the actions of others, except for those who voluntarily choose to be a part of that faith. Many Christians actually do understand this concept, while others really seem to think that it's okay to try to establish theocratic rule-- when you say "conform to the standards of a biblical marriage", you're talking theocracy, no different than those who try to establish Sharia Law in other countries.
I am not afraid of being seen as a bigot against the ridiculous ideas of those who really believe that their religious ideologies gives them a right to dictate. I am as against the Sharia Law types as I am against the Biblical Law types, and you're not going to use the "shame the liberal into being so open minded his spine bends" bullshit against me.
Carry the rest of your whining to the cheese shop.
I did like the Star Trek original series reference, though, however misguided.
I prefer this one:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot
Online Etymology Dictionary Wrote:bigot (n.)
1590s, "sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite," from French bigot (12c.), which is of unknown origin.
The only part of the above avalanche of bullshit I think is worthy of a response is this:
Drich Wrote:Any 'marriage' that does not conform to the standards of a biblical marriage is not a marriage. it is a civil union. This includes all homosexual and even some hetrosexual unions. Whether I would go or not would greatly depend on her and where her heart was. If she was lost to the world, then so to would she be lost to me. If their were still hope, then I would attend, but either way I would not be paying for anything.
Churches don't perform marriages. They perform wedding ceremonies, an act which is completely unrelated to the civil laws that regulate and define marriage. Since you appear not to know what I mean by "a pluralistic society" (you asked for Bible verses to back up why people would accept that they live in a pluralistic society? ... I mean, really, come on, man!), it means that we are a nation of many faiths and other beliefs, and one religious group does not get to establish their personal religious beliefs in order to restrict the actions of others, except for those who voluntarily choose to be a part of that faith. Many Christians actually do understand this concept, while others really seem to think that it's okay to try to establish theocratic rule-- when you say "conform to the standards of a biblical marriage", you're talking theocracy, no different than those who try to establish Sharia Law in other countries.
I am not afraid of being seen as a bigot against the ridiculous ideas of those who really believe that their religious ideologies gives them a right to dictate. I am as against the Sharia Law types as I am against the Biblical Law types, and you're not going to use the "shame the liberal into being so open minded his spine bends" bullshit against me.
Carry the rest of your whining to the cheese shop.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
