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

[Amarok]

Personally, I'm against Christians redefining the word 'love'.  Yet they constantly insist on doing it.  Saying that they LOVE gay people, despite calling them 'homosexuals' when that's not what they want to be called.  Despite saying they don't want them to have the right to get married.  Saying that it's God's love that will cause them to burn in hell.  If Christians can redefine love, then we get to redefine whatever we want to and they don't get to bitch and moan about it.

Calling Homosexuality a sin is not love it could not be more hateful if it tried .Then denying people a loving beneficial monogamous relationship on top of that is just the icing on that BS cake.

[Brian37]

Too bad. Again, there is nothing to debate. 

You don't like what gays do, TOO FUCKING BAD!

Unless someone is assaulting you, even for your money, outside of sex, without your consent, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING SAY.

Please tell me the English language is something you understand. Two people having sex of the same sex with consent, is none of your business.

They do not owe you submission and especially not based on an old book of mythology.

Yes, I do call people names. Talk like a bigot, act like a bully, I will fucking call you one.

Who died and left you boss? 

How about you TRY to understand LGBT, get to know them, accept them instead of fearing them?

Here here 

There is nothing to debate( as their position has no merit) only something to condemn Steve and Roads ideological bigotry

They probably would ignore that there are even atheists against same sex. Not many in the west sure, but they would still ignore it. 

I'd tell an atheist gun nutter they are full of shit too, there are some atheist gun worshipers, despite what theists might think. Theists have this horrible habit of falsely playing victim.

[RoadRunner79]

Making stuff up, and calling me name doesn’t bother me, because it’s not true. You don’t accurately address what I’m saying, so it is worthless. I’m not the boss, and I’m not asking anyone to submit to me. I’m also fairly certain, that you are not the boss either, but do seem to bully and have your own bigotry.

Also, it’s not a matter of getting to know them. I’m sure there are some very nice LGBT people. Actually many, and I know a few. It doesn’t make it not a sin, which goes the same for any other sexual immorality, or sin. It’s not a matter of fear or hate, or feeling icky... or anything else you try to make up.

[Amarok]

Cry salty tears regressive's this is here to stay .

---

Making stuff up, and calling me name doesn’t bother me, because it’s not true. You don’t accurately address what I’m saying, so it is worthless. I’m not the boss, and I’m not asking anyone to submit to me. I’m also fairly certain, that you are not the boss either, but do seem to bully and have your own bigotry. 

Nope everything he has said is spot on and nope opposing your ideological bigotry is not bigotry.

Also, it’s not a matter of getting to know them. I’m sure there are some very nice LGBT people. Actually many, and I know a few. It doesn’t make it not a sin, which goes the same for any other sexual immorality, or sin. It’s not a matter of fear or hate, or feeling icky... or anything else you try to make up.

Thank you for proving his point

---

Here here 

There is nothing to debate( as their position has no merit) only something to condemn Steve and Roads ideological bigotry

They probably would ignore that there are even atheists against same sex. Not many in the west sure, but they would still ignore it. 

I'd tell an atheist gun nutter they are full of shit too, there are some atheist gun worshipers, despite what theists might think. Theists have this horrible habit of falsely playing victim.

All regressive s and ideological bigots cry victims when society has had enough of their bullshit ." Waahh i'm calling a gay persons loving relationship evil and wrong stop calling me out for it and respect my bigot book or your a man bully "

[Brian37]

Personally, I'm against Christians redefining the word 'love'.  Yet they constantly insist on doing it.  Saying that they LOVE gay people, despite calling them 'homosexuals' when that's not what they want to be called.  Despite saying they don't want them to have the right to get married.  Saying that it's God's love that will cause them to burn in hell.  If Christians can redefine love, then we get to redefine whatever we want to and they don't get to bitch and moan about it.

Again, and not just with Christians, but worldwide, every nation in antiquity was ruled by a ruling family, so the religions worldwide of antiquity reflected the beliefs of the local rulers. It has only been recently in the west that minorities like blacks and women and gays have gained rights. 

Not even Japan or China have allowed for same sex marriage, although one prefecture(local) in Japan has. But even Japan has a male dominated government as does China. 

But what Steve and RR don't get is I don't care which nation or which religion discriminates against gays, or any other minority. If your fellow human is not hurting you physically, it does not matter what you personally think. In the west we value pluralism and tolerance. 

I am certainly going to be blunt to bigotry. If one interprets their religion as to deny rights to others, I could give a shit less which one they are justifying it with.

---

Making stuff up, and calling me name doesn’t bother me, because it’s not true. You don’t accurately address what I’m saying, so it is worthless. I’m not the boss, and I’m not asking anyone to submit to me.  I’m also fairly certain, that you are not the boss either, but do seem to bully and have your own bigotry.

Also, it’s not a matter of getting to know them. I’m sure there are some very nice LGBT people. Actually many, and I know a few.  It doesn’t make it not a sin, which goes the same for any other sexual immorality, or sin.  It’s not a matter of fear or hate, or feeling icky... or anything else you try to make up.

More watered down bigotry.

Please stop, you are simply digging yourself in deeper.

[Amarok]

Personally, I'm against Christians redefining the word 'love'.  Yet they constantly insist on doing it.  Saying that they LOVE gay people, despite calling them 'homosexuals' when that's not what they want to be called.  Despite saying they don't want them to have the right to get married.  Saying that it's God's love that will cause them to burn in hell.  If Christians can redefine love, then we get to redefine whatever we want to and they don't get to bitch and moan about it.

Again, and not just with Christians, but worldwide, every nation in antiquity was ruled by a ruling family, so the religions worldwide of antiquity reflected the beliefs of the local rulers. It has only been recently in the west that minorities like blacks and women and gays have gained rights. 

Not even Japan or China have allowed for same sex marriage, although one prefecture(local) in Japan has. But even Japan has a male dominated government as does China. 

But what Steve and RR don't get is I don't care which nation or which religion discriminates against gays, or any other minority. If your fellow human is not hurting you physically, it does not matter what you personally think. In the west we value pluralism and tolerance. 

I am certainly going to be blunt to bigotry. If one interprets their religion as to deny rights to others, I could give a shit less which one they are justifying it with.

---

Making stuff up, and calling me name doesn’t bother me, because it’s not true. You don’t accurately address what I’m saying, so it is worthless. I’m not the boss, and I’m not asking anyone to submit to me.  I’m also fairly certain, that you are not the boss either, but do seem to bully and have your own bigotry.

Also, it’s not a matter of getting to know them. I’m sure there are some very nice LGBT people. Actually many, and I know a few.  It doesn’t make it not a sin, which goes the same for any other sexual immorality, or sin.  It’s not a matter of fear or hate, or feeling icky... or anything else you try to make up.

More watered down bigotry.

Please stop, you are simply digging yourself in deeper.

Oh make no mistake he will keep digging away lacking any self awareness that he's burying himself 

[polymath257]

Well, the point is that the Divine Command Theory of morality is useless and, frankly, immoral.

So, your position is that if there is a God that created the universe, who is responsible for every concept that ever was and every person that ever lived, he is immoral--because your morality derived from your subjective experience and opinions during a timeframe that would not even appear as a blip in just the history of the universe says so. Color me surprised.

I'm saying that if such a being existed, then its values may or may not be in line with what humans need, so we need to figure things out for ourselves.

And that it is immoral to do otherwise.

[Silver]

I'm saying that if such a being existed, then its values may or may not be in line with what humans need, so we need to figure things out for ourselves.

And that it is immoral to do otherwise.

Those who believe in god's existence have overly complicated him due to the fact that they have zero evidence for his existence. From their warped, illogical perspective, god has to be something we cannot understand, and because he is a "god" beyond human understanding his reasons have to be supernatural as well as accepted by the creations. It makes no sense, especially if we have evolved to the point that we understand morality yet have to subvert it for some divine being's mysterious intentions that clearly are not moral whatsoever. A true knowledgeable intellect comprehends the god as immoral, tyrannical, etc, but the cognitive dissonance of the believer continues to make excuse after excuse for this imaginatively created being who supposedly knows what is better for us than we do.

[polymath257]

The argument of tradition is the best defense of people who are benefiting most from that tradition. Everyone else just needs to conform, I guess. What right does the pot have to question the potter? When he doesn't fit the mold.

There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

And this is tradition, not definition. Marriage is a government recognition of a bond between two people who announce that bond to the world.

---

@steve.....

Yes, if it takes that. What right did a majority once have to own slaves? What right did a majority have to deny women the right to vote? If humans never questioned social norms our species wouldn't have left the caves. 

I could give a shit less if a majority wants to oppress a minority, it's wrong to treat LGBT as less than you. Your bigotry is not their baggage. They do not owe you submission.

You still are not getting it. Your analogies suck. You bring up individual rights to argue whether a definition older than history itself be set aside and a whole new definition put in it's place. No oppression of rights. No one is trying to limit one's abilities to do anything or to pursue anything. The definition is just not available to homosexual relationships. 

You can argue whether the Christian position is right or not--but that is not what is typically done. Usually it is a litany of mischaracterization, demonizing because of a fringe group, straw men, red herrings and your false analogies to shift the debate because anger is a tool the left loves to pull out. Those on the left don't even know they have been co-opted into the hate/anger game. Wake up. Have a civil discussion with someone whom you disagree and learn why they disagree. That is intelligent way.

But it *isn't* a definition older than history. In fact, non-monogamous relationships and relationships between those of the same gender were probably much more accepted before the rise of monotheism. It was *your* tradition that changed the definitions!

---

My opposition doesn't need propping up. Both definitions and traditions change by necessity over time.

Some definitions do. Most do not. Is a Christian who believed that marriage was ordained by God and restated by Jesus wrong to oppose the changing of the definition? Yes or no: are the wrong?

It isn't a change of the definition. And yes, they are wrong to be bigoted and not allow perfectly healthy, loving relationships between those who don't agree with their BS.

[Astreja]

Personally, I'm against Christians redefining the word 'love'.  Yet they constantly insist on doing it.  Saying that they LOVE gay people, despite calling them 'homosexuals' when that's not what they want to be called.  Despite saying they don't want them to have the right to get married.  Saying that it's God's love that will cause them to burn in hell.  If Christians can redefine love, then we get to redefine whatever we want to and they don't get to bitch and moan about it.

In my eyes, their "love" is indistinguishable from hate and deserves to be treated as such.