[FLOWCHART] so you think homoloveuality is sinful?

[Dusty12]

That's him, and he's stupid. Besides, I find it funny you're worried about gay people getting too many rights. Last time I checked, Black Americans are still fighting an uphill battle, and they've been fighting longer than us.

I predict quite some time before we even get anywhere close to 'equality'.

[Ad Bot]

[Aphtonites]

That's him, and he's stupid. Besides, I find it funny you're worried about gay people getting too many rights. Last time I checked, Black Americans are still fighting an uphill battle, and they've been fighting longer than us.

I predict quite some time before we even get anywhere close to 'equality'.

Not really, black people never had the internet to speak out on.

[Dusty12]

I guess the past nearly two decades of internet presence are irrelevant, then.

And that's not even the tip of the ice berg. Let's say their stuff started in the 60s, their movement. Just round it to 1960. From then to today, that would be fifty-two years, twenty of which have been during the Information Age. Now let's also remember that in those sixty years, society has grown to be far more tolerant to them (though not enough to eradicate the racism still very much present in our country). Homoloveuals have had roughly about the same time in campaigns, I suppose. Let's say we started in the 70s. That's about forty years, but society has grown more tolerant only in recent years. On top of that we face a different kind of fight because our mere existence is detested by most big religions. The Big C here in America for instance.

After sixty years and more time to earn tolerance, Black Americans still have to fight for the equal treatment they deserve, and they probably won't see it for awhile. Gay people will have to wait even longer since our mere existence is contradicting 'sacred' religious texts everywhere, and then coming in at the end are transgendered people, which I have no doubt I will not see in my life time. And don't even get me started on Asian Americans or Mexican Americans who have not even had half of the times I mentioned before to campaign with. They're in the same stuffty boat.

[Aphtonites]

I guess the past nearly two decades of internet presence are irrelevant, then.

I know you're being sarcastic but it actually kinda is, most people fighting for black rights fight outside the internet.
But right now there's been a huge uproar about gay rights on the internet, sweeping websites with tons of people like Facebook and twitter.

[Sirrus]

we shouldn't be giving them any more rights than the average person

Since when do gay people get more rights than the average person?

[Dusty12]

I know you're being sarcastic but it actually kinda is, most people fighting for black rights fight outside the internet.
But right now there's been a huge uproar about gay rights on the internet, sweeping websites with tons of people like Facebook and twitter.

I'd just attribute this to human stupidity. They think that because racial discrimination has been outlawed it doesn't happen, or isn't a big thing anymore. This is entirely untrue.

[Aphtonites]

Since when do gay people get more rights than the average person?

Rights isn't really the world, but think of it like this.

"HES GAY SO YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING BAD :("

[Isaac Fox]

Yay for civilised society!

[TripNick]

Because it just disgusts me, dangit!: Yes, it should be discriminated against because I think gay love is icky. This is the real world. You grow up.
Because the bible clearly defines marriage as one-man-one-woman!: Yeah, okay, but where's the gay dudes? The point still stands.
Because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!: The bible was not written in the time when the earth wasn't populated.
Because the new testament says so!: Yeah, and women shouldn't assume authority over a man.
Shall modern day churches live by all of pauls values?: Yes, and thanks.
Because the Old Testmaent said so!: Your only valid point, however I would not bring this up in the first place.
Because Jesus said so!: I wouldn't say this either but I'm 100% positive not every single word Jesus said was documented.
The rest of culture will advance forward without you.: No, it won't. loving California, arguably the most liberal state in this goddamned country voted against same love marriage. Culture will not advance without me. It will be a long time before the social stigma of same love marriage passes and by then I will be dead. I will be right on cue with society.

note: these arguments were purely for the purpose of proving the poster stupid, not my real beliefs.

[Dusty12]

Yes, it should be discriminated against because I think gay love is icky. This is the real world. You grow up.

Ha, ha. Not even a real rebuttal. Can't prove the poster stupid with the exact type of argument it is made to counter.

Because the bible clearly defines marriage as one-man-one-woman!: Yeah, okay, but where's the gay dudes? The point still stands.

The point is that people who use this passage to go against gay marriage should not be against polygamy or infidelity, since both are defined as holy and sacred. Traditional marriage, if you will. You can't pick and choose which passages of the bible apply and which don't. So if you're against gay marriage because of this, you should also be supporting someone's right to have multiple wives and concubines. Most aren't. Oh, and you're also obligated to marry your rapist/victim.

Because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!: The bible was not written in the time when the earth wasn't populated.

But the creation parable was written in that scenario. So the point still stands?

Because the new testament says so!: Yeah, and women shouldn't assume authority over a man.

You're going to have to try harder, with better arguments, not loveism.

Shall modern day churches live by all of pauls values?: Yes, and thanks.

This is blasphemy. Paul is not God and you don't live by what he says, you live by God's word. Paul is nothing.

Because the Old Testmaent said so!: Your only valid point, however I would not bring this up in the first place.

You wouldn't, but it's the most popular piece of 'proof' against gay marriage.

Because Jesus said so!: I wouldn't say this either but I'm 100% positive not every single word Jesus said was documented.

'Love your neighbor as I love you'.

[Clone v.117]

The old testimate is outdated, if people are really going to try and stop gay marriage on the only premise that it says so in Leviticus, they should only have the right to if they follow everything else in the book, such as;
If a woman is on her period she must be separated for 7 days and on the 8th day get a priest to sacrifice two turtle doves or two young pigeons, one shall be an offering of sin and the other a burnt offering.

There is a reason people don't follow the OT so if they are going to continue to follow one part they should follow all of it.

[ultimamax]

I'm all for letting homoloveuals marry, but we shouldn't be giving them any more rights than the average person just since they prefer richard up their butt/vagina on their vagina, at the moment tons of pro-gay companies are pampering them with praise and special products.

I already have to deal with a school where there's one gay person who keeps using the family values card when someone does what he doesn't like, or when he has to do something he doesn't like.

That's probably going to happen. Hopefully not as much as the race/love card is pulled.

Edit:

Also you may want to look at the relationships between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18. Naomi and Ruth in Ruth 1, Daniel and Ashpenaz in Daniel 1, and maybe even the Centurion and his beloved servant in Matthew 8.

[TripNick]

Ha, ha. Not even a real rebuttal. Can't prove the poster stupid with the exact type of argument it is made to counter.

I just did. Think again.

The point is that people who use this passage to go against gay marriage should not be against polygamy or infidelity, since both are defined as holy and sacred. Traditional marriage, if you will. You can't pick and choose which passages of the bible apply and which don't. So if you're against gay marriage because of this, you should also be supporting someone's right to have multiple wives and concubines. Most aren't. Oh, and you're also obligated to marry your rapist/victim.

The others are irrelevant information. However, if the bible goes that far to include all of those things in the definition of marriage, then that's definitely working against homoloveuals as they weren't included in the very broad list.

But the creation parable was written in that scenario. So the point still stands?

The point does not still stand, the point in the first place is handicapped. Adam and Eve had 3 sons, incestual relations with their mother then their own siblings would have created permutations in our DNA that would give descendants of Adam and Eve horrible diseases and disabilities. Regardless of this fact, are you trying to tell me that had the story been written with many couples any single one of them would have been gay? They wouldn't have. The argument is 100% invalid.

You're going to have to try harder, with better arguments, not loveism.

It was a joke. However, that could be a real belief. In which case, the point stands.

This is blasphemy. Paul is not God and you don't live by what he says, you live by God's word. Paul is nothing.

I don't go to church. I don't go near church. I would burst into flames. I don't give a forget what rules the church obeys.

You wouldn't, but it's the most popular piece of 'proof' against gay marriage.

It's not my fault most people against gay marriage are religious mondays.

'Love your neighbor as I love you'.

I doubt he meant in a homoloveual way.

I recommend you laugh from the side lines. I've never lost an argument on these forums and I don't plan on doing it any time soon, even if it requires 80 pages of typed essays.

[ultimamax]

I will fix the homos with force, through the power of Jesus.

[Dusty12]

I just did. Think again.

No, you didn't. You gave an opinion - well, not yours, but a purported one. An illogical, irrational opinion with no weight. So it isn't an argument. Here's something we're going to touch upon a bit later: just because someone has a belief doesn't mean that belief is worthwhile, or meaningful. Nor does it make it right, or infallible.

The others are irrelevant information. However, if the bible goes that far to include all of those things in the definition of marriage, then that's definitely working against homoloveuals as they weren't included in the very broad list.

It's not irrelevant at all. You're not grasping the scope of the argument. The point was made because people use this section of the bible to justify their discriminatory viewpoint while entirely ignoring the other forms of traditional marriage that are illegal/severely looked down upon in this country. And as a result, they've been shown to be hypocrites. And a hypocrite's viewpoint is worthless. You cannot pick and choose which passages of the bible you want to follow.

The point does not still stand, the point in the first place is handicapped. Adam and Eve had 3 sons, incestual relations with their mother then their own siblings would have created permutations in our DNA that would give descendants of Adam and Eve horrible diseases and disabilities. Regardless of this fact, are you trying to tell me that had the story been written with many couples any single one of them would have been gay? They wouldn't have. The argument is 100% invalid.

Thank you for disproving yourself for me. Yes, the creation parable is a facade and is entirely untrue. Yes, it was written by men during a time where they hung homoloveuals. So now that we both agree the creation parable is just a story and nothing more, it cannot be used as a counterpoint for allowing gay people to marry because it is a fairy tale. It never happened. God never made Adam and Eve.

It was a joke. However, that could be a real belief. In which case, the point stands.

No, it doesn't. Repeating myself: simply because someone holds a belief does not make it credible or worthwhile. An irrational form of discrimination (loveism) cannot be used to validate another form of discrimination because it is illogical to begin with.

I don't go to church. I don't go near church. I would burst into flames. I don't give a forget what rules the church obeys.

That's great. And irrelevant. In the hypothetical situation you posed, a religious person responding to this flow chart would have said that the Church should indeed abide by Paul's laws. Unfortunately, this is blasphemy and not only is it not credible to the Church, but in an argument it's the equivalent to agreeing with another person. 'Yeah, I agree with X, gays are bad.' Not a valid counterpoint.

It's not my fault most people against gay marriage are religious mondays.

Didn't disprove what I said.

I doubt he meant in a homoloveual way.

Funny, but not relevant. Jesus told us to love our neighbor as he loved us - unconditionally. Not to judge them or anything like that, but to love them, to show them kindness and tolerance. And so all these people campaigning against gay marriage aren't even listening to the figurehead of their own religion.

I recommend you laugh from the side lines. I've never lost an argument on these forums and I don't plan on doing it any time soon, even if it requires 80 pages of typed essays.

You phrase your counterpoints very badly. You're not even trying that hard. If you want to win this argument by spouting continuous nonsense for me to endlessly rebuke, I'm afraid I can't stay up all day for that. It's already six in the morning and I should have went to sleep a long time ago. So if you actually have anything worthwhile to say I suggest you do it now.