What's with all the new red and pink avatars / profile pictures?

[Catwoman]

Even an Aldis and Duggar thread couldn't shut this thing down! :lol:

 

Ummm... it's ALDI. Not ALDIs. :scared:

 

I know this because I read the other thread about it. Apparently, it matters. :D

 

And no, I have no idea why it matters. But it does. Because there's a thread about it.

[Mrs Mungo]

Unless you have sister wives, the definition of marriage HAS changed. Unless your DH PAID for you, the definition of marriage has changed.

 

It's a different world that it was for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

 

I agree.

 

In my mind, the question isn't whether justamouse and others are entitled to their opinion. Obviously they are. The question is whether state and federal law should conform to their opinion. That is where it is entirely justified to require that an argument not be religious in nature. I support marriage equality in large part because of my own religious beliefs, but I fully understand that when I argue that it should be a legal and political reality, I must cite a secular rationale.

 

Exactly.

 

She drew a very clear analogy between them. She said this: "No, they obviously don't have to practice abstinence. They aren't now, are they? They have free will. The Church teaches lots that people ignore. That doesn't mean that the exercise of free will is right. I can murder, doesn't mean I should be afforded the right." It's not a direct equation - she didn't say "gay sex is just exactly like murder" - but she did analogize from gay sex to murder, as a way of arguing that just because someone has the free will to do something it doesn't mean that they have the right to do that thing. There are thousands of less inflammatory examples that she could have chosen to make the same point, but she chose to use murder as the subject of her analogy. She went far beyond just "mentioning them both in the same paragraph" - she joined them together in her argument.

 

I may have missed a quote. I thought I quoted this post, but maybe I missed it. Hard to see everything in this little sized box. Murder is not the same because my right to swing my fists ends where someone else's nose begins. Murder hurts someone ELSE. Gay marriage has zero impact on me or my marriage.

 

http://www.scripture...ol11/K8/nt.html

 

BOOM! I was waiting for this scripture. We allow divorce in this country, yes? Pretty much for whatever reason people wish, yes? Therefore, our laws are NOT based on the Christian Bible or the Torah or the Quaran or any one person's religion.

 

I thought this was about the Supreme Court hearing the cases on marriage equality? Not how you vote in the polling booth. Should the Supreme Court Justices vote according to their particular religious beliefs or should those be set aside while they are deciding a major case based on our constitution? How does one separate their own religious convictions from the job of making just laws for everyone in the country?

 

The Supreme Court must apply the law of the land which includes a precedent of separation of church and state from the time our system of government was conceived.

[*Michelle*]

 

There is a key difference. One can make a non-religious argument against the death penalty/protecting life, and it is done quite often. The defense of marriage position is defended using a religious argument the vast majority of the time.

The fact that Catholic doctrine overlaps a secular position in one case (death penalty) does not justify its use in another (defense of marriage). In addition, there is a difference between working to protect rights (right against cruel and unusual punishment) and taking them away (not allowing gays to marry).

 

I think we're speaking past each other. Again, I posted that in response to a very specific assertion. You are taking that response and using it in a new debate.

[Julie Smith]

And others have pointed out that the definition of marriage *has* changed. In the bible marriage is seen in a whole different way than it is now.

 

Someone earlier in this thread posted this image, but it was a thumbnail and the words couldn't be read. So I went searching and found a bigger version.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YTYKU9JlQ5g/UCA-C9hdkII/AAAAAAAACs4/ZEBsA2l4dX8/s1600/biblical+definition+of+marriage.jpg

[*Michelle*]

BOOM! I was waiting for this scripture. We allow divorce in this country, yes? Pretty much for whatever reason people wish, yes? Therefore, our laws are NOT based on the Christian Bible or the Torah or the Quaran or any one person's religion.

 

That scripture was not posted as a support to that argument but to express the Christian view of marriage. It was in response to a poster asking what the Biblical view of marriage was that Christians support.

 

Context.

 

ETA: I have to say your post was pretty ironic considering: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

[Mrs Mungo]

KK, seriously, I'd rather have a discussion. The sorts of posts you are making WILL get the thread shut down. Everyone who cannot continue to be civil should take a break and/or step away from the thread. Otherwise, you are preventing the exchange of ideas.

[Guest inoubliable]

 

Someone earlier in this thread posted this image, but it was a thumbnail and the words couldn't be read. So I went searching and found a bigger version.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot...of marriage.jpg

 

Thanks. I didn't realize it wasn't big enough to read. LOL. Whoops!

[molon labe]

 

If it's not about sex, if it's not about benefits, if it's not about pro-creation, can't it just be about having someone to love who cares what happened in your day? What about someone to hug you when you need it, hold your hand when you're down, cry with you at sad commercials, laugh with you, to create a intimacy that goes beyond health insurance, sex, or children.

 

 

 

Don't homosexuals have those types of relationships already? Are you implying that someone who is homosexual and in a relationship can't get a hug without first getting a marriage certificate? How does having, or not having, a marriage certificate affect any of the above?

[LisaKinVA]

I found this article on the Science behind homosexuality to be rather enlightening... and I have to admit, I was surprised something like this was printed in Mother Jones Magazine.

 

The comments below are also interesting... new fodder for this discussion ;)

 

Backing away now, going back to reading.

[HRAAB]

 

The Supreme Court must apply the law of the land which includes a precedent of separation of church and state from the time our system of government was conceived.

 

It was a rhetorical question. That's what I was getting at but very badly.

[Catwoman]

I think this discussion (the civil part, anyway :rolleyes:) is interesting, but just to be clear -- we all know perfectly well that none of us is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue, right?

 

Because I think that if anyone thinks they're going to change anyone else's mind on it, they're going to walk away from this thread feeling incredibly frustrated.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

That scripture was not posted as a support to that argument but to express the Christian view of marriage. It was in response to a poster asking what the Biblical view of marriage was that Christians support.

 

Context.

 

People were arguing that the accepted *legal definition* is based on the "natural" and "Christian" view of marriage. You posted the verse to serve as the "Biblical" definition, which implies that it is shoring up the argument that it is therefore the "Christian" and "Biblical" and "traditional legal" definition. That argument is baloney because it is clearly directly opposed to the current legalities involving divorce.

[Guest inoubliable]

KK, seriously, I'd rather have a discussion. The sorts of posts you are making WILL get the thread shut down. Everyone who cannot continue to be civil should take a break and/or step away from the thread. Otherwise, you are preventing the exchange of ideas.

 

 

I feel you. I've been accused of posting nastily way back on page two when I hadn't. I'm tense. I agree. I'm losing my temper. I agree. Exchange of ideas, though? Unless there are a whole new round of people coming in, there's no exchange. It's the same back and forth. I don't want the thread to get shut down. Definitely not.

I'll go water some crops on FarmVille2 for a bit.

Good luck. Really. Not being facetious. You might need it in here.

[Catwoman]

KK, seriously, I'd rather have a discussion. The sorts of posts you are making WILL get the thread shut down. Everyone who cannot continue to be civil should take a break and/or step away from the thread. Otherwise, you are preventing the exchange of ideas.

 

Did you really think KK was the worst offender here? I thought her posts were pretty mild compared with some of the others, so I'm surprised you singled her out. Maybe I missed something, though, as the thread has been moving pretty quickly and I'm sure I missed some posts along the way.

 

And I'm pretty irritated now that I know that KK and Jennifer secretly got married and I wasn't invited. ;)

 

(I absolutely agree with you that everyone who can't be civil should step away from the thread for a while, though! :))

[Jen in NY]

KK, seriously, I'd rather have a discussion. The sorts of posts you are making WILL get the thread shut down. Everyone who cannot continue to be civil should take a break and/or step away from the thread. Otherwise, you are preventing the exchange of ideas.

 

KK, I have to agree. The first time someone said STFU to me would be the last time they spoke to me, including my husband, unless he said "and kiss me" after it. I'm on your side in this discussion, but you are making it awfully hard for me to agree with your comments.

[AdventureMoms]

 

 

Oh. Okay.

 

 

 

 

I agree...but as religious, that is a good enough reason for us. How bad would it look if we were completely silent against something that goes so completely against our beliefs? kwim? I think that is what the Church is doing, and where the Christians who have spoken against it (at least in this thread) are coming from. Obviously, the Church will have an opinion on this. :) Obviously, Christians will want to stand by what they believe.

 

That doesn't mean we're all against equal rights, though. Even justamouse said she isn't. :)

 

I do know people who feel it that gay marriage is against their religion, but who still supported from a legal perspective. This makes perfect sense to me. They are people who can separate what they feel is the correct moral path for themselves, or their religion, and what they feel should be legally allowed in a free country. Legally allowing gay people to get married and to have the same legal rights as other married couples does not mean that you have to believe gay marriage is a good thing or something morally acceptable in your religion. You only have to believe that other people have the right to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. I don't really expect religious people who are against gay marriage to fight for gay marriage. But so far as I have seen it those who fight actively against gay marriage are saying that we should all follow the rules of their religion. To me that is a much much bigger problem than gay marriage itself. And as a gay married person, that is saying something.

[*Michelle*]

 

People were arguing that the accepted *legal definition* is based on the "natural" and "Christian" view of marriage. You posted the verse to serve as the "Biblical" definition, which implies that it is shoring up the argument that it is therefore the "Christian" and "Biblical" and "traditional legal" definition. That argument is baloney because it is clearly directly opposed to the current legalities involving divorce.

 

I implied nothing. I quoted the poster who asked and gave that as a response. I added nothing to it, nor took anything away. That scripture passage is the historical Christian view of marriage. It is the historic and current view of marriage within the Catholic Church.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think this discussion (the civil part, anyway :rolleyes:) is interesting, but just to be clear -- we all know perfectly well that none of us is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue, right?

 

Because I think that if anyone thinks they're going to change anyone else's mind on it, they're going to walk away from this thread feeling incredibly frustrated.

 

I've been posting online for almost 20 years now. Discussions like these have *definitely* changed my views about certain things over a long period of time. Exposure to other views, why people think that, what types of people think that way, having to examine my own views-these are all healthy, positive things in the long run. They may be frustrating in the short run, but I have learned when to walk away from a discussion and/or who to put on ignore, even if it's just for a while (usually, it is for good).

[nmoira]

What rights were we given to murder? None. I think on that we can agree. Which must mean that the natural law to not murder is not a vote of the populous.

 

The right to murder vs the agreement not to murder. It seems "natural" to me that people in close proximity, be they clan, tribe, village, whatever, would frown upon murder within the group, both out of fear for the self and because it's destabilizing to the group. It's not up to a vote of the populous because it's a precondition for a stable, healthy society. Not everything is so clear cut that it has "always been," especially when dealing with "others": There are places where slavery is still the custom, where women are not afforded equal rights, etc., but are these not things we should fight against? Societies change over time and new agreements are made. It's just the way it is.

[mommymilkies]

Actually, this thread has changed *my* mind (as well as some nasty comments my "friends" have made on Facebook). I was going to begin conversion to Catholicism after years of indecision. I even started attending Mass again. But I have seen such vitriol flung in the past 48 hours that now I'm done. I couldn't possibly go through it if that kind of intolerance and fear is what I'd be signing up to support. Not from everyone, mind you, but it has me *really* taken aback.

 

Sorry for typos. Ipad is glitchy today.

[mamajudy]

 

Now, if the laws of the country begin to take away your right to worship then by all means, stand up and fight against it. I will fight alongside you, even though I don't share your beliefs. But that is not the case here. Religious leaders won't be forced to marry gay couples. Churches won't be forced to accept them as members. You are free to go to your house of worship and say whatever you want about the subject. You are free to say what you want about it anywhere actually. You are not free to deny rights to others because of your religious beliefs.

 

Actually, the laws of the country have been creeping in to take away freedom of religion. (Religious employers being required to provide birth control and abortion drugs via health care to employees...) It amazes me that people seem to think it so far fetched that we could go down the "slippery slope" (definition of marriage, First Ammendment rights, etc.) I can remember when the thought of same-sex marriage was considered to be ridiculous by the majority. But then, I remember one of my teachers back in the 60's telling us that some day people would have computers in their houses! That seemed as far fetched as saying we would all live on Mars!

[misty.warden]

I think that also answers this next quote, except to point out that the US is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. I think people confuse being a democratic nation with being a democracy, they do not have the same meaning.

 

So democratic but not a true democracy since we elect representatives rather than having to do all of our own interpretation of precedent individually and vote on every issue. How does that negate my question of how people, even elected reps, should vote without their religious or non-religious views?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think this discussion (the civil part, anyway :rolleyes:) is interesting, but just to be clear -- we all know perfectly well that none of us is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue, right?

 

Because I think that if anyone thinks they're going to change anyone else's mind on it, they're going to walk away from this thread feeling incredibly frustrated.

 

I don't agree. Opinions on this topic have shifted dramatically over the past 20 years, and I believe that conversations like these have played a role.

[8circles]

I've been posting online for almost 20 years now. Discussions like these have *definitely* changed my views about certain things over a long period of time. Exposure to other views, why people think that, what types of people think that way, having to examine my own views-these are all healthy, positive things in the long run. They may be frustrating in the short run, but I have learned when to walk away from a discussion and/or who to put on ignore, even if it's just for a while (usually, it is for good).

 

I agree. I used to think much differently. I've grown-up with some help from my friends. :D [yeah, Katie, I'm talking about you, if you ever venture into this thread]

[PachiSusan]

nm

Edited March 28, 2013 by Moderator
Nope.

[mommymilkies]

 

 

 

I feel you. I've been accused of posting nastily way back on page two when I hadn't. I'm tense. I agree. I'm losing my temper. I agree. Exchange of ideas, though? Unless there are a whole new round of people coming in, there's no exchange. It's the same back and forth. I don't want the thread to get shut down. Definitely not.

I'll go water some crops on FarmVille2 for a bit.

Good luck. Really. Not being facetious. You might need it in here.

 

I was also wrongly accused of saying something that I have every evidence I never said nor implied. KK isn't the only one getting heated, and I understand why she is. I think perhaps some kilts are needed.

 

Looks like it'll have to be Tennant in a tutu.

[Mrs Mungo]

Did you really think KK was the worst offender here? I thought her posts were pretty mild compared with some of the others, so I'm surprised you singled her out. Maybe I missed something, though, as the thread has been moving pretty quickly and I'm sure I missed some posts along the way.

 

I don't know how long ago the other people posted because I was away from home and leading a discussion. She had posted recently and seemed to be...um...my brain is not caffeinated enough...getting more irritated in this very moment. Does that make sense? I wasn't trying to call anyone out. She knows I agree with her POV from a legal stance, so I didn't think she would take it hard from me. :)

 

I implied nothing. I quoted the poster who asked and gave that as a response. I added nothing to it, nor took anything away. That scripture passage is the historical Christian view of marriage. It is the historic and current view of marriage within the Catholic Church.

 

Sorry, my post wasn't just intended for you, it was intended as part of the larger discussion. The Catholic church's view is not the legal view and should not be the legal view.

[SKL]

:iagree: While there are many religious people who are for marriage equality, those against it are against it for religious reasons. And none of them have been able to give a good reason why their religious beliefs should be the law of the land in a secular country. It all comes back to "because my god said so".

 

Not everyone who is against it is against it for religious reasons.

[Jen in NY]

 

Actually, the laws of the country have been creeping in to take away freedom of religion. (Religious employers being required to provide birth control and abortion drugs via health care to employees...) It amazes me that people seem to think it so far fetched that we could go down the "slippery slope" (definition of marriage, First Ammendment rights, etc.) I can remember when the thought of same-sex marriage was considered to be ridiculous by the majority. But then, I remember one of my teachers back in the 60's telling us that some day people would have computers in their houses! That seemed as far fetched as saying we would all live on Mars!

 

By that logic, though, civil rights related to race would never have come about ..... there are things in our country's past that have changed for the better, despite people's long held beliefs.

[Guest inoubliable]

Did you really think KK was the worst offender here? I thought her posts were pretty mild compared with some of the others, so I'm surprised you singled her out. Maybe I missed something, though, as the thread has been moving pretty quickly and I'm sure I missed some posts along the way.

 

And I'm pretty irritated now that I know that KK and Jennifer secretly got married and I wasn't invited. ;)

 

(I absolutely agree with you that everyone who can't be civil should step away from the thread for a while, though! :))

 

Thank you. *waters crops* You'll be there for the baby shower, right? First comes love, then comes marriage, then Jennifer's pushing a baby carriage? *harvests crops*

 

 

KK, I have to agree. The first time someone said STFU to me would be the last time they spoke to me, including my husband, unless he said "and kiss me" after it. I'm on your side in this discussion, but you are making it awfully hard for me to agree with your comments.

 

I quite agree. I do. My apologies. Obviously, I lost control. I'd delete it, but I don't like hiding stuff like that. I just hope the thread keeps on without a zillion people continuing to call me out for my temper.

[JuanitaL]

And none of them have been able to give a good reason why their religious beliefs should be the law of the land in a secular country. It all comes back to "because my god said so".

Irony alert - I'm taking an on-line class at Liberty University and just yesterday I was reading about these types of logical fallacies "The Bible is right ... and here's my scripture in Genesis to back it up."

[misty.warden]

Actually, this thread has changed *my* mind (as well as some nasty comments my "friends" have made on Facebook). I was going to begin conversion to Catholicism after years of indecision. I even started attending Mass again. But I have seen such vitriol flung in the past 48 hours that now I'm done. I couldn't possibly go through it if that kind of intolerance and fear is what I'd be signing up to support. Not from everyone, mind you, but it has me *really* taken aback.

 

Sorry for typos. Ipad is glitchy today.

 

I have gone both ways, there are people spreading intolerance and fear on both sides and I'd be lying if I said it hasn't made me question if being Catholic is "worth" being associated with people who say horrible things, but those people are somewhere in every group I've ever belonged to. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on hate speech, sometimes they are the loudest and most visible though. Not trying to change your mind, just wanted to let you know you're not alone in being put off by that kind of thing.

 

[Mrs Mungo]

I think that also answers this next quote, except to point out that the US is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. I think people confuse being a democratic nation with being a democracy, they do not have the same meaning.

 

So democratic but not a true democracy since we elect representatives rather than having to do all of our own interpretation of precedent individually and vote on every issue. How does that negate my question of how people, even elected reps, should vote without their religious or non-religious views?

 

There were also these quotes that were in part discussing your question:

Protecting the rights of the minority IS NOT "accommodating" them. The "Tyranny of the Masses" or "Tyranny of the Majority" is a political philosophical point that has been argued for thousands of years. It is THE VERY THING our Constitution is designed to prevent. More on this here:

http://www.answers.c...of-the-majority

 

The Supreme Court must apply the law of the land which includes a precedent of separation of church and state from the time our system of government was conceived.

 

After reading the first link, if you still don't understand how and why the Constitution protects the minority from the Tyranny of the Masses, then I can provide more information. You agree that we have separation of church and state in the US, based upon the US Constitution, the founding document of our nation? Or no?

 

ETA: I have to say your post was pretty ironic considering: Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

 

As an OEC/TE Christian, I guess I would not be sure what you are attempting to get at here.

 

The irony that this thread is still up and running on a board that espouses classical education and the training of our children in logic, debate, and discourse is priceless. The example we're setting of how well WE have learned this process is pathetic. This is so far from the model it's funny. Aristotle and Socrates must be rolling in their graves.

 

SWB must be so proud.

 

Hey, I did bring up Tyranny of the Masses! I'm trying here! :)

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

If you want to bring Loving Vs Virginia into it, where does the "right to marriage" come from in this case?

 

 

 

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

~Chief Justice Earl Warren

 

 

"I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

 

~Mildred Loving

[LisaKinVA]

Irony alert - I'm taking an on-line class at Liberty University and just yesterday I was reading about these types of logical fallacies "The Bible is right ... and here's my scripture in Genesis to back it up."

 

 

Obviously, you aren't in their debate class...that wouldn't be allowed ;) (I'm being serious). Depending upon who is teaching persuasion these days...it might.

[Catwoman]

Looks like it'll have to be Tennant in a tutu.

 

 

And not a moment too soon. :hurray:

[nmoira]

The fact that you can't sell your daughter for two goats and a sheep means we've already redefined marriage.

 

 

Shoot. Now what am I going to do with them?

[SKL]

Gosh, I wonder why nobody wants to provide the non-religious reasons they know of to be against gay marriage?

 

I mean, it's obvious the readers here would be open-minded enough to listen politely.

[SKL]

Besides, most of us here are women. If there were a couple thousand men having this discussion, I guarantee it would be very different in substance. Very different.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Gosh, I wonder why nobody wants to provide the non-religious reasons they know of to be against gay marriage?

 

I mean, it's obvious the readers here would be open-minded enough to listen politely.

 

 

It is more likely there simply isn't a sound non-religious reason to oppose it.

[Catwoman]

Shoot. Now what am I going to do with them?

 

 

Don't be alarmed -- I think she just meant that now you'll need 2 goats and 3 sheep. Inflation is everywhere.

[mommymilkies]

Well, my ds REALLY wants a goat, so I'm sure he'd trade out one of his sisters...I should probably not let him read that bible passage!

[Mrs Mungo]

Besides, most of us here are women. If there were a couple thousand men having this discussion, I guarantee it would be very different in substance. Very different.

 

 

I've actually been in a room full of senior military officers (to include Generals) having a discussion on DADT. Obviously, it had to stay highly professional. Nobody told anyone else to STFU. But, the range of arguments was pretty much the same.

 

eta: The highest ranking General present commented that the arguments were the same as he had heard from the highest levels of government.

[molon labe]

 

Wow. Really?

Typical. Enjoy wasting your time.

 

 

Yes, really. I will pray for you as you really seem to need it. You see, as a Christian I believe that ALL people are created in the image and likeness and God. As such you deserve to be loved and treated with dignity and respect, even though you don't extend the same consideration to others. I can tell you are passionate about your beliefs, as I am about mine. The difference is I can express my opinion without cursing and name calling or losing my temper. You can use all the foul language and nastiness you can possibly muster to denigrate others, but realize that it says more about you and your character than it says about the targets of your vitriol.

 

I enjoy my time spent in prayer. Prayer it is never a waste of time.

[Mergath]

Besides, most of us here are women. If there were a couple thousand men having this discussion, I guarantee it would be very different in substance. Very different.

 

 

How so? My very straight, self-proclaimed Lutheran dh is an even more ardent supporter of equal rights than I am, if that's possible. Are you trying to say that men are anti-gay marriage? That does quite a disservice to the men I know.

[Catwoman]

Well, my ds REALLY wants a goat, so I'm sure he'd trade out one of his sisters...I should probably not let him read that bible passage!

 

 

Yeah, and once he hears he's getting two of them, plus some bonus sheep, he'll have that ad posted on Craigslist within about 5 minutes.

[LisaKinVA]

It is more likely there simply isn't a sound non-religious reason to oppose it.

 

 

Actually, the article I linked does provide some jumping off points for reasons non-religious people can oppose it...but, it's a long read, and then there is the commentary below.

 

I do wonder, though, if the reason this issue has so much traction is that a large number of people believe homosexuality is a natural-born trait (born gay), and what would happen if such a belief (in the science of homosexuality) was wrong...would we be discussing same sex marriage today?

[Slartibartfast]

I guess I am just wondering if people believe we should ban gay marriage on religious grounds then why do we allow people to divorce?

 

Divorce is mentioned in the Bible much more than homosexuality and gay marriage is not mentioned at all. Jesus was very clear about divorce but did not mention homosexuality.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, really. I will pray for you as you really seem to need it. You see, as a Christian I believe that ALL people are created in the image and likeness and God. As such you deserve to be loved and treated with dignity and respect, even though you don't extend the same consideration to others. I can tell you are passionate about your beliefs, as I am about mine. The difference is I can express my opinion without cursing and name calling or losing my temper. You can use all the foul language and nastiness you can possibly muster to denigrate others, but realize that it says more about you and your character than it says about the targets of your vitriol.

 

I enjoy my time spent in prayer. Prayer it is never a waste of time.

 

 

Interesting. You state how what she says reveals her character. I feel the same way about your support of discrimination and bigotry.

[mamajudy]

 

By that logic, though, civil rights related to race would never have come about ..... there are things in our country's past that have changed for the better, despite people's long held beliefs.

 

 

By what logic? I was simply giving an example of how something that seems ridiculous to us today may be perfectly acceptable in the future. I never said we should go back to the 50's!

I've already wasted too much time on this thread. People will believe what they believe, and quite frankly, I'm tired of the nastiness. (and no, Jen in NY, I am not saying that you are the one being nasty.)