The NBA and fining players for social commentary

[NameLess Scrub 6]

Yes it is. You're arguing that gay people should not have the same rights as straight people, and the reason you gave, along with religion, is that you think marriage would actually be bad for them. You're advocating not even giving them the option to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their lives because you think you know better. That's arrogant and wrong and, yes, making decisions for others.

 

All right, maybe I'm advocating making onew decision for people among a lot of others. Maybe the state makes a lot of decisions for us to keep order. I don't think you want an anarchy as a non-arrogant approach, right?

 

Maybe we just differ on this since you think it's good to open the option and I don't.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

I was raised Christian. I attended Catholic school for 12 years. Being 21, I'm only 3 years removed from my last year in Catholic school. I'm not bashing a faith, I'm pointing out lapses in logic that have pushed me away from religion and those who practice religion in, what is my estimation, an illogical fashion. Perhaps I am too skeptical to be religious, but I don't understand how the teachings of an omnipotent, all-powerful, all-loving God can lead to the judgement and condemnation of a group of individuals.

 

As far as what the Bible leads Christians to do, doesn't the Book of Exodus say, "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Essentially, beat your slave nearly to death and no big deal. We can both agree that this is morally wrong, correct? But hey, it's in the Bible, it must be right! Right?

 

This is my problem when the religion and homosexuality issue rears it's ugly head. Isn't there a place for logic and one's personal moral compass in religion? How can't there be? I am supposed to read verses about divine love and equality for all of God's children and then accept that the a certain sexual orientation of those children, those human beings, is wrong? I won't do that.

 

See, people that based their lives on biblical principles do not necessarily take everything that shows up there as a commandment or something that needs to be done, starting with the fact that there's an old and new pact being described in it.

 

There have been many people studying the text content, historical and cultural contexts and other aspects of the Bible for many many years. The point is, no, you can't just comparre anything to one Old Testament text that talks about slavery and call it a day. As smart as people think they look by doing that they don't.

 

It's not that the Bible can't be confusing or hard to understand some times, it's just that the analysis and example you made is too simplistic.

 

Maybe you're right and you're too skeptical to be religious. But if you want to really have a better understanding of what the Bible says about homosexuality you probably need a bit more than a religion school. You might want to personally study what it says both in the old and new testament and see.

 

What I'm getting at is, if Christians are to be Christians, they'll follow Jesus teachings and the scripture Jesus himself validated, as responsibly as they can. If they do that, they will be against homosexual behavior as something that goes away from the intend of God. For that reason I say it's not fair to judge them for doing what they should in their own religion. If they didn't you could say they're not really Christians.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

All right, maybe I'm advocating making onew decision for people among a lot of others. Maybe the state makes a lot of decisions for us to keep order. I don't think you want an anarchy as a non-arrogant approach, right?

 

Maybe we just differ on this since you think it's good to open the option and I don't.

 

I don't think you'd take the same position if it was a different religion setting rules on whom you could legally marry.

 

The only reason to oppose gay marriage is because of religion, and even religious people such as yourself should be able to see why keeping religion out of public policy is a good thing. It might seem bad to you to not be able to impose your views on other people, but that same principle protects you from having other religions imposing their views on you as well.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

Nothing says: "I'm willing to have an honest debate" quite like equating the people on the other side of the debate with pedophiles and animals eating their own ****.

 

 

I'm the one who mentioned pedophiles... C'mon man.

 

I'm just comparing. They're comparable to me since I think those are both sexual based problems that can become acceptable with lobbying, work from the right people, and years. If pedophilia does became at least partially acceptable and legal with years, probably many people will forget it was such a despicable behavior back in 2011. They will probably call us all retards.

 

You might not agree with that, but I'm being honest.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I'm the one who mentioned pedophiles... C'mon man.

 

I'm just comparing. They're comparable to me since I think those are both sexual based problems that can become acceptable with lobbying, work from the right people, and years. If pedophilia does became at least partially acceptable and legal with years, probably many people will forget it was such a despicable behavior back in 2011. They will probably call us all retards.

 

You might not agree with that, but I'm being honest.

 

Of all the ridiculous things you've said in this thread, this is the worst. You're either trolling or completely incapable of rational discussion.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

I don't think you'd take the same position if it was a different religion setting rules on whom you could legally marry.

 

The only reason to oppose gay marriage is because of religion, and even religious people such as yourself should be able to see why keeping religion out of public policy is a good thing. It might seem bad to you to not be able to impose your views on other people, but that same principle protects you from having other religions imposing their views on you as well.

 

 

Agree. I totally understand that.

 

The thing is, I still think this might be an imposition of moral values anyway if we keep filling different aspects of society with the idea that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, and I'm still worried that gay marriage is a trampolin for oppressing religions if it's handled in certain way.

 

Keep in mind nothing else is under discussion except for letting them get married. If I was going to believe in imposition just for the sake of it I would tell you being homosexual should be criminalized, but I'm not saying that. I think it is evident I'm not simply talking about going to the law and pasting by religion's views there. Please don't underestimate me.

 

About religion as the only reason, I think many people will make a case there are other reasons but I won't start with that since honestly I can't.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

Of all the ridiculous things you've said in this thread, this is the worst. You're either trolling or completely incapable of rational discussion.

 

Now you're flaming.. of course I'm not trolling.

 

Anyway, I'm ok with you thinking what I say is ridiculous. I also think some of the things said here are ridiculous.

I'm aware I won't convince you and if I was, I would need more than what I've brought. It's ok.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'm the one who mentioned pedophiles... C'mon man.

 

I'm just comparing. They're comparable to me since I think those are both sexual based problems that can become acceptable with lobbying, work from the right people, and years. If pedophilia does became at least partially acceptable and legal with years, probably many people will forget it was such a despicable behavior back in 2011. They will probably call us all retards.

 

You might not agree with that, but I'm being honest.

 

 

And now you're comparing a loving relationship between two consenting adults with the an adult taking sexual advantage of pre-pubescent children.

 

You're a class act.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Agree. I totally understand that.

 

The thing is, I still think this might be an imposition of moral values anyway if we keep filling different aspects of society with the idea that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, and I'm still worried that gay marriage is a trampolin for oppressing religions if it's handled in certain way.

 

Keep in mind nothing else is under discussion except for letting them get married. If I was going to believe in imposition just for the sake of it I would tell you being homosexual should be criminalized, but I'm not saying that. I think it is evident I'm not simply talking about going to the law and pasting by religion's views there. Please don't underestimate me.

 

About religion as the only reason, I think many people will make a case there are other reasons but I won't start with that since honestly I can't.

 

You haven't given a reason for opposing gay marriage that isn't coming from your own personal religious beliefs. And you're arguing that the law should reflect those beliefs and not allow something that you consider wrong for religious reasons. So you can't claim to agree with the idea that religion has no place in public policy, since your position is advocating the application of religious beliefs to public policy. If you don't want to be underestimated you need to find a rational, non-religious argument against gay marriage and use that. Until then, I'm entirely justified in asserting that you're trying to impose your religious views on others through public policy.

[NameLess Scrub 6]

You haven't given a reason for opposing gay marriage that isn't coming from your own personal religious beliefs. And you're arguing that the law should reflect those beliefs and not allow something that you consider wrong for religious reasons. So you can't claim to agree with the idea that religion has no place in public policy, since your position is advocating the application of religious beliefs to public policy. If you don't want to be underestimated you need to find a rational, non-religious argument against gay marriage and use that. Until then, I'm entirely justified in asserting that you're trying to impose your religious views on others through public policy.

 

I didn't say it has no place. I agreed about the general argument about imposing.

 

Public policy will always reflect some moral standard, coming from a religion or from somewhere else.

Some moral is being imposed everyday when they won't let you steal the TV you like from the store.

We can't pretend the whole intend of the church/state separation is to reduce religious influence to nothing.

 

The thing is how much should it reflect. In that we disagree.

 

I already said I can't show non-religious arguments to oppose gay marriage. If I did I would be saying stuff from the top of my head wich would be quickly invalidated by you. For that I've quit with my arguments.

 

It seems that somehow you want to continue arguing about this. I just don't think I have much else to add. If I did I would start giving arguments again.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Public policy will always reflect some moral standard, coming from a religion or from somewhere else.

Some moral is being imposed everyday when they won't let you steal the TV you like from the store.

 

 

That has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with when rights to freedom begin and end.

 

Your right to do what you want ends the instant it violates my right to my property. That's why stealing a tv is illegal, not because it's "wrong".

[NameLess Scrub 6]

And now you're comparing a loving relationship between two consenting adults with the an adult taking sexual advantage of pre-pubescent children.

 

You're a class act.

 

I'm totally aware of what I'm saying. You need to imagine that the terminology would be gradually changed, for starters, or that science will start working with public perception gradually.

 

I'm ok if you think that's impossible. I'm just telling you what I think and why.