Former Mizzou Michael Sam comes out of the closet

[WCTYSON]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

For the millionth time, please stop basing your judgements on being gay being natural and a human right on the same level as race, sex, etc. Having that be true is the only way you can argue I'm bigoted.

But if you consider the Christian viewpoint that it's a choice, it's no different than being against smoking in public places for example. It's a choice that should not be freely allowed because it infringes on the rights of others. Are you a bigot if you don't want people blowing smoke in your face? No, you're defending your right to not have to be subjected to smoke fumes. This is the same, it's not about hate it's about defending the right to practice one's religion and not be forced to compromise it for what is viewed as a personal choice not a genetic right.

So many people in this thread just want to assume that Christians agree it's natural and still for no reason want to discriminate.

When it comes to civil liberties homosexuality is neutral. So yes, it is just like being male or female, black or white. Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, it is biology. That is your bigotry, by denying liberties because of the way someone was created. You want freedom of religion, which I do too. But then, you want to use your belief set to take away the liberties of others. We do not need religion determining law of the land. You are free to believe what you want and so is everybody else but who is trying to deny liberty and justice for all?

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by MeteoriteGuy

I don't see anyone assuming Christians think it is natural. In fact there was two pages of debate on that. No one made any like comment. We completely understand that the definition of natural, and science that shows it is natural, means nothing to you.

And while we are on definitions, don't look up the meaning of bigotry, sexual preference is included within it, as it should be. A personal or faith reason for bigotry, does not make it not so.

As we discussed a few days ago, it's hard to argue with you because there is no opinion in what you say. You just treat all your beliefs as fact. No science has proven beyond a doubt it's natural in humans to be completely gay, but in your mind it has. But because it's enough for you in no way means others have to accept your viewpoint.

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by WCTYSON

When it comes to civil liberties homosexuality is neutral. So yes, it is just like being male or female, black or white. Homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, it is biology. That is your bigotry, by denying liberties because of the way someone was created. You want freedom of religion, which I do too. But then, you want to use your belief set to take away the liberties of others. We do not need religion determining law of the land. You are free to believe what you want and so is everybody else but who is trying to deny liberty and justice for all?

As I told the others, it being natural is your opinion. It is far from an undeniable fact.

[NJNets24]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

I don't believe they are human rights like race, sex, etc. If that's the case it completely changes being against gay marriage. If I agreed it was natural and still wanted to judge gays I'd agree with you.

So...at least we can agree that you are judging gays. I thought god was only person allowed to judge, no???

[Andrew Jones]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

Some Christians are insane, have insane beliefs, and want to force them down everyone's throat. What's your point? There's people like that in every group.

Out of curiosity, how do you know they are insane? It seems entirely possible to me they are "right" and you are "wrong." How do you know that is not the case?

[RamRage]

Originally Posted by royprice31

Exactly, so you believe we come from apes. Correct??

You evidently didn't read my PM, did you Roy
Would be interested if you could give me a response to that, if you have the time..

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by NJNets24

So...at least we can agree that you are judging gays. I thought god was only person allowed to judge, no???

How am I judging anyone? I'm curious. They can do whatever they want I don't care. It's not my place to judge their morals. But if I see it infringing on my freedoms that are protected it's an issue.

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by Andrew Jones

Out of curiosity, how do you know they are insane? It seems entirely possible to me they are "right" and you are "wrong." How do you know that is not the case?

What are you referring to? That guy posted that to suggest Christians are all extremists.

[RamRage]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

As I told the others, it being natural is your opinion. It is far from an undeniable fact.

What is 'natural'? What is 'normal'? These are terms coined by humans to describe what is most common, not what is right or wrong. Whether something is 'natural' or not doesn't affect whether it is morally correct.

[WCTYSON]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

As I told the others, it being natural is your opinion. It is far from an undeniable fact.

I stated neutral, in the sense of civil liberties. I am not questioning you belief set on if homosexuality is natural to you. You are free to your own religious beliefs. I am talking about in the eyes of the law, which should be void of religious biases.

[RamRage]

Originally Posted by royprice31

Yes on part of that, but I haven't heard the part about satan and dinosaur bones.

The most common excuse creationists have for the existence of fossilised evidence of evolution and a universe past 6000 years old is that Satan (or God for some people) put the fossils there to test us... if you don't use that excuse, what excuse is there?

[MeteoriteGuy]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

As we discussed a few days ago, it's hard to argue with you because there is no opinion in what you say. You just treat all your beliefs as fact. No science has proven beyond a doubt it's natural in humans to be completely gay, but in your mind it has. But because it's enough for you in no way means others have to accept your viewpoint.

I do agree its hard to debate against things like the definition of the word natural. You can look it up 100 times and get the same definition. This has nothing to be with belief.

"No science has proven beyond a doubt it's natural in humans to be completely gay, but in your mind it has."
Actually earlier I said it was not proven beyond doubt, that however does not mean there is not evidence to suggest it is.

Note that I have not misquoted you once, or given you words you have not said, you have done that multiple times to me now.

[Andrew Jones]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

What are you referring to? That guy posted that to suggest Christians are all extremists.

I'm referring to this:

Originally Posted by friarbolt

Some Christians are insane, have insane beliefs, and want to force them down everyone's throat. What's your point? There's people like that in every group.

You are stating that some Christians are insane and have insane beliefs. From what I understand, their beliefs are based on the Bible and their interpretation of it, just like most other versions of Christianity. I'm just curious as to how you know they are the insane ones with insane views and not, for example, you. Isn't it possible their interpretation is correct and yours is not?

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by RamRage

What is 'natural'? What is 'normal'? These are terms coined by humans to describe what is most common, not what is right or wrong. Whether something is 'natural' or not doesn't affect whether it is morally correct.

Natural is race, natural is gender, natural is traits we do not control in any way and are purely genetic. There's a way to define it yes.

Originally Posted by WCTYSON

I stated neutral, in the sense of civil liberties. I am not questioning you belief set on if homosexuality is natural to you. You are free to your own religious beliefs. I am talking about in the eyes of the law, which should be void of religious biases.

The legislation that comes with things like gay marriage is far from neutral. It's being treated like a basic human right when there is not undeniable proof that it's a natural human right. Nobody can argue race isn't natural, sex, etc. Homosexuality is not at that point.

I know you don't believe it's a choice, but for the sake of argument let's say you did. Would you want it protected as right the same as race or sex or those natural traits? That wouldn't make sense because if it's a choice it's not in that category.

[cyberpvnk]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

How am I judging anyone? I'm curious. They can do whatever they want I don't care. It's not my place to judge their morals. But if I see it infringing on my freedoms that are protected it's an issue.

How are gays infringing on your freedoms?

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by MeteoriteGuy

I do agree its hard to debate against things like the definition of the word natural. You can look it up 100 times and get the same definition.

Actually earlier I said it was not proven beyond doubt, that however does not mean there is not evidence to suggest it is.

There is scientific evidence to suggest many things. You have an odd obsession with word definitions in my opinion. I know what the definition of natural is, and I even admit having sexual feelings towards the same sex can be natural. But there is not enough in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, to suggest that some people are born 100% gay.

To do that someone would have to be born essentially having overwhelming urges towards the same sex and never having any kind of primal desire towards the opposite sex at any time by no choice of their own.

Originally Posted by cyberpvnk

How are gays infringing on your freedoms?

Explaining would literally cause this thread to start over, it's 60+ pages long trust me the reasons are all in there at this point.

[royprice31]

Originally Posted by RamRage

The most common excuse creationists have for the existence of fossilised evidence of evolution and a universe past 6000 years old is that Satan (or God for some people) put the fossils there to test us... if you don't use that excuse, what excuse is there?

Please check this out.
Dinosaurs and the Bible - Answers in Genesis

As far as your pm goes, I will eventually get back to you. I was totally mind blown when I read it. I've never really met someone that believes all of that.

[NJNets24]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

There is scientific evidence to suggest many things. You have an odd obsession with word definitions in my opinion. I know what the definition of natural is, and I even admit having sexual feelings towards the same sex can be natural. But there is not enough in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, to suggest that some people are born 100% gay.

To do that someone would have to be born essentially having overwhelming urges towards the same sex and never having any kind of primal desire towards the opposite sex at any time by no choice of their own.



Explaining would literally cause this thread to start over, it's 60+ pages long trust me the reasons are all in there at this point.

First:

"If I agreed it was natural and still wanted to judge gays I'd agree with you."

The framework of that sentence says you are judging gays. If you agreed it was natural, you wouldn't judge, but since you don't think it's natural, you are judging.

And again, you keep claiming it infringes on your religious freedom, but all you say is employers being forced to condone a gay marriage. And you are repeatedly rebutted with the fact that it is discrimination. You haven't answered the question about whether you think its ok for an employer to refuse anyone insurance that doesn't practice their Hindu religion. In your mind, that's ok, because they are living a lifestyle their religion doesn't believe, right?

[friarbolt]

Originally Posted by NJNets24

First:

"If I agreed it was natural and still wanted to judge gays I'd agree with you."

The framework of that sentence says you are judging gays. If you agreed it was natural, you wouldn't judge, but since you don't think it's natural, you are judging.

And again, you keep claiming it infringes on your religious freedom, but all you say is employers being forced to condone a gay marriage. And you are repeatedly rebutted with the fact that it is discrimination. You haven't answered the question about whether you think its ok for an employer to refuse anyone insurance that doesn't practice their Hindu religion. In your mind, that's ok, because they are living a lifestyle their religion doesn't believe, right?

I never said anyone should discriminate, the whole issue of judging people as they came into your store or refusing them service isn't even the issue, nobody even brought that up before you did. That's not what this is about, I and most Christians wouldn't even support that concept of judging others.

[WCTYSON]

Originally Posted by friarbolt

The legislation that comes with things like gay marriage is far from neutral. It's being treated like a basic human right when there is not undeniable proof that it's a natural human right. Nobody can argue race isn't natural, sex, etc. Homosexuality is not at that point.

I know you don't believe it's a choice, but for the sake of argument let's say you did. Would you want it protected as right the same as race or sex or those natural traits? That wouldn't make sense because if it's a choice it's not in that category.

I am not going to argue about your religious beliefs on what you deem to be natural. I am talking about civil liberties, deemed by US law. The US Supreme Court has protected homosexuality from discrimination. That does not infringe on your religious beliefs. It increases the scope of protection for, liberty and justice for all US citizens. Not sure why you want to continue to argue religious morality when that is not the issue at all. This is about equal protection being extended to all Americans, not just some with certain religious beliefs.

:special:

[RamRage]

Originally Posted by royprice31

Please check this out.
Dinosaurs and the Bible - Answers in Genesis

As far as your pm goes, I will eventually get back to you. I was totally mind blown when I read it. I've never really met someone that believes all of that.

This article reads as follows:
Dinosaurs Existed > Take Genesis Literally > All Bible Is True > Therefore, they only existed 6000 years ago.
And the reason for them becoming extinct, Noah's Ark/The Flood?Really? This article states evolutionists have no proof (which they do) then uses unreliable evidence. Many Christians open themselves up to the idea of evolution by not taking Genesis literally. Radioactive dating and sediment analysis conclusively prove dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million years old.

It isn't just dinosaurs either, look at the fossil record of the horse, as one of many examples. It shows the evolution to the modern horse over many millions of years.

Poor source Roy, to be honest!

[Chrisp253]

Its stupid this kid is getting so much attention for being gay

[royprice31]

Originally Posted by RamRage

This article reads as follows:
Dinosaurs Existed > Take Genesis Literally > All Bible Is True > Therefore, they only existed 6000 years ago.
And the reason for them becoming extinct, Noah's Ark/The Flood?Really? This article states evolutionists have no proof (which they do) then uses unreliable evidence. Many Christians open themselves up to the idea of evolution by not taking Genesis literally. Radioactive dating and sediment analysis conclusively prove dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million years old.

It isn't just dinosaurs either, look at the fossil record of the horse, as one of many examples. It shows the evolution to the modern horse over many millions of years.

Poor source Roy, to be honest!

Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11–12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.

[RamRage]

Originally Posted by royprice31

The atheist on here are going to argue any point you make. Just remember they think we come from apes. Good luck if you keep arguing with them!!

Again, if you're going to ridicule atheist and evolutionist beliefs, at least get the beliefs right. We evolved from a common ancestor 6 million years ago, and two distinct strands were formed, one strand was chimpanzees and gorillas, the other into early human ancestors. Please don't ridicule this view when you have one that lacks any evidence or depth.

[RamRage]

Originally Posted by royprice31

Well, what happened to all the land animals that did not go on the Ark? Very simply, they drowned. Many would have been covered with tons of mud as the rampaging water covered the land (Genesis 7:11–12,19). Because of this quick burial, many of the animals would have been preserved as fossils. If this happened, you would expect to find evidence of billions of dead things buried in rock layers (formed from this mud) all over the Earth. This is exactly what you do find.

Again, this is based on Biblical teaching. You can't use biblical teaching as solid evidence, as it has none. As I said, scientists have conclusively proven due to radioactive dating and sediment analysis that these fossils are at least 65 million years old. Many other animals show great proof of evolution also...