Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:42:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
Author Topic: Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015  (Read 19256 times)
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #175 on: May 02, 2015, 10:59:25 PM »



These are faithful Christians entering into the sacrament of marriage before God in His church, and no one can ever say otherwise.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,700
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #176 on: May 02, 2015, 11:04:53 PM »

Doesn't Wulfric belong to a church that now does gay weddings? Unless he's not PCUSA.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #177 on: May 02, 2015, 11:11:47 PM »



These are faithful Christians entering into the sacrament of marriage before God in His church, and no one can ever say otherwise.

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #178 on: May 02, 2015, 11:24:51 PM »

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?

Not up on your Update memes, I see?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #179 on: May 02, 2015, 11:27:46 PM »

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?

Not up on your Update memes, I see?

God dude, no

Understand now, though Tongue
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #180 on: May 02, 2015, 11:29:50 PM »

Because he believes that God says that's wrong, "and no one can ever say otherwise."  You just ended a sentence with "and no one can ever say otherwise" and you're asking how he can have a rigid, faith-based view?

Not up on your Update memes, I see?

God dude, no

Understand now, though Tongue

I don't as I never understood why anyone bothered with Update to the point of developing a catechism for it.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #181 on: May 02, 2015, 11:36:21 PM »

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

Ok, well let's cut right to the chase here. Would you vote in favor of the following referendums if they were on the ballot in your state?
1. A ban on all non-Christian marriages (i.e. no state recognition of marriages between Jewish or Muslim couples, etc.)?
2. The establishment of Christianity as the official state religion?
3.A ban on the construction of mosques within the state?
4. A flat-out ban on the practice of Islam?
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #182 on: May 03, 2015, 06:11:26 PM »

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

Ok, well let's cut right to the chase here. Would you vote in favor of the following referendums if they were on the ballot in your state?
1. A ban on all non-Christian marriages (i.e. no state recognition of marriages between Jewish or Muslim couples, etc.)?
2. The establishment of Christianity as the official state religion?
3. A ban on the construction of mosques within the state?
4. A flat-out ban on the practice of Islam?

1. Contrary to what you may believe, god does not declare that a marriage between two unbelievers is a sin (However, a christian who knowingly marries an unbeliever is sinning: https://bible.org/seriespage/17-marriage-matters-1-corinthians-76-24). So, it falls to personal opinion, and I would vote No in this case.

2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not sure. While this is something god would likely expect me to support, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to actually support it.

--------------

When and if I knowingly go against a commandment of god when taking a position on an issue, there is always a reason for doing it. Maybe I feel it's unenforceable, too intruding, or ridiculously expensive. I do not want to give into those temptations, but the devil finds ways of convincing me that it's what's best for society as a whole.

But when it comes to SSM, my devoted opposition comes with no hesitation whatsoever. Excluding gay couples from marriage is not something that I feel uneasy about doing at all. Some of the people in this world are asking god to change the union of marriage from what it has been for essentially all of time. They are telling god, not even out of temptation, but out of pure wanting to do it without any provoking from the devil at all, that the unions he created aren't good enough for us even though they were good enough for centuries upon centuries. And they should be ashamed of themselves.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,749
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #183 on: May 03, 2015, 06:26:36 PM »

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

Ok, well let's cut right to the chase here. Would you vote in favor of the following referendums if they were on the ballot in your state?
1. A ban on all non-Christian marriages (i.e. no state recognition of marriages between Jewish or Muslim couples, etc.)?
2. The establishment of Christianity as the official state religion?
3. A ban on the construction of mosques within the state?
4. A flat-out ban on the practice of Islam?

1. Contrary to what you may believe, god does not declare that a marriage between two unbelievers is a sin (However, a christian who knowingly marries an unbeliever is sinning: https://bible.org/seriespage/17-marriage-matters-1-corinthians-76-24). So, it falls to personal opinion, and I would vote No in this case.

2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not sure. While this is something god would likely expect me to support, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to actually support it.

--------------

When and if I knowingly go against a commandment of god when taking a position on an issue, there is always a reason for doing it. Maybe I feel it's unenforceable, too intruding, or ridiculously expensive. I do not want to give into those temptations, but the devil finds ways of convincing me that it's what's best for society as a whole.

But when it comes to SSM, my devoted opposition comes with no hesitation whatsoever. Excluding gay couples from marriage is not something that I feel uneasy about doing at all. Some of the people in this world are asking god to change the union of marriage from what it has been for essentially all of time. They are telling god, not even out of temptation, but out of pure wanting to do it without any provoking from the devil at all, that the unions he created aren't good enough for us even though they were good enough for centuries upon centuries. And they should be ashamed of themselves.


I am ultra-religious. This is the scariest thing I have read on this forum this year. Moderate Christians should not be supporting some crazy theocracy. Bannings mosques?! Holy.... I even supported you embracing civil unions but geez. Don't take this as a personal attack, but that is quite extreme.
Out of curiosity, is this a particular branch of Christianity you are explaining the beliefs of? Catholics are supposed to be devoted to defending religious freedom. I highly doubt that's what you are, but I'm curious. Catholic churches in my area even do the marriages with Jews (though they are a bit more under the table. I don't think they are sending the pastor in for that usually.)

Also, the line has been repeated ad infinitum, but the definition of marriage has changed many, many times since the Bible was released.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #184 on: May 03, 2015, 06:28:35 PM »

We should only ban 55% of mosques
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #185 on: May 03, 2015, 07:09:52 PM »

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

Ok, well let's cut right to the chase here. Would you vote in favor of the following referendums if they were on the ballot in your state?
1. A ban on all non-Christian marriages (i.e. no state recognition of marriages between Jewish or Muslim couples, etc.)?
2. The establishment of Christianity as the official state religion?
3. A ban on the construction of mosques within the state?
4. A flat-out ban on the practice of Islam?

1. Contrary to what you may believe, god does not declare that a marriage between two unbelievers is a sin (However, a christian who knowingly marries an unbeliever is sinning: https://bible.org/seriespage/17-marriage-matters-1-corinthians-76-24). So, it falls to personal opinion, and I would vote No in this case.

2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not sure. While this is something god would likely expect me to support, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to actually support it.

--------------

When and if I knowingly go against a commandment of god when taking a position on an issue, there is always a reason for doing it. Maybe I feel it's unenforceable, too intruding, or ridiculously expensive. I do not want to give into those temptations, but the devil finds ways of convincing me that it's what's best for society as a whole.

But when it comes to SSM, my devoted opposition comes with no hesitation whatsoever. Excluding gay couples from marriage is not something that I feel uneasy about doing at all. Some of the people in this world are asking god to change the union of marriage from what it has been for essentially all of time. They are telling god, not even out of temptation, but out of pure wanting to do it without any provoking from the devil at all, that the unions he created aren't good enough for us even though they were good enough for centuries upon centuries. And they should be ashamed of themselves.


Why is banning mosques okay with you but not a flat-out ban on Islam? It's like you are trying to be a moderate for the sake of being a moderate, even though your beliefs are inherently radical.

Seriously, I've been following this thread just because I find the way your mind seems to work, and the way you explain it, actually fascinating.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #186 on: May 03, 2015, 07:10:59 PM »

Oh, great. A Christian Taliban.
Logged
Anti Democrat Democrat Club
SawxDem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,093
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #187 on: May 03, 2015, 07:11:38 PM »

b]I do not want to give into those temptations[/b]

Wink
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #188 on: May 03, 2015, 07:17:42 PM »

I'm not saying that all of god's commandments are things I would be willing to publicly campaign on/advocate for if one asked me to do so. I don't feel god expects me to do so. But if they were to come up at the ballot box as refrendums, then I believe god expects me to vote for them out of faith. Sure, god is the eventual final arbiter on whether someone has been truly repentant and deserves forgiveness. But that doesn't mean he expects man to show a nonchalant attitude towards others' sin.

Ok, well let's cut right to the chase here. Would you vote in favor of the following referendums if they were on the ballot in your state?
1. A ban on all non-Christian marriages (i.e. no state recognition of marriages between Jewish or Muslim couples, etc.)?
2. The establishment of Christianity as the official state religion?
3. A ban on the construction of mosques within the state?
4. A flat-out ban on the practice of Islam?

1. Contrary to what you may believe, god does not declare that a marriage between two unbelievers is a sin (However, a christian who knowingly marries an unbeliever is sinning: https://bible.org/seriespage/17-marriage-matters-1-corinthians-76-24). So, it falls to personal opinion, and I would vote No in this case.

2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not sure. While this is something god would likely expect me to support, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to actually support it.

--------------

When and if I knowingly go against a commandment of god when taking a position on an issue, there is always a reason for doing it. Maybe I feel it's unenforceable, too intruding, or ridiculously expensive. I do not want to give into those temptations, but the devil finds ways of convincing me that it's what's best for society as a whole.

But when it comes to SSM, my devoted opposition comes with no hesitation whatsoever. Excluding gay couples from marriage is not something that I feel uneasy about doing at all. Some of the people in this world are asking god to change the union of marriage from what it has been for essentially all of time. They are telling god, not even out of temptation, but out of pure wanting to do it without any provoking from the devil at all, that the unions he created aren't good enough for us even though they were good enough for centuries upon centuries. And they should be ashamed of themselves.


Of course, since no one knows a) if there is a God b) if there is, what he/she/it thinks of something so trivial in the grand scheme of things.... it's pointless.

I LOVE how all of these terrible things that most of us have decreed as wrong and outdated (slavery, stoning etc) are ignored, but something not even mentioned in the Bible is crystal-clear... apparently.

But please, watch this. "Biblical marriage" if the Bible is the guide, it's the only info we've got.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,218
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #189 on: May 03, 2015, 10:56:10 PM »

Wulfric,

Are you really going to deny that these are Christian ceremonies?
 

Are you really going to "go there" and say that these churches do not perform valid marriages in the eyes of God? As someone who was married (to an opposite-sex partner) in the Episcopal Church, I am personally offended if believe that marriages performed by my church aren't "real."

You can't have it both ways. Either the above couples aren't married, and neither am I, or we are all. Surely you wouldn't be so presumptive to think you can pick and choose which Episcopal marriages are real and which aren't. Surely...
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #190 on: May 03, 2015, 11:49:47 PM »
« Edited: May 03, 2015, 11:54:56 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?

I really did not expect you to be so authoritarian and radical on this issue.  You are one of the very few people I've ever met who apparently thinks it's just fine to superimpose any and all personal beliefs on public policymaking, and that personal religious beliefs trump a secular harm test in all instances of policymaking.  That just seems so damn perilous to me, but not to you?

Yikes.  That's internally consistent, but it might be the most extreme position I've ever seen on this forum.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #191 on: May 04, 2015, 12:02:39 AM »

Got a real Moderate Hero on our hands.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #192 on: May 04, 2015, 12:31:29 AM »

Got a real Moderate Hero on our hands.

Well technically he did still manage to carve out a moderate hero compromise position: He would never introduce legislation to impose a totalitarian theocracy on the country, but if it was on the ballot he'd vote for it. Roll Eyes
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #193 on: May 04, 2015, 12:51:25 AM »

Wulfric,

Are you really going to deny that these are Christian ceremonies?
 

Are you really going to "go there" and say that these churches do not perform valid marriages in the eyes of God? As someone who was married (to an opposite-sex partner) in the Episcopal Church, I am personally offended if believe that marriages performed by my church aren't "real."

You can't have it both ways. Either the above couples aren't married, and neither am I, or we are all. Surely you wouldn't be so presumptive to think you can pick and choose which Episcopal marriages are real and which aren't. Surely...

You can call them whatever you like, but they're not valid marriages in the eyes of god.

And, you'd actually rather have no marriage at all rather than traditional marriage only? Seriously?

And to the person who posted the Betty Bowers video, that's just a youtube personality. I highly doubt that's even the real name of the account owner. In any case, that video boils down to "Well, there's some incest and polygamy in the bible, so gay marriage can't possibly be immoral".

Essentially, it's trying to say that since a certain action viewed as worse than another action in society is not omitted from the bible, that other action can't possibly be sinful. It's an interesting argument, but scripture doesn't actually support it.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #194 on: May 04, 2015, 12:55:04 AM »

Got a real Moderate Hero on our hands.

Possibly the very first "Moderate Villain"
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #195 on: May 04, 2015, 12:55:16 AM »

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?
Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,749
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #196 on: May 04, 2015, 01:04:09 AM »

Serious question - don't answer if it causes you much angst - If your denomination began performing homosexual marriages, would you leave it?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #197 on: May 04, 2015, 01:10:37 AM »

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?
Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #198 on: May 04, 2015, 01:11:45 AM »

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?
Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

That's so not what he was asking.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #199 on: May 04, 2015, 01:18:28 AM »

Wulfric, are you at all concerned about bringing explicit theological views into policymaking, since it opens the gate to draconian majority enforcement of religious views you may think are wrong?
Well, if you're asking "Am I concerned about non-Christians who would want to enforce their (false) religion on society?", then yes.

Wow, I think we can drop the 'moderate hero' tag from Mr Wulfric. There's nothing moderate or in any way heroic about these positions.

Well, considering this forum's political spectrum has Hillary Clinton as an arch-right winger, and I'm obviously to her right on (almost) everything, I never applied that title much to myself anyways.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 12 queries.