The last bastion of hope and true Christian conservatism on the brink of defeat.

[2DUM2TAP]

He was speaking about marriage as it was defined by God in the beginning. Seeing as how homosexuality was considered a sin by God, I don't really see where you think you have the grounds to interpret Christ's opinion based on something HE NEVER SAID! Considering Jesus was referencing the old testament when he made the remark, and considering that homosexuality is expressly forbidden in the old testament, I fail to see how you could arrive at the conclusion that Jesus approved of gay marriage.

Many things were expressly forbidden in the old testament which became perfectly fine after Jesus... Almost the entire rule book of Leviticus was wiped out, but people still cling to the no-gays part of that book while happily eating bacon and wearing clothing of mixed clothes. So unless he specifically said "Only" I don't think you can infer his meaning.

Non-sequitur. I wasn't debating whether gays have the right to get married (I think they do). I was simply pointing out why Christians don't agree with it. Get you emotions under control.

My emotions are perfectly in control. I'm much like Spock in this way. I'm not the one using caps or exclamation points.

I'm not arguing against gay marriage. (I think gays should be allowed to get married.) I'm explaining why most Christians oppose it. Can you work out the difference?

I wasn't aware of your position. Either way it's a weak argument for Christians to cling to... some unknown guy once wrote stuff about some guy who supposedly saw some guy say stuff, but we don't have that stuff that he wrote, and its been translated and copied multiple times, but hey.... good enough for us.

 

[dontsnitch]

Many things were expressly forbidden in the old testament which became perfectly fine after Jesus... Almost the entire rule book of Leviticus was wiped out, but people still cling to the no-gays part of that book while happily eating bacon and wearing clothing of mixed clothes. So unless he specifically said "Only" I don't think you can infer his meaning.



My emotions are perfectly in control. I'm much like Spock in this way. I'm not the one using caps or exclamation points.


I wasn't aware of your position. Either way it's a weak argument for Christians to cling to... some unknown guy once wrote stuff about some guy who supposedly saw some guy say stuff, but we don't have that stuff that he wrote, and its been translated and copied multiple times, but hey.... good enough for us.

The one problem is that not only did the forefathers believe homosexuality was a sin, Jesus' successors also believed it was a sin. Paul, who wrote most of the NT, unequivocally condemns it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Christ would not have approved of homosexuality given that he was a Jew who lived circa 30 A.D.

What I will say is that a lot of Christians focus on this one sin more than others, and often suggest that this sin is greater than others like it. Not to mention people in the south who seem to forget the part about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but still, it's more reasonable to conclude that Christ considered it immoral.

 

[Starman]

Many things were expressly forbidden in the old testament which became perfectly fine after Jesus... Almost the entire rule book of Leviticus was wiped out, but people still cling to the no-gays part of that book while happily eating bacon and wearing clothing of mixed clothes. So unless he specifically said "Only" I don't think you can infer his meaning.

I'm not inferring anything. There is nothing to infer. Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, just as the old testament did. The only inference is yours, in assuming that because Christians don't follow the dietary habits of the Jews (of which there was much debate even amongst Jesus's disciples), that this somehow means he condoned homosexual marriage.

Jesus was quite clear on where he stood in regards to God's laws:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

I'm sorry. You'll have to do better than "well Jesus never directly said marriage couldn't be between two men, so it must mean he is okay with it."

Jesus never said men marrying animals was okay either, but it is reasonable to assume, based on Jewish law at the time, he did not support that either. Omission is not permission.

My emotions are perfectly in control. I'm much like Spock in this way. I'm not the one using caps or exclamation points.

I wasn't aware of your position. Either way it's a weak argument for Christians to cling to... some unknown guy once wrote stuff about some guy who supposedly saw some guy say stuff, but we don't have that stuff that he wrote, and its been translated and copied multiple times, but hey.... good enough for us.

I'm not going to debate your personal opinions on Christians, because I don't care. I won't debate your incorrect assumption on the historicity or textual fidelity of the New Testament either. Not because you're wrong (you are), but because it is a non sequitur.

The argument is whether or not Jesus and/or the bible defined marriage as being between a man and a woman (they did), whether or not it was considered a sin (it was), and whether or not Jesus thought men marrying men was acceptable before God (there is no evidence that he thought marriage could be between men, but plenty of evidence that he believed the biblical interpretation of marriage being between a man and a woman).

Whether you agree with the Christian theology is irrelevant. Your belief that Jesus condoned homosexuality or gay marriage is not supported by the evidence at hand. In fact, all the evidence points to the opposite.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

The one problem is that not only did the forefathers believe homosexuality was a sin, Jesus' successors also believed it was a sin. Paul, who wrote most of the NT, unequivocally condemns it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Christ would not have approved of homosexuality given that he was a Jew who lived circa 30 A.D.

Well Paul was a persecutor... old habits die hard.
And then there is the whole gay Jesus theory... so you never know. At best it was a heck of a sausage party with 13 dudes and one hooker.

 

[dontsnitch]

Well Paul was a persecutor... old habits die hard.
And then there is the whole gay Jesus theory... so you never know. At best it was a heck of a sausage party with 13 dudes and one hooker.

If you want to get philosophical, sure, we can't know with certainty that the controversial figure who lived a couple of thousand years ago approved of homosexuality or not, but it's far more reasonable to assume that he did not approve of it given the time that he lived, what he said, who he quoted, what his forefathers believed, what his followers believed, and what was written by those who came after him.

If you disagree, so be it. I'm not too concerned about gay marriage as it doesn't affect me. I just don't want my kids being taught things that are mandated by the government that I don't believe.

It's also an issue that's not really that important, given the number of gay people, and the subset of which actually want to get married. The number is really small to make a fuss about either way. They have the same rights, that should be the end of it.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I'm not inferring anything. There is nothing to infer. Jesus defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, just as the old testament did. The only inference is yours, in assuming that because Christians don't follow the dietary habits of the Jews (of which there was much debate even amongst Jesus's disciples), that this somehow means he condoned homosexual marriage.

Jesus was quite clear on where he stood in regards to God's laws:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

I'm sorry. You'll have to do better than "well Jesus never directly said marriage couldn't be between two men, so it must mean he is okay with it."

Jesus never said men marrying animals was okay either, but it is reasonable to assume, based on Jewish law at the time, he did not support that either. Omission is not permission.



I'm not going to debate your personal opinions on Christians, because I don't care. I won't debate your incorrect assumption on the historicity or textual fidelity of the New Testament either. Not because you're wrong (you are), but because it is a non sequitur.

The argument is whether or not Jesus and/or the bible defined marriage as being between a man and a woman (they did), whether or not it was considered a sin (it was), and whether or not Jesus thought men marrying men was acceptable before God (there is no evidence that he thought marriage could be between men, but plenty of evidence that he believed the biblical interpretation of marriage being between a man and a woman).

Whether you agree with the Christian theology is irrelevant. Your belief that Jesus condoned homosexuality or gay marriage is not supported by the evidence at hand. In fact, all the evidence points to the opposite.

Well not knowing the scripture as well as you do ... do you think your quote refers to the bible as a whole or the 10 commandants? Cause being gay ain't part of those either....

My incorrect assumptions on the historicity or textual fidelity of the new testament? I merely pointed out that you don't know who wrote Matthew... I will give you a hint...It wasn't Jesus, and it wasn't Matthew (Levi).....

I can't help it if when I point that out it makes people uncomfortable that they cling to passages proclaimed to be the word of god that were not even eye-witness accounts.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

If you want to get philosophical, sure, we can't know with certainty that the controversial figure who lived a couple of thousand years ago approved of homosexuality or not, but it's far more reasonable to assume that he did not approve of it given the time that he lived, what he said, who he quoted, what his forefathers believed, what his followers believed, and what was written by those who came after him.

If you disagree, so be it. I'm not too concerned about gay marriage as it doesn't affect me. I just don't want my kids being taught things that are mandated by the government that I don't believe.

It's also an issue that's not really that important, given the number of gay people, and the subset of which actually want to get married. The number is really small to make a fuss about either way. They have the same rights, that should be the end of it.

They have the same rights here... not everywhere. Odd that progressive places like Germany still have not formalized it.

This has kind of always been my stance. I just don't know why people care. Quite frankly I think gay people have the right to be as miserable as straight people... and they should also lose have half their stuff when they break up.

The government is going to teach your kids things you don't agree with. Then you're going to teach them things the way you see it. And then after gathering all the information, they will form their own opinions. So you really shouldn't be that worried about it.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

If stopping gay marriage is the last bastion of hope for true American conservativism, then it was destined to die.

 

[dontsnitch]

They have the same rights here... not everywhere. Odd that progressive places like Germany still have not formalized it.

This has kind of always been my stance. I just don't know why people care. Quite frankly I think gay people have the right to be as miserable as straight people... and they should also lose have half their stuff when they break up.

The government is going to teach your kids things you don't agree with. Then you're going to teach them things the way you see it. And then after gathering all the information, they will form their own opinions. So you really shouldn't be that worried about it.

I am worried. I've seen first hand some of the stuff that's going on at some public schools in the GTA. I don't approve of it. At the very least, don't teach my kids about sex, especially when you're teaching them that you can choose your gender. That should be my right as a parent.

 

[Andy Capp]

Once you willingly subject your people to colonization, everything else is small change. Homosexuality will be legalized and banned 1,000 more times cyclically through human history but if Europe fades away, it is gone forever.

Mere diversionary issues.

lol eventually everyone will be more or less beige, and you know who will give a shit? Absolutely no one.

Cultures change all the time. Why don't you go back to arguing over what color ancient Egyptians were so I can give even less of a fuck what you think on the subject of diversity.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I am worried. I've seen first hand some of the stuff that's going on at some public schools in the GTA. I don't approve of it. At the very least, don't teach my kids about sex, especially when you're teaching them that you can choose your gender. That should be my right as a parent.

There is two sides to that coin though. Parents don't end up teaching them about sex, then the kid gets knocked up at 14, and then they look to the government to help and hand outs...
I don't like or agree with everything they teach either, but as long as I have the hard conversations with the kids then they at least have all the information available. I won't learn all these buzz words for gender now a days. I stopped at three. Male, Female and Trans. I decided to get off the train after that.

 

[dontsnitch]

There is two sides to that coin though. Parents don't end up teaching them about sex, then the kid gets knocked up at 14, and then they look to the government to help and hand outs...
I don't like or agree with everything they teach either, but as long as I have the hard conversations with the kids then they at least have all the information available. I won't learn all these buzz words for gender now a days. I stopped at three. Male, Female and Trans. I decided to get off the train after that.

Government should not play the role of parent. There re many things that are missing from the education system, and I'm fine with that. If I had to choose between the sex-ed that's been implemented in Ontario, and nothing, I choose nothing, knowing that I'll fill that role.

I respect that some parents don't want their kids to learn about Christianity as taught by a Christian. I respect that some people are adamant that evolution should be taught, and not creationism. All I ask is that my views be respected and that my kids are not taught that gender is non-binary, that you can choose your sex, etc. None of these are scientific.

You're right that you can preemptively arm your kids with knowledge, but I shouldn't have to fear what they'll be taught, no more than anyone else. Also, I suspect most people our age jumped ship at the same time.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Government should not play the role of parent. There re many things that are missing from the education system, and I'm fine with that. If I had to choose between the sex-ed that's been implemented in Ontario, and nothing, I choose nothing, knowing that I'll fill that role.

I respect that some parents don't want their kids to learn about Christianity as taught by a Christian. I respect that some people are adamant that evolution should be taught, and not creationism. All I ask is that my views be respected and that my kids are not taught that gender is non-binary, that you can choose your sex, etc. None of these are scientific.

You're right that you can preemptively arm your kids with knowledge, but I shouldn't have to fear what they'll be taught, no more than anyone else. Also, I suspect most people our age jumped ship at the same time.

The point I was trying to make though is that a lot of parents are shit. They don't want the government to teach it, but they want the government to pay for it when they don't.

I'm in Ontario. (god what a shit hole its become) My kids grade school has a trans kid in it. They have gender neutral bathrooms. And this is a very small town. Being the dad I'm not always as up to date on that stuff as my wife. I only found out when I took them swimming at the school instead of the rec center. My wife said they had it for about three years now.

 

[Starman]

Well not knowing the scripture as well as you do ... do you think your quote refers to the bible as a whole or the 10 commandants? Cause being gay ain't part of those either....

To God's law as a whole.

My incorrect assumptions on the historicity or textual fidelity of the new testament? I merely pointed out that you don't know who wrote Matthew... I will give you a hint...It wasn't Jesus, and it wasn't Matthew (Levi).....

You pointed out that YOU don't know who wrote Matthew. But, again, it is a non sequitur, and has nothing to do at all with this discussion.

I can't help it if when I point that out it makes people uncomfortable that they cling to passages proclaimed to be the word of god that were not even eye-witness accounts.

You are again speaking on things which you know nothing about, but I will not engage you on that topic here. If you want to make a separate topic related to this issue, please be my guest. Here it is a non sequitur, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

There is no proof in the bible, old or new testament, that homosexuality was considered anything but a sin. Homosexual marriage was not considered at all, but within the context of the Jewish religious view on homosexuality, it is pure fiction to assume Jesus or any other religious Jew at the time would have condoned it.

 

[dontsnitch]

The point I was trying to make though is that a lot of parents are shit. They don't want the government to teach it, but they want the government to pay for it when they don't.

I'm in Ontario. (god what a shit hole its become) My kids grade school has a trans kid in it. They have gender neutral bathrooms. And this is a very small town. Being the dad I'm not always as up to date on that stuff as my wife. I only found out when I took them swimming at the school instead of the rec center. My wife said they had it for about three years now.

I understand your point, but I'm willing to risk ignorant parents raising ignorant kids, than having my kids be taught things that are not only unscientific, but possibly damaging.

Can you clarify what you mean by gender neutral. Oftentimes, I've seen single-occupancy bathrooms referred to that way. Do you mean there is a bathroom which hosts both girls and boys at the same time?

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I understand your point, but I'm willing to risk ignorant parents raising ignorant kids, than having my kids be taught things that are not only unscientific, but possibly damaging.

Can you clarify what you mean by gender neutral. Oftentimes, I've seen single-occupancy bathrooms referred to that way. Do you mean there is a bathroom which hosts both girls and boys at the same time?

yeah, but its a one person bathroom. They made a point of instead of just having a normal bathroom sign of putting a pink sign on it that says gender neutral. For inclusivity I guess.

 

[dontsnitch]

yeah, but its a one person bathroom. They made a point of instead of just having a normal bathroom sign of putting a pink sign on it that says gender neutral. For inclusivity I guess.

Right, right, I'm more than fine with that, though, "smoking in the gender-neutral single-occupancy bathroom" just doesn't have the same ring as "smoking in the boys room".

Last question for you- what do you think about bill 89?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If you're against gay marriage you're an asshole.

The rest of the nonsense going on is absurd, is madness (ex. trannie bathrooms, forcing custom orders for gay marriage cakes, 17 genders, child reassignment surgery, etc.) but you're just a complete asshole if you oppose gay marriage.

Jesus didn't.

I think the kind of people who care what Jesus thought about any particular subject understand that this is silly. Jesus rather clearly ascribed to the Jewish Law which explicitly prohibited homosexuality.

But it is always fun to authoritatively dictate to Christians what their morality should be.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

To God's law as a whole.



You pointed out that YOU don't know who wrote Matthew. But, again, it is a non sequitur, and has nothing to do at all with this discussion.



You are again speaking on things which you know nothing about, but I will not engage you on that topic here. If you want to make a separate topic related to this issue, please be my guest. Here it is a non sequitur, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

There is no proof in the bible, old or new testament, that homosexuality was considered anything but a sin. Homosexual marriage was not considered at all, but within the context of the Jewish religious view on homosexuality, it is pure fiction to assume Jesus or any other religious Jew at the time would have condoned it.

Did you just learn non-sequitur? Is this word of the day or something? I mean you've dropped it in every post.

You used Matthew to say "Jesus said"... I pointed out that you can't make a claim of Jesus saying anything when the person who wrote that wasn't even a witness to what was said.

I mean if you're okay with that then guess what.... I just said that Jesus said that being gay is okay. He came and told me himself.

There is as much validity to my claim as some guy who may or may not have known some guy that Jesus hung out with.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Right, right, I'm more than fine with that, though, "smoking in the gender-neutral single-occupancy bathroom" just doesn't have the same ring as "smoking in the boys room".

Last question for you- what do you think about bill 89?

Bill 89 is an absolute joke. I don't support empowering CAS any more than they already have, and I don't like it where the government thinks they are the primary care givers. They are there to supplement only. The less authority these asshats have the better we will be.