Thanks for the compliment...

Lol

be stodgy and creative in my arguments. Seriously, who else anywhere would

use magnetism as an argument winner about this subject? GGG

@calfoxwc said:

It's been fun, cal. Hopefully we don't get people on here name calling, because I genuinely enjoy this kind of debate, even/especially when there's no chance of either of us changing our stances!

Please tell me how Christianity is under attack in the USA? We'll see if you get the difference between "under attack" and stuff that's just common sense changing of the times

************************

Yes, you didn't say America - but that is my response to your post - Christianity isn't under attack because back in ancient history, there were Crusades,

and Salem witch trials........ is lost on me. Today, in our country, as well as Egypt now, Christians are under harrassment/attack. It's like saying the New Testament

is bad because a lot of laws that can't be followed were in the Old. Kids have been in trouble for praying by themselves before lunch, kids can't have a Bible

study on school property, can't do a Christian play, can't wear a Christian t-shirt.....

****************************************************************************

So two responses pop in to my head, pick your favourite.

a) This is a matter of semantics. Gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as straight couples, this is a right that I don't think anyone can dispute without going all bible-y on me. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it illegal. I'm sure in deepest darkest Texas there are plenty of people who think a black man and a white woman getting married should be illegal. Hell, my grandad would be furious if I brought home a black woman. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. So the point, then, is that yes, gay people should have the right to get "married." This shouldn't be in a church or any other institution, religious or not, that frowns on homosexuality, because that would infringe on *their* rights to believe what they want.

**********************************************

man-woman marriage exclusiveness historically hardly is the same deal as black male and female marriage. bigotry. That's racial. Man-woman

marriage has been the definition of marriage since....the beginning of marriage historically? Any incidence of gay "marriage" historically? I don't believe so.

Society has a right to establish rules to protect it's own existence. We disagree. I figure your opinions are dumb, and my

opinions are full of crap. GGG I enjoy the logic, and lack thereof, of discussions where people have different opinions, and explain

why.

*******************************************

A more interesting topic, why is marriage defined as between a man and a woman? Marriage is a man made concept, it's not something found in nature. So we have defined it to be what we want. On a strictly biological level, it's doesn't help procreation, it is - again, leaving the religious side of things out - an opportunity for two people to get up in front of their friends and tell everyone how much they love each other. They get presents, uncles get drunk, then they have the same legal rights discussed previously. So, the point is "we can't redefine marriage?" Sorry, but that's been happening for centuries. Henry VIII (british king, just in case) decided he didn't like his wife, so he invented a new religion and a new church, and then the concept of divorce, just so he could be free of her! How long ago was it illegal to marry someone of a different race? These things are now thought of as basic rights - I love someone, I can marry her, regardless of race. Now people just want to add 'regardless of gender'

*********************************************************

Man-woman pairings occured since the beginning - Adam and Eve, or prehistoric neanderthals depending on your beliefs..

And mammals and reptiles. It's a natural fact biologically.

I'll explain it this way: opposites attract. Positive end of a magnet attracts the negative end of another magnet. So there ya go. Opposites attract. With magnets,

that's an absolute. With human beings, we aren't dealing with absolutes here. But, to the 1-3 ? percent of gay people, their existence is an anomaly, plain and simple.

Anomaly. Abnormal. Aberration. The "tiny" minority has rights. But the majority does, too. This tiny minority wants to usurp the rights of the

rest of the entire society by changing the definition of marriage. Magnets. Opposites attract. Even with human beings, anything else

is perverse. The same logic that some people use to justify gay "marriage", can also work to justify marriage between a human being

and a tree or bridge or camel. It's all about where people draw the line between normal and abnormal.

The inference that gay couples can't have a party and reception etc after declaring their civil union is bogus. Many people

understand that very, very, very weird doesn't mean normal. Nothing is perverse? Accepting anything is society is the

new age "enlightenment" ??? I think not. I'm never going to think so.

****************************************************

I think we're probably butting heads in eternal futility here, I doubt I'll convince either of you that my side is right and you're not going to convince me, so we should probably wrap this up at some point, yes?

***************************************

Certainly. This subject annoys me when I get into the discussions, my opinions can be full of crap - even intentionally sometimes...@@.

Besides, I am way too stodgy to not see things the way I see them. It's ingrained in me to be contrary...

@westside-steve said:

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

Faux outrage? Probably.

Not sure if the left has filed for a trademark on that but...

WSS

@mld-woody said:

I know a lot do, and I know a lot don't. That's what makes these discussions interesting. I always like to hear from people with opposing views to see why they think like that, because it's always possible I have the wrong view.

@stewy said:

@calfoxwc said:

LOL....

Chris: "Hasn't Christianity spent the last 1500 years basically punishing anyone who doesn't conform to it?"

We haven't been our U.S.A. for 1500 years. And I don't see a "right" to gay marriage, any more than I see a "right" to

child abuse, run naked through town, marry a bridge or a camel or a sheep. In this country, we are about "let me be free"...

except when others' "freedom" interferes with our own. Now, before you jump on that and say that gays should be free to marry...

I say Americans should be free to establish what marriage IS. Between a man and a woman. Pretty much universal. So why the tyranny

of the left to force those Americans to not be allowed to have their institution of marriage? Why do gays get their civil unions, and I don't

care that they did, it's fine by me....and that gives them all those rights of real marriage...why the angst to be allowed to force the rest of

America (generally considered about 97 percent not gay) to not be allowed to have a definition of marriage as they have always before?

No, it's a political hit by the left, on the America. That is the only explanation I can come up with, that explains why those civil unions.,

very much the same thing, weren't good enough. It's part of a general undermining of American institutions.

So you're basically making the same two points here, so I'll address them together to save effort because I'm late for work.

1) "America hasn't been punishing non-christians for 1000 years, we haven't existed that long"

I didn't say America. I said Christianity. Look back to things like the crusades, killing the templars that then helped protect the holy land, forcing Galileo to renounce his claim that the earth goes round the sun because it went against the bible, burning "witches" at the stake because of their unholy understanding of science/nature. I'm not going to cite every single case because there just isn't time. But the point remains, Christianity, whilst it has done a lot of good in a lot of ways, has also been a very oppressive religion.

2) "Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because marriage should be between a man and a woman"

So two responses pop in to my head, pick your favourite.

a) This is a matter of semantics. Gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as straight couples, this is a right that I don't think anyone can dispute without going all bible-y on me. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it illegal. I'm sure in deepest darkest Texas there are plenty of people who think a black man and a white woman getting married should be illegal. Hell, my grandad would be furious if I brought home a black woman. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. So the point, then, is that yes, gay people should have the right to get "married." This shouldn't be in a church or any other institution, religious or not, that frowns on homosexuality, because that would infringe on *their* rights to believe what they want.

A more interesting topic, why is marriage defined as between a man and a woman? Marriage is a man made concept, it's not something found in nature. So we have defined it to be what we want. On a strictly biological level, it's doesn't help procreation, it is - again, leaving the religious side of things out - an opportunity for two people to get up in front of their friends and tell everyone how much they love each other. They get presents, uncles get drunk, then they have the same legal rights discussed previously. So, the point is "we can't redefine marriage?" Sorry, but that's been happening for centuries. Henry VIII (british king, just in case) decided he didn't like his wife, so he invented a new religion and a new church, and then the concept of divorce, just so he could be free of her! How long ago was it illegal to marry someone of a different race? These things are now thought of as basic rights - I love someone, I can marry her, regardless of race. Now people just want to add 'regardless of gender'

I think we're probably butting heads in eternal futility here, I doubt I'll convince either of you that my side is right and you're not going to convince me, so we should probably wrap this up at some point, yes?

@mld-woody said:

Umm wiz kid...it's not a matter of want we want, It's a matter of whats being taken away, and whats being forced on us.

Does Obamacare ring a bell?

Democracy gives losers like you with your hands out what they want.

@gftchris said:

Appreciate your civility in this discussion but counting on inaccuracies and generalizations won't cut it. I seriously doubt that since the birth of this nation Christians have been punishing those who do not conform to Christanity. Many Islam sects on the other hand, from it's inception 1000 + years ago to this very day, punishes those that don't comply...funny how you folks are so quick point out Christianity as the bad guys.

Homosexuality is condemned in fundamentalist Muslim countries and is punishable in a court of law...all Christians want is to preserve the meaning of marriage.

You claim that Christians are always complaining that their "rights" are being infringed upon. Which ones? There is no doubt that their religious beliefs are being infringed upon though.

You're right about having the freedom to express your religious beliefs any way you see fit, as long as you don't force your religious beliefs on anyone. I don't use religion as basis for arguing against gay marriage...although valid, it opens up a whole new can of worms.

In turn, gays have the right to unions and engage in perversion all they want without religious teachings being forced down their throats like a big cock...just don't call it what it isn't..marriage.

Chris: "Hasn't Christianity spent the last 1500 years basically punishing anyone who doesn't conform to it?"

We haven't been our U.S.A. for 1500 years. And I don't see a "right" to gay marriage, any more than I see a "right" to

child abuse, run naked through town, marry a bridge or a camel or a sheep. In this country, we are about "let me be free"...

except when others' "freedom" interferes with our own. Now, before you jump on that and say that gays should be free to marry...

I say Americans should be free to establish what marriage IS. Between a man and a woman. Pretty much universal. So why the tyranny

of the left to force those Americans to not be allowed to have their institution of marriage? Why do gays get their civil unions, and I don't

care that they did, it's fine by me....and that gives them all those rights of real marriage...why the angst to be allowed to force the rest of

America (generally considered about 97 percent not gay) to not be allowed to have a definition of marriage as they have always before?

No, it's a political hit by the left, on the America. That is the only explanation I can come up with, that explains why those civil unions.,

very much the same thing, weren't good enough. It's part of a general undermining of American institutions.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

Indeed. Although I'm not stupid enough to go to the dodgy parts of London (and other cities in the UK) wearing a giant cross, burning a picture of Mohammed and singing "I'm a happy Christian, Muslims can all die"

Now THAT was exaggerated for comic effect

@calfoxwc said:

Frankly, no, I don't see why you're getting so upset. The supervisor was wrong; the college has said she was wrong and has apologised (I think?) to the girl in question. What happens now for the supervisor we probably won't hear about, some kind of internal disciplinary action probably.

It always makes me laugh when Christians talk about having their rights infringed upon. Hasn't Christianity spent the last 1500 years basically punishing anyone who doesn't conform to it? Even now, as the topic of gay marriage is discussed, the biggest and most vehement opposition comes from Christians - I'm not sure if the term Bible Belt is offensive or not? - saying that homosexuality is a sin. That's people having their rights taken away. Abortion - bible says it's a sin so people try to demand that it be illegal. Not saying that all people who oppose these things are Christian, but it seems like a large proportion are, and then complain about having their rights taken away.

You (in general, not specifically you, cal) have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs you like, or none at all. You're free to practise them, decorate your home, yourself, however you want to show your faith and be proud of it. Get a tattoo of jesus/mohammed/buddha/shiva/whoever on your face if you feel like it (and are happy to violate the doctrine to do so!) You're not free to interfere with other people's lives on the basis of them. For me, that's the point of freedom of religion.

And I'm sure you'll call me a hippy, a liberal or something equally true, but that's just my view, and the beauty of the free world is that I'm entitled to it as much as you're entitled to yours

**********************************************************

This bigoted person should be fired, or in the least, suspended and sent to Constitutional rights training.

Isn't that what happens when the left gets their tails all tangled up in briars? They go ballistic about THEIR rights?

And, it was not the supervisor's job to be America's college secular policeman. The outrage is cumulative. This anti-Christian mentality is more widespread as time goes on. The outrage is so much of the left has this same extreme antagonist arrogance. The left is all about

"diversity" ...but THEY get to choose what diversity is allowed, and what diversity is harrassed. See?

@mld-woody said:

Only a clown would have noticed that.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

There you go again...libs using trivial garbage as ammo thinking it evens the score. lol

Your claim that the "IRS targeted lib groups too" was a nice try too.

It was was officially 292 conservative groups to 6 lib, in case you conveniently missed the official report.