After reading FK's blast on the Huckabee thing, I figured this would make a good thread.

It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

If you choose to abide by the rules of the institution that is your choice. Why would you feel it is prudent to impose your beliefs on someone else because of the choice you made.

Devils Advocate wrote:It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

Please don't take this as an insult because I mean it simply as a matter of fact; your opinion has nothing to do with religion. A religion has its tenets, beliefs, rituals, etc. It is not up to you to tell the religions what they should or should not include. It is simply up to you to choose if you will follow it or not.

Alternatively, why would you choose to be a part of the religion that has mores against your particular sexual preference and then expect the religion to change according to your needs?

BCBulldog wrote: Please don't take this as an insult because I mean it simply as a matter of fact; your opinion has nothing to do with religion. A religion has its tenets, beliefs, rituals, etc. It is not up to you to tell the religions what they should or should not include. It is simply up to you to choose if you will follow it or not.

No offense taken at all. In fact. I support what you say whole heartedly. My assertion was that people that belong to some religious institutions find nothing wrong with taking their belief from their doctrine and imposing it on other people. And if they can make it a law (or keep it one) more the better

And superman, I agree with you as well, A person should not join a religion that does not mesh with their beliefs and expect anything to change just because they joined,

Devils Advocate wrote: My assertion was that people that belong to some religious institutions find nothing wrong with taking their belief from their doctrine and imposing it on other people.

Conversely,

It has been my experience, by far, to be the opposite.

"People that belong to no religious institutions find nothing wrong with taking their non-beliefs from their "doctrine" and imposing it on other people."

Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

Devils Advocate wrote: After reading FK's blast on the Huckabee thing, I figured this would make a good thread.

It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

If you choose to abide by the rules of the institution that is your choice. Why would you feel it is prudent to impose your beliefs on someone else because of the choice you made.

1. Sexuality should have nothing to do with religion? So you say religions shouldn't have a "stance" or belief when it comes to moral issues?

2. If two people choose to engage in a relationship it most certainly IS only "imposed" by the parties involved, not a religious institution. There is no law out there created by some religion that says in the US you are not allowed to be a homosexual.

3. That's funny, if you think its only religious people who "impose" their beliefs on others, you aren't paying attention. I'm not saying its right in either direction. Matter of fact I'm a very religious person who happens to believe that gay marriages or civil unions should be legal even though I believe homosexuality is a sin. Like you said, I believe its a sin, that doesn't mean I can decide that for other people.

[/quote]

jmog wrote:

1. Sexuality should have nothing to do with religion? So you say religions shouldn't have a "stance" or belief when it comes to moral issues?

2. If two people choose to engage in a relationship it most certainly IS only "imposed" by the parties involved, not a religious institution. There is no law out there created by some religion that says in the US you are not allowed to be a homosexual.

3. That's funny, if you think its only religious people who "impose" their beliefs on others, you aren't paying attention. I'm not saying its right in either direction. Matter of fact I'm a very religious person who happens to believe that gay marriages or civil unions should be legal even though I believe homosexuality is a sin. Like you said, I believe its a sin, that doesn't mean I can decide that for other people.
[/quote]

1. why is sex an issue in regards to religion? You have a stance... Why exactly
2. back to my question: If the relations are outside of marriage, Is there any difference the they are homo or heterosexual?
3. The impositions are a two way street. and in several ways, religious views do discriminate on gays in relationship to marriage laws.

Devils Advocate wrote:

jmog wrote:

1. Sexuality should have nothing to do with religion? So you say religions shouldn't have a "stance" or belief when it comes to moral issues?

2. If two people choose to engage in a relationship it most certainly IS only "imposed" by the parties involved, not a religious institution. There is no law out there created by some religion that says in the US you are not allowed to be a homosexual.

3. That's funny, if you think its only religious people who "impose" their beliefs on others, you aren't paying attention. I'm not saying its right in either direction. Matter of fact I'm a very religious person who happens to believe that gay marriages or civil unions should be legal even though I believe homosexuality is a sin. Like you said, I believe its a sin, that doesn't mean I can decide that for other people.
[/quote]

1. why is sex an issue in regards to religion? You have a stance... Why exactly
2. back to my question: If the relations are outside of marriage, Is there any difference that they are homo or heterosexual?
3. The impositions are a two way street. and in several ways, religious views do discriminate on gays in relationship to marriage laws.
[/quote]

Devils Advocate wrote:

1. why is sex an issue in regards to religion? You have a stance... Why exactly
2. back to my question: If the relations are outside of marriage, Is there any difference that they are homo or heterosexual?
3. The impositions are a two way street. and in several ways, religious views do discriminate on gays in relationship to marriage laws.

1. If you have read the Bible as you claim, then you know the answer to this question.
2. According to the Bible, relations outside of marriage are a sin whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. However, according to the Bible homosexual relations are a sin regardless of when/where while heterosexual relationss are "ok" inside of marriage.
3. If you can explain to me, how my religious views discriminates against gays I'd love to hear it.

personal attacks removed- lj

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

All i know is that, if the Bible is true and God exists, i am screwed beyond belief.

Might as well give him a hand and starting digging towards hell myself.

There are no passages in the Bible that deal directly with same-sex marriage (SSM). Like abortion access, followers of the Bible have had to develop a position on SSM by using biblical passages dealing with other subjects.

2. YES it's called fornication. But ok for hetero not for homosexuals

3. If I'm so incoherent, why mess with me? I'm only asking for information and different view points. As far as you discriminating against gays, Do you feel that they should be married? Did you vote for the amendment in Ohio that forbade it?

Devils Advocate wrote: There are no passages in the Bible that deal directly with same-sex marriage (SSM). Like abortion access, followers of the Bible have had to develop a position on SSM by using biblical passages dealing with other subjects.

2. YES it's called fornication. But ok for hetero not for homosexuals

3. If I'm so incoherent, why mess with me? I'm only asking for information and different view points. As far as you discriminating against gays, Do you feel that they should be married? Did you vote for the amendment in Ohio that forbade it?

1. If you feel there are no passages in the Bible that deal with homosexuality then you haven't read it. Last I checked same sex marriage and homosexuality go hand in hand.

2. Fornication, according to the Bible is NOT ok for heterosexuals, check the 10 commandments, Jesus' sermon on the mount, etc.

3. If you learn to read, I already said that I felt even though my beliefs are that homosexuality is a sin/immoral, that I also believe that in the US they should be allowed civil unions/marriages with one caveat. That being that no church that is against homosexuality can be forced to perform, or sued if they refuse to perform, same sex marriages.

You read one part and extract what you want it to say and then "counter".

You also have said things about the Bible that are blantantly not true, that it doesn't say a thing about sexual morality (sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, etc) and then when corrected you change your tune to "well, it doesn't deal with SSM directly".

So yes, you have no clue what you are talking about.

personal attacks removed- LJ

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

LJ is correctamundo!

Devils Advocate wrote: After reading FK's blast on the Huckabee thing, I figured this would make a good thread.

It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

If you choose to abide by the rules of the institution that is your choice. Why would you feel it is prudent to impose your beliefs on someone else because of the choice you made.

I disagree. Sexuality and religion are deeply entwined. Witness the fact that Mrs. Fish invokes the Lord's name several times each night.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

LJ is correctamundo!

He usually is

fish82 wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: After reading FK's blast on the Huckabee thing, I figured this would make a good thread.

It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

If you choose to abide by the rules of the institution that is your choice. Why would you feel it is prudent to impose your beliefs on someone else because of the choice you made.

I disagree. Sexuality and religion are deeply entwined. Witness the fact that Mrs. Fish invokes the Lord's name several times each night.

That's funny...Don't care who ya ae

fish82 wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: After reading FK's blast on the Huckabee thing, I figured this would make a good thread.

It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

If you choose to abide by the rules of the institution that is your choice. Why would you feel it is prudent to impose your beliefs on someone else because of the choice you made.

I disagree. Sexuality and religion are deeply entwined. Witness the fact that Mrs. Fish invokes the Lord's name several times each night.

Saying something like "Christ, can't you do better than that?".

queencitybuckeye wrote:

fish82 wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: After reading FK's blast on the Huckabee thing, I figured this would make a good thread.

It is my position, that sexuality should have nothing to do with religion. If you choose to have a monogamous relationship with another person, that decision should be self imposed by the parties involved. Not imposed by a religious institution.

If you choose to abide by the rules of the institution that is your choice. Why would you feel it is prudent to impose your beliefs on someone else because of the choice you made.

I disagree. Sexuality and religion are deeply entwined. Witness the fact that Mrs. Fish invokes the Lord's name several times each night.

Saying something like "Christ, can't you do better than that?".

I was thinking more along the lines of "Jesus, will you just let me fucking sleep??"

Either way, she refers to me as The Lord...and I'm cool with that.

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

How did atheists get into the discussion? And where is the hypocrisy?

personal attacks removed-LJ

FairwoodKing wrote:

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

How did atheists get into the discussion? And where is the hypocrisy?

What do you mean where is the hypocrisy????

Christians: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others
Atheists: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others

They are one in the same. All atheists do is try to force their religious beliefs on others (the fact that they do not believe in anything and do not want to follow any religious rule) while Christians also try to force their religious beliefs on others (follow the bible and do what it says)

LJ wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

How did atheists get into the discussion? And where is the hypocrisy? You're talking out your butt.

What do you mean where is the hypocrisy????

Christians: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others
Atheists: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others

They are one in the same. All atheists do is try to force their religious beliefs on others (the fact that they do not believe in anything and do not want to follow any religious rule) while Christians also try to force their religious beliefs on others (follow the bible and do what it says)

That's bullshit. We atheists just want to be left alone. We only fight back when religionists try to impose their will on us.

FairwoodKing wrote:

LJ wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

How did atheists get into the discussion? And where is the hypocrisy? You're talking out your butt.

What do you mean where is the hypocrisy????

Christians: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others
Atheists: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others

They are one in the same. All atheists do is try to force their religious beliefs on others (the fact that they do not believe in anything and do not want to follow any religious rule) while Christians also try to force their religious beliefs on others (follow the bible and do what it says)

That's bullshit. We atheists just want to be left alone. We only fight back when religionists try to impose their will on us.

Fight back, or impose your will on people who follow a religion? It's a 2 way street.

FairwoodKing wrote:

LJ wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

LJ wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote: Ok BHS. I'll Bite..

How would a gay man impose him/herself on a religious person by asking another gay person to have sex?

I think it's more or less a statement pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists

How did atheists get into the discussion? And where is the hypocrisy? You're talking out your butt.

What do you mean where is the hypocrisy????

Christians: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others
Atheists: These are our beliefs and don't make us abide by any others

They are one in the same. All atheists do is try to force their religious beliefs on others (the fact that they do not believe in anything and do not want to follow any religious rule) while Christians also try to force their religious beliefs on others (follow the bible and do what it says)

That's bullshit. We atheists just want to be left alone. We only fight back when religionists try to impose their will on us.

Dude. Now I'm just laughing at you.

"Athiesim" is not a "religion".