FairwoodKing wrote:

Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

the whole point of religions is to find a way to end suffering...if you get rid of christianity, a whole lot more people than just gay's will be suffering

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

the whole point of religions is to find a way to end suffering...if you get rid of christianity, a whole lot more people than just gay's will be suffering

I think what F.K. is really meaning is that he wants Christian morality (not theology persay) out of our laws.
I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

FairwoodKing wrote:

september63 wrote: IF you had started with that post this debate would have ended before it started. You were beating around the bush and FINALLY posted what you wanted to post from the beginning.

I will clarify:

I want laws changed that will enable two gay men or two lesbians to legally marry and to enjoy all the rights and privileges of marriage.

I want anti-discrimination laws passed that will prevent gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs or being evicted from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.


Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

Sadly, if that were all the gay community were asking for these issues would most certainly be agreed upon. However, legislation has chocked the bills full of such frivolous pork that representatives stand at an impasse.

I don't think anyone would object to issues 2 and 3 from your list, it is the idea that marriage (which seems to be classified as a religious observance) would be extended to those who do not satisfy the judeo-christian requirement. Compromise on such an issue would render marriage in itself in contention with its design. I understand that heterosexuals have sullied the idea and sanctity of marriage, which is regrettable, however the construct provided us in the scriptures was created with a specific design.

I highly doubt you can get kicked out of your house that you own for being gay. I call shenanigans on that one. Unless you meant renting, and then I would say a landlord should be able to kick out whoever they want if there is no contractual obligation. Additionally, hate crime legislation is a joke, and why can't being accepted as gay be enough, why do you want special privileges of being "protected". I think a private place of government should be able to fire you if they want to. Why should choosing male over female protect you from anything?

CenterBHSFan wrote:

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

the whole point of religions is to find a way to end suffering...if you get rid of christianity, a whole lot more people than just gay's will be suffering

I think what F.K. is really meaning is that he wants Christian morality (not theology persay) out of our laws.
I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

In a democracy, the majority rules. But it is also the obligation of the majority to protect the minorities. Christians are not doing that. They are using their sense of morality to persecute the gay minority.

Even though I do not believe in religion, I am not suggesting that churches should go away. I am not trying to tell Catholics and Mormons how to live their lives. I am just saying that they shouldn't tell us how to live our lives.

FairwoodKing wrote:

september63 wrote: IF you had started with that post this debate would have ended before it started. You were beating around the bush and FINALLY posted what you wanted to post from the beginning.

I will clarify:

I want laws changed that will enable two gay men or two lesbians to legally marry and to enjoy all the rights and privileges of marriage.

I want anti-discrimination laws passed that will prevent gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs or being evicted from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.


Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

Voters are keeping these things from happening!! Bottom line. Not every voter is voting based on their "Christian" beliefs. You have a problem with Christian beliefs or Catholicism? Suggestion: Make up your mind and come back to debate this another day?

iclfan2 wrote: I highly doubt you can get kicked out of your house that you own for being gay. I call shenanigans on that one. Unless you meant renting, and then I would say a landlord should be able to kick out whoever they want if there is no contractual obligation. Additionally, hate crime legislation is a joke, and why can't being accepted as gay be enough, why do you want special privileges of being "protected". I think a private place of government should be able to fire you if they want to. Why should choosing male over female protect you from anything?

A hate crime is not just perpetrated on the immediate victim, it is also felt by all members of that group. Blacks, Jews, and others have experienced this for centuries.

FairwoodKing wrote: I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.

All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Are you saying that crimes against gays should be treated differently than crimes against straights? I thought you were for equality?

FairwoodKing wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

the whole point of religions is to find a way to end suffering...if you get rid of christianity, a whole lot more people than just gay's will be suffering

I think what F.K. is really meaning is that he wants Christian morality (not theology persay) out of our laws.
I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

In a democracy, the majority rules. But it is also the obligation of the majority to protect the minorities. Christians are not doing that. They are using their sense of morality to persecute the gay minority.

Even though I do not believe in religion, I am not suggesting that churches should go away. I am not trying to tell Catholics and Mormons how to live their lives. I am just saying that they shouldn't tell us how to live our lives.

well you are telling them what to believe, and they live their lives based on what they believe, so yes you are telling them to change their ways for you

september63 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

september63 wrote: IF you had started with that post this debate would have ended before it started. You were beating around the bush and FINALLY posted what you wanted to post from the beginning.

I will clarify:

I want laws changed that will enable two gay men or two lesbians to legally marry and to enjoy all the rights and privileges of marriage.

I want anti-discrimination laws passed that will prevent gays and lesbians from being fired from their jobs or being evicted from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.


Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

Voters are keeping these things from happening!! Bottom line. Not every voter is voting based on their "Christian" beliefs. You have a problem with Christian beliefs or Catholicism? Suggestion: Make up your mind and come back to debate this another day?

Christian clergy tell their congregations not to vote for these laws. The Mormons worked very hard last year to get voters to reject pro-gay laws in California. If you think Christianity doesn't have a big affect on gay laws, then you have your head buried in the sand.

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.

All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Are you saying that crimes against gays should be treated differently than crimes against straights? I thought you were for equality?

ZING!!!

Again

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

the whole point of religions is to find a way to end suffering...if you get rid of christianity, a whole lot more people than just gay's will be suffering

I think what F.K. is really meaning is that he wants Christian morality (not theology persay) out of our laws.
I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

In a democracy, the majority rules. But it is also the obligation of the majority to protect the minorities. Christians are not doing that. They are using their sense of morality to persecute the gay minority.

Even though I do not believe in religion, I am not suggesting that churches should go away. I am not trying to tell Catholics and Mormons how to live their lives. I am just saying that they shouldn't tell us how to live our lives.

well you are telling them what to believe, and they live their lives based on what they believe, so yes you are telling them to change their ways for you

I'm not telling them what to believe, I'm just telling them to butt out of our lives.

and guess what, about 2% of the entire population in the US are mormon...so i doubt it was only the mormons

so..

FairwoodKing wrote: These religious organizations are responsible for passing laws that hurt people like me.

They didn't pass the law, and those who are a part of said churches are such by choice, which means they likely already agree with many of the tenets, which may include this one.

These organizations have no more legislative power than any like-minded group of individuals.

However, I would also contest that these people have a right to think an action is wrong, and that holding to such does not make them hateful.

Do I hate my cousin, an alcoholic who binge drinks with reckless abandon? Of course not. I love him to death, and while he doesn't think there's anything wrong with how he's living, I really wish he'd come out of it. Right or wrong, does my VIEWPOINT involve hate in any way? Moreover, must my viewpoint be devoid of love because of my disapproval? The answer to both of those is simply "no."

Now, there ARE plenty who DO cross that line ... who treat the LGBT community with contempt. Quite honestly, while they are allowed to be this way, a fire in me burns against them. Whether or not they are fellow Christians with me, they are living in as much sin as any homosexual person they look down on.

Such an attitude, and the display of such an attitude, is as much a sinful lifestyle as anyone involved in homosexual behavior. The hypocrisy is sickening!

I want you to know that there are many Christians (as far as what that actually means for me personally, I'm not all that different from the Baptist tradition) who see and understand how illegitimate it is for a group to claim to be loving and display such contempt. James 3 discusses such a thing, saying that words of praise (not worship, but literally just positive speech) and words of cursing (not profanity, but literally demeaning speech) ought not come out of the same mouth ... and yet so often it does.

I want you to know that there are many Christians out there who, while they may not agree with decisions you might make, would treat you no differently knowing you are gay.

Honestly, if you never come to any "faith," then I hope you experience the most pleasure and joy you could possibly experience in this life. If that includes a life lived with a partner you love and cherish, then so be it.

enigmaax wrote: The thing that always gets me about these "beliefs" is that homosexuality is no more of a sin than any other sin. Is it unforgivable? Do they refuse to have children with divorced parents or parents who commited adultery or single parents who have sex with people? Are these "not as bad" as homosexual parents?

Telling, isn't it?

FairwoodKing wrote:

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

DenisonBigRedLax wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

Christian churches are preventing these things from happening. If it were not for Christian theology, gays would have proper protections in this country.

the whole point of religions is to find a way to end suffering...if you get rid of christianity, a whole lot more people than just gay's will be suffering

I think what F.K. is really meaning is that he wants Christian morality (not theology persay) out of our laws.
I could be wrong, but that's what I got out of it.

In a democracy, the majority rules. But it is also the obligation of the majority to protect the minorities. Christians are not doing that. They are using their sense of morality to persecute the gay minority.

Even though I do not believe in religion, I am not suggesting that churches should go away. I am not trying to tell Catholics and Mormons how to live their lives. I am just saying that they shouldn't tell us how to live our lives.

well you are telling them what to believe, and they live their lives based on what they believe, so yes you are telling them to change their ways for you

I'm not telling them what to believe, I'm just telling them to butt out of our lives.

you are telling them to change their morals and that christians should believe that being gay is okay

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.

All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Are you saying that crimes against gays should be treated differently than crimes against straights? I thought you were for equality?

By definition, not all crimes are hate crimes. I'm also not saying all crimes against blacks, Jews, Muslims, and gays are hate crimes.

An example of a hate crime: A group of straights hang out near a gay bar and attack the first person who comes out and calls him a faggot while they're beating him up. They are not just attacking the one single gay man, they are attacking everybody in that bar because they are making everybody in the bar afraid.

I'm not making this up. This is the legal definition of a hate crime.

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.

All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Are you saying that crimes against gays should be treated differently than crimes against straights? I thought you were for equality?

By definition, not all crimes are hate crimes. I'm also not saying all crimes against blacks, Jews, Muslims, and gays are hate crimes.

An example of a hate crime: A group of straights hang out near a gay bar and attack the first person who comes out and calls him a ** while they're beating him up. They are not just attacking the one single gay man, they are attacking everybody in that bar because they are making everybody in the bar afraid.

I'm not making this up. This is the legal definition of a hate crime.

So in order to be committing an official hate crime the attacker must utter certain political buzz words for it to be considered an official hate crime. Is that what you are saying?

Lets say an individual lays in wait outside of a bar for his adulterous wife. When she exits the bar he calls her an adulterous whore while beating the hell out of her. As you say he is not just attacking her but every whore in the bar by making all whores afraid that they could be potentially beaten as well by continuing to engage in their chosen sexual activity.

IMO, a hate crime is when the attacker is motivated by harming someone due to their race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc. It is not limited to any one group. Also, not all crimes are hate crimes.

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.

All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Are you saying that crimes against gays should be treated differently than crimes against straights? I thought you were for equality?

By definition, not all crimes are hate crimes. I'm also not saying all crimes against blacks, Jews, Muslims, and gays are hate crimes.

An example of a hate crime: A group of straights hang out near a gay bar and attack the first person who comes out and calls him a ** while they're beating him up. They are not just attacking the one single gay man, they are attacking everybody in that bar because they are making everybody in the bar afraid.

I'm not making this up. This is the legal definition of a hate crime.

So in order to be committing an official hate crime the attacker must utter certain political buzz words for it to be considered an official hate crime. Is that what you are saying?

Lets say an individual lays in wait outside of a bar for his adulterous wife. When she exits the bar he calls her an adulterous whore while beating the hell out of her. As you say he is not just attacking her but every whore in the bar by making all whores afraid that they could be potentially beaten as well by continuing to engage in there chosen sexual activity.

Well... when you put it THAT way...

dwccrew wrote: IMO, a hate crime is when the attacker is motivated by harming someone due to their race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc. It is not limited to any one group. Also, not all crimes are hate crimes.

Exactly.

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

majorspark wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: I want all states to prosecute attacks on gays as hate crimes with severe punishments for the attackers.

All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Are you saying that crimes against gays should be treated differently than crimes against straights? I thought you were for equality?

By definition, not all crimes are hate crimes. I'm also not saying all crimes against blacks, Jews, Muslims, and gays are hate crimes.

An example of a hate crime: A group of straights hang out near a gay bar and attack the first person who comes out and calls him a ** while they're beating him up. They are not just attacking the one single gay man, they are attacking everybody in that bar because they are making everybody in the bar afraid.

I'm not making this up. This is the legal definition of a hate crime.

So in order to be committing an official hate crime the attacker must utter certain political buzz words for it to be considered an official hate crime. Is that what you are saying?

Lets say an individual lays in wait outside of a bar for his adulterous wife. When she exits the bar he calls her an adulterous whore while beating the hell out of her. As you say he is not just attacking her but every whore in the bar by making all whores afraid that they could be potentially beaten as well by continuing to engage in their chosen sexual activity.

No. The hate crime attacker doesn't have to utter anything.

A regular crime is when a criminal attacks an individual or group of individuals. A hate crime is when a criminal attacks an entire community.

An example: A few years ago an anti-Semetic thug broke into the Jewish Federation in Seattle and shot and killed the president. He also shot and wounded about a half dozen other people. His crime put the entire Jewish community on edge. I'm not Jewish and the president wasn't a lesbian, but we both belonged to the Seattle Men's Chorus, me as a singer and her as a long-time supporter. The SMC is the largest gay organization in the Pacific NW. Her death sent shock waves through our group, even though we weren't the ones targeted. This is the effect a hate crime can have on communities.

FairwoodKing wrote:
In a democracy, the majority rules. But it is also the obligation of the majority to protect the minorities. ...

Maybe that's why the United States wasn't set up as a democracy...for this very reason.

FairwoodKing wrote:
The issues on the gay agenda involve the failure of states to allow gay marriages ... I think there are something like 186 rights that straight couples have that gay couples do not have in most states. ...

The easiest solution for this is to stop all State sanction marriage. There's is no reason the State needs to license marriage. If we removed the State from marriage there would be no inequality in rights.

FairwoodKing wrote:

dwccrew wrote: IMO, a hate crime is when the attacker is motivated by harming someone due to their race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc. It is not limited to any one group. Also, not all crimes are hate crimes.

Exactly.

So I can beat the crap out of you for me thinking you are a douche, but you want harsher penalties for me beating the crap out of you because you are gay? That makes no sense. The reason for me beating you should play no role in the punishment. Hate crimes are a joke. What if I was beating you up because you took my beer at a bar, but I yelled fag while doing it. Does that mean it should now be a hate crime?

FairwoodKing wrote: No. The hate crime attacker doesn't have to utter anything.

A regular crime is when a criminal attacks an individual or group of individuals. A hate crime is when a criminal attacks an entire community.

A regular crime? Tell that to the family whose daughter was raped and murdered.

FairwoodKing wrote: An example: A few years ago an anti-Semetic thug broke into the Jewish Federation in Seattle and shot and killed the president. He also shot and wounded about a half dozen other people. His crime put the entire Jewish community on edge. I'm not Jewish and the president wasn't a lesbian, but we both belonged to the Seattle Men's Chorus, me as a singer and her as a long-time supporter. The SMC is the largest gay organization in the Pacific NW. Her death sent shock waves through our group, even though we weren't the ones targeted. This is the effect a hate crime can have on communities.

What about the serial rapist that terrorizes a community. His crimes put the entire female community on edge as well. No talk of hate in this crime.

As I have stated in this thread. All forms of violence against another human being is a hate crime. Period.

What you want is the punishment of a crime to be different based on yours and others definition of who or what group fits into your defined category. You claim to be for equality yet demand otherwise based on your personal beliefs. You are no different than those you oppose.