Atheists

[Upsmule]

Today's contrast? Closer by NIN came out 19 years ago. Bwahahaha!!!

And my point is 19 years even more relevant. And yours is........?

 

[Upsmule]

They should. Why is it only the opposing religious views are allowed to be banned, but not yours? Pushing ANY religious dogma on an entire nation is wrong, plain and simple.

​Absolutely. Last time I checked there was no church of the state in America. NEXT.

 

[upswife75]

And my point is 19 years even more relevant. And yours is........?

It isn't a point at all. You took a completely innocuous song that isn't even an american made song and likely one of, if not THE MOST controversial song of now....um, I mean 1994, and tried to use them to show the difference between the 60s and now, like somehow the 60s were oh so innocent and pure and now everything is just completely derelict. You can do that the other way around with any one of many songs from the 60s about drugs and promiscuous sex and some of the bible thumping christian country songs out today. It doesn't show anything.

 

[Upsmule]

It isn't a point at all. You took a completely innocuous song that isn't even an american made song and likely one of, if not THE MOST controversial song of now....um, I mean 1994, and tried to use them to show the difference between the 60s and now, like somehow the 60s were oh so innocent and pure and now everything is just completely derelict. You can do that the other way around with any one of many songs from the 60s about drugs and promiscuous sex and some of the bible thumping christian country songs out today. It doesn't show anything.

Ah, you got me, not. The contrast's are still more than painfully obvious. Innuendo was thrown out the window long ago. As a society we can just come right out with it why hold back right? Maybe your right....honesty is a virtue.

 

[upswife75]

​Absolutely. Last time I checked there was no church of the state in America. NEXT.

There are plenty who would like to change that, which is my point. It's why we have people lobbying for stuff like banning gay marriage. There is no real non religious argument that can be used. Gay people aren't hurting anyone else by marrying one another, yet we are making laws against it. Why? Because some people think it's icky? Because some people think it's sinful? Too damn bad. Don't like gay marriage, don't enter into one. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[upswife75]

Ah, you got me, not. The contrast's are still more than painfully obvious. Innuendo was thrown out the window long ago. As a society we can just come right out with it why hold back right? Maybe your right....honesty is a virtue.

Yes we can. Why? Because the 1st amendment says so. The constitution is a beautiful thing. If you don't like the song, don't listen to it. Seems pretty easy to me. What is the big deal? If you don't want your kids listening to it, don't let them. Teach them the difference between what is appropriate and what isn't. That is the job of parents to do. I do it with mine and they have turned out just fine, in spite of all the things out there they are exposed to. Why? Because I taught them to think for themselves and weigh their choices.

 

[Upsmule]

There are plenty who would like to change that, which is my point. It's why we have people lobbying for stuff like banning gay marriage. There is no real non religious argument that can be used. Gay people aren't hurting anyone else by marrying one another, yet we are making laws against it. Why? Because some people think it's icky? Because some people think it's sinful? Too damn bad. Don't like gay marriage, don't enter into one. Seems pretty simple to me.

Ah, but your wrong again. Marriage is non religious? Hardly. But since the state kicked in the door of the church and got involved in "Holy matrimony" yeah....now its a crime that same sex couples aren't granted the same state rights as married couples. CHANGE THAT. Not the definition of marriage. Why isn't that good enough? Why force a huge majority of the population in this country.....not to mention the millions of FREE to worship as they choose church goers that believe the words of the "good teacher" Jesus in Matthew chapter 19:4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

​Man....what a "homophobe" huh? how dare He imply such hate. Especially since He's such a "good teacher?"

 

[Upsmule]

Yes we can. Why? Because the 1st amendment says so. The constitution is a beautiful thing. If you don't like the song, don't listen to it. Seems pretty easy to me. What is the big deal? If you don't want your kids listening to it, don't let them. Teach them the difference between what is appropriate and what isn't. That is the job of parents to do. I do it with mine and they have turned out just fine, in spite of all the things out there they are exposed to. Why? Because I taught them to think for themselves and weigh their choices.

Your ability to miss a point is astounding. Did you learn that or does it just happen for you automatically?

 

[upswife75]

Marriage existed before christianity. Marriage isn't just a christian thing and as long as it is a legally binding contract run by the state, then it should be available to gay couples. They should have the same rights as straight couples and all the arguments against it all lead back to religious objections.

 

[Upsmule]

Marriage existed before christianity. Marriage isn't just a christian thing and as long as it is a legally binding contract run by the state, then it should be available to gay couples. They should have the same rights as straight couples and all the arguments against it all lead back to religious objections.

Again, we agree. Almost. Like I've said, since the state is involved there is NO REASON why same sex couples should be denied the same rights as married couples. But....regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, people of faith, followers of Jesus Christ, preachers and church goers by the millions or none church goers by the millions, will still not change their belief of what marriage always has been, and always will be. Regardless if a small percent of society tries to infringe on that belief. Again.....some followers of Jesus Christ actually take Him at His word and live accordingly. Whether you or anyone else thinks their hypocritical or not.

 

[upswife75]

Marriage existed before christianity. Marriage isn't just a christian thing and as long as it is a legally binding contract run by the state, then it should be available to gay couples. They should have the same rights as straight couples and all the arguments against it all lead back to religious objections.

For the record, all that being said, I firmly stand by the rights of any church to say they don't want to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple if they feel that is against their religious convictions. Why? Separation of church and state.

I just personally believe that the government needs to stay out of personal matters and allow the same rights for everyone, as long as those rights don't infringe or harm anyone else.

 

[Upsmule]

For the record, all that being said, I firmly stand by the rights of any church to say they don't want to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple if they feel that is against their religious convictions.

Ah, see! Your getting there now

​Churches that do that won't be called hate filled homophobes? Like they already are? Right.....

 

[Jones]

Again, we agree. Almost. Like I've said, since the state is involved there is NO REASON why same sex couples should be denied the same rights as married couples. But....regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, people of faith, followers of Jesus Christ, preachers and church goers by the millions or none church goers by the millions, will still not change their belief of what marriage always has been, and always will be. Regardless if a small percent of society tries to infringe on that belief. Again.....some followers of Jesus Christ actually take Him at His word and live accordingly. Whether you or anyone else thinks their hypocritical or not.

Gay people really don't care about that they just want to be able to file their taxes jointly, co-own property, and carry their partners on their health insurance like everyone else.

 

[oldngray]

Traditionally a marriage is a man and a woman, not just in a Christian society. If its 2 men or 2 women or many men or many women or a mixture of the above with or without animals it is not marriage. If marriage is redefined as something else what are the limits?

 

[Upsmule]

Gay people really don't care about that they just want to be able to file their taxes jointly, co-own property, and carry their partners on their health insurance like everyone else.

As they should. I have no problem with live and let live. If your attracted to the same sex, hey.....rock and roll. But the rabid activist I will always have a problem with. Gay or not gay. Religious or not religious.

 

[upswife75]

Again, we agree. Almost. Like I've said, since the state is involved there is NO REASON why same sex couples should be denied the same rights as married couples. But....regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, people of faith, followers of Jesus Christ, preachers and church goers by the millions or none church goers by the millions, will still not change their belief of what marriage always has been, and always will be. Regardless if a small percent of society tries to infringe on that belief. Again.....some followers of Jesus Christ actually take Him at His word and live accordingly. Whether you or anyone else thinks their hypocritical or not.

That's fine, no one is telling them they have to like it. I don't care what any of them think, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. THAT is my only point. You don't have to like it for it to be allowed.

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Ronald Reagan

 

[upswife75]

Traditionally a marriage is a man and a woman, not just in a Christian society. If its 2 men or 2 women or many men or many women or a mixture of the above with or without animals it is not marriage. If marriage is redefined as something else what are the limits?

As defined by whom or what? The bible?

The Top 8 Ways To Be 'Traditionally Married' According To The Bible

Spare me the slippery slope argument of, "What's next, a man marrying his dog?" Last I checked, a dog can't enter into a legally binding contract.

 

[Upsmule]

That's fine, no one is telling them they have to like it. I don't care what any of them think, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. THAT is my only point. You don't have to like it for it to be allowed.

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.
Ronald Reagan

​Hmmmm, yes even "the least of these among us? Even those that still happen to be breathing embryonic fluid?

 

[upswife75]

​Hmmmm, yes even "the least of these among us? Even those that still happen to be breathing embryonic fluid?

Well, seeing as I am conflicted on the subject of abortion, not sure I am the one to talk to about that, lol. While I don't like mainly male politicians telling women what they can do with their bodies, I don't like women that use abortion as a form of birth control. However, I can fully understand the conflict of a woman who may be carrying a rapist's baby, cases of incest, or when the woman's life is in jeopardy. To me though, it isn't my choice to make, so I tend to not judge. That is why I am a huge proponent of birth control, though. And also teaching teenagers about something other than abstinence. On a moral level, I am against abortion. On a political level, I'm torn.

 

[Upsmule]

​Hmmmm, yes even "the least of these among us? Even those that still happen to be breathing embryonic fluid?

Well, seeing as I am conflicted on the subject of abortion, not sure I am the one to talk to about that, lol. While I don't like mainly male politicians telling women what they can do with their bodies, I don't like women that use abortion as a form of birth control. However, I can fully understand the conflict of a woman who may be carrying a rapist's baby, cases of incest, or when the woman's life is in jeopardy. To me though, it isn't my choice to make, so I tend to not judge. That is why I am a huge proponent of birth control, though. And also teaching teenagers about something other than abstinence. On a moral level, I am against abortion. On a political level, I'm torn.

Male or female matters not. What a woman does to her own body is her own business. But taking the life of the body inside her is murder period.