Sad. . THEN filii, lloll. lilhitler new mm ' HE . Eff‘ L‘ lloll, lil,. "My grandmother sends me hate mail" Am i a horrible person because i think that's hilarious. I mean, i'm imagining a granny flaming like a 12 year old
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#16 - icefried (03/23/2013) [-]
"My grandmother sends me hate mail"   
Am i a horrible person because i think that's 			*******		 hilarious.   
I mean, i'm imagining a granny flaming like a 12 year old x-box live kid.
"My grandmother sends me hate mail"
Am i a horrible person because i think that's ******* hilarious.
I mean, i'm imagining a granny flaming like a 12 year old x-box live kid.
User avatar #17 to #16 - sphinxchild (03/23/2013) [-]
I didn't find it funny until I read your explanation
User avatar #141 to #16 - mrfop (03/24/2013) [-]
"gtfo fag u suck.....literally lol"
User avatar #343 to #16 - thehawkeye (03/24/2013) [-]
"I bet u like girls fagot"
User avatar #303 to #16 - xturboxx (03/24/2013) [-]
Comon u ******* faggot fight me 1v1 kid ill wreck you
#131 to #16 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Or a 90 yr old that doesn't know how to properly hate something

"You are no longer my granddaughter! PS. Here's a box of cookies,you're looking a bit thin. Does your mother even feed you!?"
User avatar #19 to #16 - carneymaster (03/23/2013) [-]
I think even the people up there would laugh at that. Some grandmother hears her grandson get called a faggot like 40 times a day on xbox live cause it goes through his speakers, she thinks hes gay, sends tons of hate mail.
#284 - nicolascagelover (03/24/2013) [-]
At first I laughed, because I for some reason thought someone was trying to be funny, but then I realized what it really ment.
#181 - boodlight (03/24/2013) [-]
Grandma.......hate mail
Grandma.......hate mail
#22 - sirbrentcoe (03/24/2013) [-]
if you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. but let the homosexuals be who they are. and let them have equal rights. equal rights mean equal taxes. isn't it time for the world to be pissed about something else yet?
if you don't like homosexuals, then don't be one. but let the homosexuals be who they are. and let them have equal rights. equal rights mean equal taxes. isn't it time for the world to be pissed about something else yet?
#352 to #22 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Also, let people use Apple-products. It's their right!!
#169 to #22 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Point is. that i can't understand heterosexual people caring so much about homosexuality, it ain't our problem at all. I don't care if people drink coke, even if i don't like it, the only possibilty to care about other people drinking coke is that you have a problem with it yourself.
#238 - tmpr (03/24/2013) [-]
grandma: ******* fag hahaha
User avatar #249 to #238 - bitchplzzz (03/24/2013) [-]
Dammit, gran, you've been on 4chan too much
#259 - pencilartist (03/24/2013) [-]
I was having my usual feels, reading all of the posters.   
Then I saw the "I'm not here anymore", and I thought the person had skipped out on the protest for some reason.   
Then my heart sunk at the realization. Like a small child learning about what death is for the first time.   
This is sad. Very, very sad.
I was having my usual feels, reading all of the posters.

Then I saw the "I'm not here anymore", and I thought the person had skipped out on the protest for some reason.

Then my heart sunk at the realization. Like a small child learning about what death is for the first time.

This is sad. Very, very sad.
#287 - grimmwaters ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#285 - youraverageteenage (03/24/2013) [-]
The "I'm not here anymore" sign got me
The "I'm not here anymore" sign got me
User avatar #11 - slenderwolf (03/23/2013) [-]
Can we just give the gays their due rights and the Texans their guns back? Plz?
User avatar #34 to #11 - cantfindausername (03/24/2013) [-]
That combination makes me concerned of your intentions.
#187 - dovahkitty (03/24/2013) [-]
am i the only one who actually thinks this is kinda sad and not hilarious?
User avatar #192 to #187 - lordvimless (03/24/2013) [-]
it gives me feels but not a damn
User avatar #276 to #187 - europe (03/24/2013) [-]
What makes you think this was meant to be funny?
#290 - felixjarl ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-]
This ******* thing. All to true
#293 to #290 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Lol, silly fags.
User avatar #320 to #290 - neoexdeath ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-]
Well tell the dude to get his ass out of the bathroom!
User avatar #24 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
I get the point of this post but marriage laws are a different issue from treating people with respect regardless of who they are.
#194 to #24 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
You saying that is the equivalent of red necks saying that marriage laws didn't need to be changed to allow black people the right....
User avatar #197 to #194 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Nope, because rave is in the bible, and all men are protected by its laws. But this wants to change those very laws while the bible does say gay sex is sinful. It's quite different. gay is not a race, it's a choice.
User avatar #351 to #24 - syrenthra ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-]
I see your point but at the same time, the reason the marriage laws are like this is because people treat gays like that
User avatar #394 to #351 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
Because gays are treated the same? Yes, i would agree, we give them the same liberties and expect them to live by the same standard of the law as anyone else. They can do anything they want and i wouldn't do more than shrug in disapproval at the worst of it. But when you try to change the law, not to protect anyone, but to accommodate a fetish you have, that i must stand up against.
User avatar #395 to #394 - syrenthra ONLINE (03/27/2013) [-]
they don't have the same rights as others, they can't get married, they can't be covered by each others health care. How is that equal? and sexual orientation is not a fetish
User avatar #397 to #395 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
They do have exactly the same rights as everyone else. I can't marry a man either. There is nothing I can do that they can't. They want to simply do something that's not supported by the law. Not banned, just not supported. You can go have a ceremony in a church and say "I do" if you like, it's just the government won't acknowledge it. Now if tax benefits are what you're after, i see no reason for gays to get the benefits that are in place to support children, but a civil union will allow those same benefits right now.

gay people wanting to get married is not about equal rights, it's about redefining what the law sees as marriage. It's a sexual revolution where the law is not banning anything they do, THEY are the ones pushing to get the law to support them. gays want it changed so that the government "admits" that homosexuality is alright when it simply isn't.

And yes, any kind of sex not specifically meant to make babies is done purely for pleasure aka a fetish. A sexual preference. Oral sex is a fetish, even what position you choose, if you choose it because it's most enjoyable, is a fetish because it is done for pleasure but doesn't effect the likelihood of a baby. All gay sex is a fetish sex. The gay movement always tries to link love and sex together and say love is being denied. No, love is not, you can love that person till you're blue in the face without ever having sex, sex is caused by the lustful attraction, aka, a fetish. And of course the sex isn't banned either. So gay people are allowed to do both sex and love each other as much as they want, so the only thing they now want is to be acknowledged. They want everyone else to say "ok, what you're doing is ok and normal" but it isn't, it is wrong. You may as well try to convince the world that pedophilia is alright.
User avatar #27 to #24 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
If you're married, you get certain legal benefits that others don't.

Are you saying that there shouldn't be equality there, too?
User avatar #29 to #27 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Do you know why? To help with supporting children. A gay couple can't have a child of their own. And they do have literally the exact same right as anyone to marry anyone of the opposite gender they like. Furthermore, they can have as much gay sex as they like.
User avatar #31 to #29 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]

Also, they don't have the same legal right to marry as straight people in most of the United States.

Not saying that the church should be forced to recognize their union, but the government, which serves all, and is partially paid for by everyone's tax money, should recognize gay marraige.
User avatar #36 to #31 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
That's a poor argument because yes it's paid for by everyone's tax money, but not everyone supports gay marriage. So it goes as far as the people want, right now the people are torn over the issue.
And as far as adoption goes, I haven't seen any definitive studies on it or anything, but I personally would be against adoption for a gay couple. My beliefs are against it and I wouldn't want a child growing up being taught that gay sex is alright. Now I would say nothing like that to a couple who teach it to their blood child, they can teach their own child anything they like. But when it's a child being put into the hands of someone else besides the birth parents, I have to take up issue about who the parents are.
#40 to #36 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
not everyone supports womens' rights. So apparently not everyone should legally have to support that, too.
User avatar #42 to #40 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
True, thank goodness I'm in agreement with the majority. I would appose any law that meant you couldn't believe something, the law should start where you begin to hurt someone else, or(in some cases) yourself.
#45 to #42 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
no, i mean that since womens' rights is opposed by a few people, it shouldn't be allowed.

I mean, "it goes as far as the people want" and it's a controversial subject, right?
User avatar #48 to #45 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
If I'm understanding you right, you seem to think that I think all people should agree on something for it to be put into law? Correct?
If so, no, that's not at all what I meant. I never said we all need to agree, only that most laws are put into place or taken out when there is a majority in favor of it.
As for what actually should be law, I want what I think is right to be reflected by the law simply because I think it's what's right. Don't you?(wants your morals to be law, not agree with me haha)
#51 to #48 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Well, at least you're being polite about this haha

I just don't see why you think that gay marriage is wrong. I read this whole conversation and it doesn't seem like there's any evidence saying that it does any physical harm (including adoption), and your only support for it being morally wrong is that it is a sin.

why is it a sin? What is the reasoning, beyond it being taught by whoever taught it to you?
User avatar #61 to #51 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
At Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus quotes the old testament when speaking of marriage and says "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This is where Jesus clearly defines marriage as between a single man and single woman. That is the basis of why gay sex in any form is wrong, it is fornication aka, sex out of marriage, because marriage is not something a man and a man nor a woman and a woman nor a man and an animal nor anything else can do. It is a fight to keep fornication from being not banned, but not accepted in the law. gay sex is simply a fetish just like any other fetish. It's not how sex was meant to work and in this case, it's also a sin.(meaning oral sex isn't how sex was meant to work either, but it's not a sin if done with your husband or wife.)
#63 to #61 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
That's from the Bible.

Christianity saying that Christianity is right is not an argument.

Say that I'm a Muslim. EVERY moral that they support must be right, correct? Not educating girls, stoning people, etc. I mean, it says so in the Quaran.

Even if I get to pick and choose the morals I believe in, in this scenario, it would be the same problem - me saying that I'm right, and the proof being that that I'm right.
User avatar #153 to #63 - awesomenessdefined (03/24/2013) [-]
Muslim here.

Not educating girls is not a part of the Quran. The Quran tries pretty hard to give women equal rights.
User avatar #69 to #63 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
I thought that's what you wanted in your question, i guess I misread.
No, Muslims should not because I don't think their moral codes is correct. There are flaws and problems in that code. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to worship how they want just as gays shouldn't be stopped from having just as much sex any way they like. But i will not support it, and that's what they are pushing, they want to be not allowed, not even tolerated, but full supported as though what they are doing is alright. And surly you can't blame me for wanting the laws of our country to reflect my own views on right and wrong.
As for why it is wrong besides being a sin. There's not much to go on. I mean they gay community is full of disease and hurt, although I have no way to know that is a result of being gay itself. I know that having same sex as a norm will convert some people over to being turned on by the idea but if you don't think it's a sin then that's not bad. I know that the every gay person I currently know became gay thanks to some kind of trauma and all have issues that I don't see in at least some of the straight people i know, but that's not exactly a huge sample of the population. So the only thing I am basing it off of is that, according to the code I believe in, it is wrong. Is it hurtful? I think so, but I've not done anything to prove it besides say "here are a few examples of it hurting those who are"
So what you are asking is "why is this wrong but don't say the reason you see it as wrong" that's quite hard to do. Can I ask you why you think it's right without saying "because it doesn't hurt anyone" because if i can't use the reasons i think it hurts people then I'm not sure it's fair that you can?
#75 to #69 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
It's fine if you don't support gays personally, but to make them pay the same taxes while not giving them the same rights is the problem here.
Obviously, you're going to want the laws to be to your moral code. But how can you be absolutely certain that yours is the correct one? The only thing you have to go on, really, is faith - which is not an argument. I'd rather give everyone the same rights off the bat and then see if they deserve it, rather than make them work for a right they might never get.
Whatever people became gay because of "trauma:" I can promise you that that is NOT the majority. Same thing goes the the "disease and hurt."
Some people became straight due to trauma (such as electroshock therapy).
By default, something is ok to do until you prove it wrong. That's because freedom of choice is a basic right that Christians, too, believe is one of the most crucial things God's given them.
So, the burden of proof is on you. You must prove why it is wrong.
User avatar #81 to #75 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Well if you want to get into why Christianity is right that's a whole nothing topic but I'm happy to delve into it if you'd like.
You say that like you've studied or know the majority, I could be wrong, but that seems like opinion to me. It seems to be proving itself to be harmful though. STD rates in homosexuals is very high, so is mental illness such as depression and abuse in relationships, even in Holland, a place where it is legal and accepted these statistics don't go down.
As doe why it's wrong, I have told you, it's forbidden in the bible for the same reason but you don't seem to want to accept that so it's quite difficult to convince you when our very belief systems are different. As for the burden of proof is on me, I think it's on you, because how do you prove something is wrong? If you can, please explain to me why hurting someone else is wrong without anything like "because it is."
User avatar #157 to #81 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
ok let's jump around and address your points.

1) Being gay isn't a social trend. Because it's genetic, the percentage of people who are actually gay won't fluctuate. Only the rate of people who are open about it will. You make it seem as if gay people don't have restrain (comparing them to people who have sex with animals/objects), and that straight people will start turning gay because more people are gay. That's not how sexuality works; only how non-genetic actions work.

2) you know that gay sex is a sin. Based on a religion that's infallible that I just made a comment about in my other post (that you're probably addressing right now). I clearly don't think so, so I can't accept that. Even if it's a sin, that doesn't mean that it will affect the child in any practical way; you can be committing sins and not harm others at the same time.

3) I know my soul is at risk. I actually believe that because I believe that anything is possible. But personal safety, for me, will never come before being logical. So saying that "my soul is at risk" is only a threat, rather than an argument against my "God is improbable" argument. I think that if a god forces you to believe in him, rather than try to find out for yourself, he isn't really benevolent in that respect. This is comparing apples to oranges.

4) You asked me to list the flaws. I did.

5) You hadn't answered the other post by the time I posted the comment before that one. But now I'll wait.
User avatar #173 to #157 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
No, it's quite the opposite, anyone who says it is genetic is dehumanizing the gay person,, saying they don't have control of themselves because it's in their genes. I say the opposite, it is fully within their choice and they have to choose to act on their desires. Now everyone has desires, and those desires are learned and acquired through experience and they are free to do it or refrain from it. Just because you want to do something doesn't make it ok to do it. If you want to cheat on your wife with someone else that's not ok, if you want to have sex with an underage girl that's not ok, if you want to have sex with someone of the same gender, that is no ok. Lust is a genetic trait, but where you direct it and what you do with it is a pure choice.

True, but if you are committing a sin without thinking it's a sin then your child will pick up on that. An alcoholic trying to recover but failing is not as bad as a mother who steals in front of her children and tells them it's ok to do.

He is, he gives us the choice to do anything we want and only asks us to do what he tells us is right. But if your desire to follow logic is more important than your own well being then you're not using logic. You only do what is logical because it is the best, because it provides the most advantage right? And the most logical thing would most certainly be to do your best to be sure about what will happen to your soul or perhaps before that, make sure you have a soul at all haha

Was you listing the flaws this post?

Thanks for that. I'm starting to have trouble keeping up with you bopping all around.
#84 to #81 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about Christianity as a whole - just this tenet.
people should be allowed to harm themselves if they want - it's their bodies - so the STD argument is out.
As for abuse, let's not let alcoholics get married, either, then - they have high rates of abuse. Or people with anger issues. Yet they also do.
By the way, just because people belong to a group that has a trend doesn't mean that they, individually, contribute to it. That's profiling.
I'd like to see those figure on abuse, by the way. Also, it varies country by country.
I can't accept it being wrong, because the only thing supporting your argument is itself. There is no such thing as a legitimate self-sustaining argument.
You can prove something is wrong by showing that it harms more than just the people taking part in it. Which you haven't.
Hurting someone else is wrong because they have a right to control their own physical and emotional states, and someone else doing it for them is not a right that they have.
User avatar #89 to #84 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Do you think any of those people who got an std did it on purpose? It wouldn't be protecting them from getting it, it would be protecting them from giving it to others.

As for abuse, lets counsel the angry people out of their anger, lets counsel the alcoholics out of their drug, and lets counsel the homosexual out of his fetish.

It does when the group has a higher majority than the population as a whole does.

And they have that right because? I would disagree that it doesn't hurt other and that my evidence can just be dismissed because you gave examples it could be wrong in. But lets say it doesn't hurt anyone else, then what makes anything else wrong? What makes hurting someone else wrong? What gives them that right, the right that, if broken, is wrong.
User avatar #400 to #89 - HarvietheDinkle (03/27/2013) [-]
Ok so you and I have completely different opinions. Neither of us can convince the other. Let's just give it a rest because I have a bunch of tests coming up and I don't have the time to argue here anymore.
User avatar #401 to #400 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
haha, of course, anytime you want to end it i won't bug you about it. I just enjoy these sorts of talks. have a nice rest of your life.
User avatar #229 to #89 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
1) I don't know but like you, i'm convinced.
2) A good god, instead, would use logic and positive incentive
3)When talking about the bible, you are simply stating your beliefs (god is good, it is filled with wonders, etc).

The Bible can never be used to prove the existence of God to people who aren't Christians. That's because of their necessary skepticism. The only thing that came close was that it apparently "predicts the future." How so? Any specific events, or just general trends?

burden of proof is always on those trying to prove a positive.
User avatar #241 to #229 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
I am looking for a full list but I can't find a good one, I invite you to look for yourself because there are literally thousands more. Many are fulfilled in the biblical account later on but most of those can be proven to be true because records of them were found around the time they were written or at the least, long before the bible says they came true. SO the only possibility for lies is that someone who knew the prophesy literally just wrong lies that would fulfill them. Something that isn't likely unless many authors all did this over a large time and keeping with a very flawless story. Though some of them have come true with great detail after the bible was finished being written. Most of them are historically verifiable to what I can tell. I tried to send you the ones that aren't verified in the bible itself that i could find at least.
User avatar #340 to #241 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
I'd rather have positive reinforcement than negative one. Both leave room for people to choose.

Also I have read of a number of places where prophesies failed.
User avatar #393 to #340 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
Sorry for the later reply, but please tell me which ones you've found ae wrong, I'd like to study them, as for positive and negative reinforcement, if i understand you right then it's hard to test the bible, you can only judge it on the things it says and decide if they make sense to you, but the more i study, the more sense it all makes, even things that made made no sense at first become clear when you take it all as a whole.
User avatar #232 to #229 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]

And no, incentive wouldn't work because what is incentive without the possibility of not getting it? You need somewhere else to send those who don't earn it or the reward is meaningless and goes to everyone, so...hell maybe.

And the bible is the best way to prove God, he wrote it, it contains fact and guidance that works flawlessly.
As for the prophesies...
Predicted ca. 760 BC: Amos predicts Israel would be restored as a nation and would never be uprooted again (Amos 9:15)–Fulfilled in 1948 when Israel was made a nation again.
Predicted ca. 732 BC: Isaiah says Egypt and Ethiopia would be conquered by Assyria (Isaiah 20:3-5).–Fulfilled ca. 673-670 BC when Assyria conquers the northeast African nations.
Predicted ca. 589 BC: Ezekiel tells about the fall of the great city Tyre, claiming that the Lord “will cause many nations to come up against thee,” (Ezekiel 26, 27).–Fulfilled in 586-573 BC: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon lays siege against the city. Fulfilled in 370s BC: a king of Cyprus conquers the city. Fulfilled in 332 BC: Alexander the Great conquers the city. Fulfilled in 315-316 BC: Antigonus, who served under Alexander, attacks and conquers the city. Fulfilled in 1124: The city falls to the Crusaders. Fulfilled in 1291: The city falls to the Muslim armies of the Mameluks.
Predicted ca. 543 BC: Daniel tells of a great Grecian king who would conquer the Persian empire but would have his kingdom divided four ways after his death (Daniel 8).–Fulfilled in 330 BC when Alexander the Great defeats Persia and 281 BC after the Greek generals who succeed Alexander reach an agreement after years of war to split the kingdom four ways.
Predicted ca. 430 BC: Malachi prophesies that Yahweh’s name would be honored by the Gentiles (pagans) (Malachi 1:11).–Fulfilled 1st century AD to the present: Pagans worldwide have forsaken their paganism and have confessed that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
User avatar #242 to #232 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
If you were offered a million dollars to do a task, you'd do it. Simply getting into heaven is reward enough for everyone. It's just that most don't believe in it.

#s 1, 5 are very general
#s 2, 3, are events that happened in a land rife with war and conquest.
# 4 is the only one that interests me a bit.
I guess I can look into the others.

How may incorrect predictions are there, by the way?

Believe what you want, but I'm not convinced. If everyone took action on their beliefs because they were "convinced" then the world would be an incredibly violent place.
User avatar #247 to #242 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Well you should read the verse, these are paraphrased some I believe. As for the million dollars, that's not free will, bribery or threatening would rune it, You have to leave a certain amount of room for people to choose. Tell them what will happen, why they should do what you ask, then leave them back to choose, that's what he really wants, us to choose our path because of love. And so far there are none that have been false, although there are over 500 that have yet to come true and are assumed to predict the future, the ones that specifically say they are in the end times most certainly are future based. But there are others, someone in there predicted we would greatly expend knowledge in the future and make transportation over large distances easy. I know I read that one somewhere. Do look into it if you find the time. It's kind of really late where I am so if you want to continue this tomorrow leave me a message and I'l get back to you, for now, goodnight.

And I'm not sure i agree with the violence thing, Christianity is all about love.
User avatar #190 to #89 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
"It all makes sense because it makes you happy and because it provides you comfort" doesn't cut it for you?

How does it make sense factually?
User avatar #189 to #89 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
1) saying they don't have control of themselves?" Nope. I'm saying that they don't have control over impulsive sexual feelings. No one does. Much like no one has control over their impulsive emotions. What everyone DOES have control over is whether they can brush those emotions aside after a few seconds and not act upon them. Which gays can do as well as anyone else.
People aren't "encouraged" to have gay sex if they aren't gay.
2) You child won't necessarily pick up on it. Also, isn't morality subjective?
3) Take this scenario for example: A person is holding a bucket of acid over my head. He asks me what the capital of the US is - DC or Berlin? Obviously it's DC, but if I answer that the acid will pour onto my body.

So if I answer DC - the true answer - I will be logical in the sense of factual information but illogical in the sense of self-preservation.
Opposite's true for Berlin.

You can see where I'm going with this.



Ok atheism is not at all a hate group or a place for downers to mix. People genuinely believe that god doesn't exist.

You believed, and then you became happy? You argued so much about your childhood instilling such happiness that it all seemed to make sense.

And, finally: Christianity seems to make sense for you. How so? I don't really see much evidence for God in the world, outside of the book that, by definition, proclaims that he exists. You said that Islam didn't make sense because of the tailbone. But turning water into wine, or resurrecting Lazarus?

Even if these are true, just because the "gay is a sin" tenet belongs to the same faith doesn't mean that it's true. Truth by association is not an argument. I doubt you've actually encountered a time in your life where you've seen this tenet in action and seen the positive results other than the happiness created by faith in the system. Others, such as "believe & be happy, yes." This, no.
User avatar #205 to #189 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
(continued) and sense we can't go back and prove it or test it here, it's not a flaw, simply something that has to be believed. So it's not the miraculous bit about the tail bone,, it's that it's testable and isn't true and I have yet to see a translation that explains it in a way that is.

If the bible is true then all things in it are truth. You can't pick and choose, that's how abortion clinics get blown up and gay people get murdered. It's all one moral code and all ties in together. And no,, I can't say I've seen a whole lot, some troubled gay kids I know, some problems with gay marriage i hear about, I only know that its absence can be quite lovely. So hopefully it's not odd to you that I'll take this part on faith? I really don't want to have sex with a dude that bad anyway haha

As for post 190 above, I don't really understand,, could you say it again with fewer "it"s please
User avatar #209 to #205 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]

Say I write a book that says 99 know facts (the sky is blue, etc.) But in there I also write that leopards can speak spanish.

Just because the Bible is true in many cases doesn't mean it's all truth.

"but it's true because god wrote it" or anything along those lines is not something I'm going to accept

I can't accept faith-based arguments, for obvious reasons. Faith-based arguments, by definition, only make sense to that specific religious community.
User avatar #200 to #189 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Ok, to reply to both, they choose whether to have control over those feelings, that's what i said. And yes, you can make yourself resist the sway of anything and even change yourself to no longer have that sway or add the sway in.

Morality without God is random and arbitrary,, based on nothing while God made this world to work in tandem with his laws.

And that scenario doesn't have all the factors. It assumes you know the right and wrong answer and there are consequences for the right answer. It would be more like, there is a bucket of acid over your head, it will be poured on you unless you ask for it not to be, but you are only being told the bucket is there, you can't actually look up to find out if it is or not. There is no downside to doing what is necessary to avoid the bucket and no reward for not trying to avoid the bucket.

I know it's not a true hate group, but I didn't doubt there was genuine belief, only that it seemed to be a what if that didn't matter in the least. Like what if the moon is made of cheese? Is there a reason to think so? No, not really. Then why are we discussing it?

And yes, back in my childhood I benefited from my parents faith. It seemed so right to me but when I got older I realized i only kind of trusted them that it was right, i was kind of a rebellious little snot at the time.

The best evidence for God is that book. It's his word and just about the only place he reveals himself to us. He wants to stay mostly hidden because it would impede on free will if he revealed himself. If there was a giant eye in the sky that followed your every move and frowned when you began to think of sinning you wouldn't so much sneeze for fear. No child steals a cookie while his mother watches.

The tail bone simply isn't true, we can see that the tail bone of a human deteriorates just as much as any other bone. But the water to wine and making zombies were all things Jesus who is God on earth did. They are what he used to prove who he was.
User avatar #208 to #200 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
morality based on God is something I can't follow if I don't believe in God.

You still got the lesson out of the acid example, though. there is indeed no self-preservation reward for trying. However, there is factual correctness. Which is a different thing. So, simply saying that "I'll go to hell" - a fear tactic, by the way; one that a benevolent god wouldn't use - isn't saying that I'm factually incorrect.

Your experience with atheists is also really off. Most try to think about the existence/nature of God with sincerity.

As for the last two: A good god doesn't rule by fear of judgement but by logic and love, and...prove it. A book written by a religion about itself is potentially just about as reliable as a liar writing his autobiography.
User avatar #227 to #208 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
(continued again) In this way we are blind, we would not know of God if he did not reveal himself to use. We would not understand morality or where it came from. To be atheist is to have no reason not to do only what is best for one's self. You would steal if you both wanted something and knew you could take it. You would lie to aid yourself if you truly believed there were no repercussions for it(the repercussions necessary as hell, else what incentive is there for being good?) So there is no foundation and no logic behind not believing. We suffer here on Earth but if we accept we have no purpose, there is only pleasure and to follow pleasure solely is something no one does. So there must be something more, a purpose, a reason we are here. God would reveal that to use is he is just. And he did, though there are pitfalls in this world he always puts it in our reach. That is why religion is the only logical path to take, the only thing left after that, is to figure out which it true.
User avatar #221 to #208 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
But you don't know it's factual.

And a benevolent God most certainly would use hell, it is incentive. Would you do right if i told you there was no hell, doing good or bad would still get you into heaven only you'd get scolded first for what you did wrong? There has to be a punishment.

Perhaps, but a liar wouldn't be able to write something that works so flawlessly, that predicts the future, that is contradiction less. The bible was written by many people over many years and still fulfills itself and flows perfectly. Could it be written by men trying to deceive? Yes, but you can tell it's not simply by the words inside. I can't really show you this, you have to delve into the bible yourself and find it or else let me show you over time but I doubt we live close, nor would you probably let me. The difference is that the bible is time tested and truly stands out when compared to anything else. The wisdom inside just works. And don't give me any more skepticism until you have tried it. Sure you can look at Christians, but you may as well stare at a ll wall unless you can read minds. You assume that we are a certain way, that we do things because of weakness this or dependency that, but you do not know.

And to the (continued), that would be great to write that, but it will come under scrutiny. People will come and try to show you why it is wrong, people have done this for ages with the bible but none have been able to prove it wrong, there are arguments against all the other religions but all arguments against Christianity turn into "well...there's no proof of it"
It can't be proven wrong because it is flawless, only truth in it and also things we can't really prove or disprove. God is a god of logic and knowledge, the bible says to seek knowledge out and become wise. Here on Earth, your quest for knowing is flawed and will never come to fruit, here on Earth we can know nothing, everything is assumption based on observation of patterns.
User avatar #135 to #89 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
1) "self harm hurts others because they are made to think it's right." How many people do you see trying to eagerly getting an STD? "Monkey see monkey do" is not reality.
2)"Depriving a child of a mother or father is bad for them." Then single parents shouldn't adopt. Also, people in gay relationships tend to fill the role left out by the lack of the opposite gender.
3)You're sure enough to act upon your beliefs? To me, it seems as if your argument is filled with very flawed points. The one thing I'll give you is that you have more time of research on me, but even then...
4) If you're willing to doubt yourself, then you're more agnostic theist than pure christian. Also, why are both atheism and agnostic atheism doubtful? As an agnostic atheist, I think that it's probable that a god doesn't exist. Not certain. Why probably, and not improbably? Because of the massive amount of evidence disproving god's existence that has occurred over time - from disproving countless church teachings (such as the earth being the center of the universe) to the world being 6,000 years old, to more.
Not saying that it's impossible, but unlikely? Yes.
5) Studying a tome's contents doesn't prove that it is right. It only proves how much its principals can hold up in a time period's society.
6) You still haven't answered me - do you follow every tenet of Christianity? If not, then it's not infallible. Also, you're picking and choosing - somthing that should only be reserved for God himself. If you think every tenet is right, then you're doign something wrong right now.
User avatar #146 to #135 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
First off, the church said the world was the center, not the bible. And a relatively small group of Christians said the Earth is 6000 years old, not all of us or even the majority. If your argument is "some Christians can be wrong so obviously all are" then I must roll my eyes.

I'm not saying monkey see monkey do, I'm saying if you grow up in a world where something is accepted you are more likely to do it.

Also, having a fake mom or dad would be even worse than lacking one.

Ad atheism as a whole is illogical because there is no reason to believe it. Even if you are right, there is no point, no gain, no reason to believe it. There is no proof for it, no logic behind subscribing to it. If you're right you get the same thing as everyone else, if you're wrong you've pissed off a god. There are many religions and so much to study and figure out which is right. Now not to be insulting, but if you've done that and not seen how Christianity is superior then you're either seeing something I'm not, or missing something I'm looking at.

Also, if my argument has flaws, please point them out and explain them to me as best you can. If they are flaws I definitely wanna know.

And I think I already answered number 6 only to another post, tell if you don't get the reply and I'll send it again.
User avatar #148 to #146 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
Ok, I'll give you your first point.

As for your second one, you seem to be implying that people choose to be gay. "They're more likely to do it" makes it seem that way, at least. Unless they're somehow THAT easily influenced by environmental pressures, seeing a lot of people being gay won't change one's sexual stance.

"having a fake mom or dad would be worse." Why? Studies have been inconclusive, and even if one study says that it's bad, there are a lot of others that says it's ok. Again, fathers/mothers often fill the roles of the opposite gender in gay marraiges, and there aren't any conclusive studies done showing that the kids are harmed. Studies that are universally accepted, I mean.

Someone saying that God doesn't exist, with certainty, is illogical, yes. But the burden of proof is always on a person who tries to prove things. As long as I can think of another way that (a feature of reality) came to be, I will continue to disbelieve in God.

The main flaw was the one you made earlier about adopted children, where your only proof was personal experience. Also there are some logical fallacies, such as associating the actions of a group with all of the individuals of that group.

you indeed answered #6. So if the only requirement of getting into Heaven is to believe in Jesus, then why do you still give the "gays are sinful" tenet a go, too? I assume you don't subscribe to certain tenets, so what is the religious reason behind believing this one and not others, if they are both written in the Bible - and some in the New Testament? How does this one have more merit than others?
User avatar #152 to #148 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
To clarify, yes, gay people choose to have sex with people of their same gender. There are people who have sex with animals, there are people who have sex with inanimate objects(not a vibrator, I mean like literally attracted to that car or chair) And yes, when something is the norm, a person is much more likely to do it. That's how groups are started. You cannot tell me gay people or anyone for that matter cannot help but have sex with what they have sex with.

And i thought it was you i was talking to when I said that firstly, that is my opinion because there aren't any good studies yet. But I know that gay sex is a sin and so those who practice it are not the kind of people i would want to raise children, it would be unhealthy for the child.

Have you studied the bible? Not just read a few parts but really looked at it, understood it and then made that decision? (honest question) Because the burden of proof is not on me no matter how much you want it to be. It is your soul at risk here and if you don't go searching for the truth that a just god would put in your reach then only you will suffer for it. I'm trying to help because I care, but you seem like the kind of person who thinks the teacher should be held responsible if the student isn't learning.

How many times do I have to say it, that was all my opinion, no studies to back it up, no expert knowledge, just me looking at it and saying "I would not consider a gay couple fit to look after a child"

Would you stop asking the same thing twice, I get both you know, it's like you WANT my fingers to get sore! Sheesh! But yes, I answered that in another post so please read that first and let me know if it's good enough to answer that.

#95 to #89 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Be careful with that argument, too. You're giving me the opportunity to go on a killing rampage. That's where the "morality is subjective" argument fails.
User avatar #100 to #95 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
That's exactly what I'm saying. That moral code doesn't actually have a reason not to murder/rape/pillage and that is why it's baseless.
However religious morality is not arbitrary. It is based off of the morals set by an all knowing, all see, infinite god. It only then falls to study and pick while religion is the true one.
#94 to #89 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Most everyone knows what STDs are. gays get it not because they're gay, but because they don't wear condoms. Because they're human, and some humans are stupid. It's the action of not wearing condoms, not the action of being gay, that accounts for a higher rate.
Likewise, the abuse is due to the individual and his problems, not with the actual act of being gay.
And even then, it's simply a higher rate. It's not as if 70% of gays have an STD/abuse/depression rate. It's more like 5%, versus the straight population's 2%.
Even if the rate were much higher, you'd be keeping the right of marriage away from some innocent people due to the actions of a few others. Guess that guns should be banned after all.
Thing is, you still haven't proven that being gay also causes disproportionate and significant physical/mental damage. Whereas harming another person does, clearly.
Yes, morality is subjective. Thing is, there's more proof for the pro-equal rights argument than for the other camp.
User avatar #99 to #94 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
According to these sources, 70 percent is just about right.
You need to login to view this link
You need to login to view this link

this one covers mental illness

And if you agree morality is arbitrary, then there is proof of what?
User avatar #172 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
This is a classic case of someone raised into a religion and being comforted by it. You believe in your religion because God tells you to, and because it makes you feel happy. But the reason it makes you feel happy is because clearly everything given to you - whether a direct gift or a mistake/life lesson - is a gift nonetheless. You feel good following this religion because of these gifts, because of the comfort, and because it's worked for you. All fine and dandy.

But just because you're happy and comforted that things worked out for you doesn't mean that what you're doing is right.

To be extreme here, many people following Hitler had amazing lives. They believe in him, because he made them feel comforted. He had all the answers. The more they looked at him the more they saw an infallible leader. He made them the happiest, most secure people on the planet.

But he was wrong.

Not saying that God is Hitler, but this "it's right because it works for me" thing is not an argument I'm willing to accept.
User avatar #184 to #172 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
And don't compare God and Hitler, I mean sure they both had a fixation on the Jews but come on.
User avatar #182 to #172 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Oh I know, please don't think I'm running on blind faith here. There was a time in my life I rejected my faith because I realized I was just doing it because my parents told me it was right and it simply didn't make sense to me. But atheism just didn't make sense either, I started looking into it and began to realize it was just people saying "I can't lose if I don't play" and there was nothing at all to it, no reason to believe it, no logic behind it. It was almost like a hate group that rejected everything it couldn't understand. So I went to other religions, of them I really did like Buddhism but it just had no substance, it was a bunch of good ideas with nothing to link them besides they were a pleasant way to live, there was no real God, only a man who claimed to have figured things out with no real divinity in sight. Hinduism seemed hard to follow and made of a bunch of gods that didn't make a terrible lot of sense. I got pretty disenchanted when they said the world was on an elephant on a turtle in space and all justifications I read for that were pretty poor. The Quran of Islam seemed interesting but had a few too many orders to kill people and one verse that stood out as wrong was when it claimed that the tail bone is the bone that would rise up at the end of time back into men because it was the only bone that never deteriorated. So I went back to the bible and found that the things I misunderstood were because I hadn't read enough of the bible, i thought i understood why things were how they were but the closer I looked the more I realized that it all flowed rather perfectly. I still try to give them the same concessions I give the bible, looking for meaning to things that don't make sense, mistranslations, original and metaphoric meaning, anything, but they just don't hold up
i can see where you're coming from, but it's insulting when you say i only beleive because I like it. The belief came first, the enjoyment only after living it a while.
User avatar #150 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
ok so you follow every New Testament tenet. You follow them because your religion tells you to, and your religion has never failed you.

Thing is, your religion seem to be giving very basic philosophies that are clearly right, if you want to live a happy life. As for going to heaven? That's self-fulfilling, if you believe in the religion you follow.

People who are religious can tend to attribute everything good that happens to them as a blessing given by the religion, and everything bad as just another lesson to be learned - yet another blessing, in disguise. They do this because they want to believe, and have had good experiences with religion in the past. So of course Christianity is infallible and has never failed you; it's a self-justifying experience.
User avatar #159 to #150 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
I believe them because God tells me too. And yes they are basic, but did you ever think maybe they are basic because they are so well known ever sense God revealed them to us? Maybe it's not common sense but something your parents taught you because their parents taught them after reading it from the bible or seeing other people who follow the bible do it? Only saying.

And yes, it is very simple to get into heave and very hard at the same time. You see all you have to do is to try and you will be let in. You have to believe it and practice it because you believe it. You can doubt, you can scrutinize, you can even be the single most sinful person in history and still get in if you truly try. But that's not to say sin doesn't have a price.

And people who see it from the outside always like to be skeptical and say it's just us trying to fit our pieces into the puzzle even by force, but may i remind you, you've never been in our shoes and yet you are talking as though you know. You see, God controls everything, so the good things in life are his doing, and the bad is simply opportunity for us to test and prove ourselves. It's not self justifying because God has explained the world to me, given me the key to fulfillment and invulnerability and it simply works. When I follow it it's hard to be afraid of anything, it's hard to worry because I feel taken care of and assured. It feels darn good. I fully realize that it could be wrong to believe this, that is why I scrutinize and search for holes in it, and the longer I find none, the more I feel confident in the bible. So don't knock it till you've tried it.
User avatar #139 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
The very vague philosophies you just told me are ones I agree with, but they aren't specific to Christianity. So I can't believe that it's simply Christianity that's right, based off of that. A life lived in happiness and self-content, without harming others, is actually one I've been trying to live, and it works. Thing is, it was fueled by my own common sense - not my own religion - based off of what I saw in the world and what I realized I wanted to feel like.
I can actually comment on Christain households, because yours sounds like a utopia. I mean, I live an extremely fortunate life, but my parents not ever fighting? That's not common AT ALL. Human nature simply doesn't work like that, and if most Christian couples lived such an idyllic life then I'd have heard about it by now. No, yours is a unique case with Christianity being used, but by unique individuals.

Ok, so the only tenet for getting to heaven is believing in Jesus. Then why do you believe the "gays are sinful" one, too? And not others?
User avatar #149 to #139 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Right, well you can rational my personal experiences all you like, but it remains that I lived it and I watched my Christian parents live a life i hope to have too while attributing it to their faith. What i saw as that they used their faith to hold together every part of their life.
I wish i could speak for other households but I can't. I know the Christina community i grew up in was very friendly and seemed to have no problems either but that could just mean the smiles stopped at the door, who knows. I know that in my school the christian kids were the good kids and the kids from non Christian households were trouble makers.
And I know the closest thing to a fight I ever saw from my parents was one of them getting flustered only to find out it was a misunderstanding, then they'd just laugh and kiss and go back to normal, neither was afraid to be wrong, neither ever seemed to be in control, and both always supported each other when punishing me and my brothers and we turned out really well is i do say so myself. We had a perfect peaceful household...and then the fire nation attacked (sorry, I couldn't resist)

I'm not sure what others you're talking about, other tenets? I think all the other new testament tenets are right. Including out of marriage sex, and marriage is defined as a man and a woman. All those sins are still sins and you have to ask for forgiveness in order to get to heaven because believing in Jesus means that you believe he died for your sins and you will be forgiven if you only ask to be sincerely(meaning not only are you sorry but you will try you very best not to do it again)
User avatar #125 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
in your second post you talk about how infallible it is and how Christianity has never failed you. That's an extremely vague post made without proof.

Your mom and dad not having fights? You sure that's due to Christianity? Because the vast majority of other christian couples do have fights - the normal amount for a married couple.

By the way, do you think people should follow EVERY tenet discussed in the Bible? If so, then I'm willing to bet you're breaking a lot right now. If not, then who says you get to pick and choose, and why is the "being gay is a sin" one chosen over others?
User avatar #138 to #125 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
(ran out of room)
Now they are no longer binding, they are fulfilled of their purpose and so the new law, built on the old one, is the law of Jesus, that you should do certain things for the love of God, but you don't actually have to, you just will because you want too. That is why the old testament is no longer law, it was law for the Jews, but now that Jesus has come just like it was foretold, we follow his law instead which means one thing, to fulfill all law, you must simply treat others as you would want to be treated, meaning with as much love as you have for yourself.
User avatar #136 to #125 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
I'm not sure it's vague sense it's based on my personal studies. Do you want me to go through and list every contradiction I have studied up to this point and then why it's wrong? And Christianity hasn't failed me, every issue I've brought before God has been solved, I have no worries because when you believe you are invincible, even death is a great thing, no one can hurt you because you are already taught when someone takes from you, offer the more, when someone hurts you, forgive them and let them hurt you more if they want. Hate no one and give till it hurts. But the best part, even if you fall short, you will be forgive for it in infinite quantities. Hope that helps explain a little.

And yes, I'm rather sure it was sense Christianity constantly floated around in our house. It felt like the bonding force that kept everyone level headed and pleasant, even the scuffles between my brothers and I were dealt with with nothing but fairness. It might not have been causing it, but it sure looked like it to me, and man do I want to have a relationship like theirs someday with my wife. But I honestly couldn't speak about "the average christian couple" (and i don't think you can either to be honest, just saying)

Lastly, yes, every tenet that you have to in accordance with the whole bible, and no, I'm not breaking even one. Please let me explain.
Many of the laws I'm sure you had in mind come from the old testament and the law that was set down for the ancient Jews. But Jesus came to fulfill that law, not rewrite it but fulfill it. This means that the rules for getting into heaven have changed(technically not though because those from old times are in the "Moses' Bosom" till judgement day but that's a long story) Jesus made it so getting into heaven required one thing, belief in him. When you believe in him you will ask for forgiveness of your sins and they will be forgiven and forgotten. The old laws for the Jews are no longer law if you believe in Jesus.
User avatar #123 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
1) Smoking and anything else that causes self-harm should be banned under your logic. It causes self-harm which apparently "harms others"
2)We've been over the whole child thing, and there weren't any substantial proofs of it.
3) "forcing people to accept it" is not the situation. You can believe what you want. But to act upon those beliefs assumes that you are 100% certain that you are correct in them. Which, as my next point argues, is the wrong way to go.
4)Pure atheism is illogical. Agnostic Atheism is not. Now, we can go into an argument over whether god exists or not, but I believe that the only logical thing to do is to be constantly self-doubting and not subscribe to an actual religion. I think it's pretentious to say that you know, without a doubt, that a god exists/doesn't exist.

For example, people believed for the longest time that classical physics was the right explanation of the physical laws of reality. That's clearly wrong now, but back then quantum physics was so counter-intuitive (and still is) that people didn't think it could possible be true.

What can we do, short of a time machine? If you're saying that humans were hand-created by God in their current form then that flies in the face of insurmountable evidence proving evolution. Archaeology doesn't solely rely on written text; it's disproven much that seemed true in the past; there's no saying that it won't do it more.
User avatar #129 to #123 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Not necessarily, though I would say you shouldn't be allowed to sell things to people that hurt them. And something harmful you do to yourself only harms others if they copy it because they are made to think it's right.

I still think adoption is a totally separate issue to gay marriage but i still think depriving a child of either a mother or father is bad for them.

I never said i was 100 percent sure, i said i was one hundred percent convinced. By that I mean I as sure enough to act on those beliefs just that you are sure enough that cars will stay stopped when you cross the road at a red light to start walking.

And yes, I am aware of the different kinds of atheism and Agnostic is just as illogical as any other form because of what they all share in common.

But I do agree it is a good idea to doubt and check and recheck. You need to be sure of what you believe and why you believe it. That is where biblical study comes in. Study it, compare it to other religions, change if realization dictates it and don't be afraid of letting it go when you find yourself to be wrong. But with Christianity, every time i throw it up against the wall of doubt it hasn't broken yet.

Lastly, please let me point out the evolution is not the opposite of Christianity. They can work hand in hand. You see, God could have created us through evolution. Just because we have discovered the method he used doesn't mean much of anything.

And i totally agree, Christianity could turn out to be wrong upon my continued study, but it doesn't look like it and i am confident enough to to act on it.
User avatar #126 to #123 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
also, it's not logical to say that the god you think exists is 100% right and that all of his prophets, and everyone who wrote/translated/preach the bible are 100% right.
User avatar #112 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
replying here because I can't reply to your last one.

Many of those sources are religious based.

You still haven't argued against the point that whether it be STDs or depression, there are 2 important facts: 1) It's self-harm and 2)It's the act of a group of people, not every individual.

If you were arguing based on physical harm rather than marriage, then you're not arguing against marriage anymore.

I'm not Christian. I don't see any proof, let alone extensive, unbiased proof, that that story ever happened. I believe in evolution, which has much more proof, acquired by a much larger percentage of unbiased people (>0%). So your bible quote falls apart.

Why do you support your morals? Because you believe that they're right? Being so incredibly certain of yourself is not at all the way that a logical process - the kind that has helped create so many innovations and revolution - works.
User avatar #118 to #112 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
(ran out of room)
What proves the bible to be right, is the substance of the words in the bible. It outshines everything else in it's practicality and infallibility. If nothing else, I believe because it has never once failed me and my family is held together by Christianity which causes my mom and dad to never have a fight that I can remember, they are disgustingly happy with each other, i was frustrated all my childhood because every time was being punished they explained to me why i was being punished and it always made sense, and Christianity caused that in them(trust me, I've studied them for my whole life haha)
User avatar #115 to #112 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Forgive me, I'm having many conversations with many people at once.
Well i would remind you that every source that is religious based is not inherently biased so don't dismiss just on that, but short of that, I would invite you to do research on your own and find other numbers studies have found, I wish I had some bookmarked but the last i looked into it was a while ago and I don't remember where all I looked.

And I would agree that it is self harm, but to cause a spread of self harm is to harm others. To support gay marriage so much as to legalize it is to put it into law suggest it is an everyday norm, thus spreading that idea and causing more people to covert to homosexuality, hurting themselves. But perhaps even worse is that to put it into law means something can be made law based on the whims of the people. Saying gay marriage isn't protecting anyone, it's forcing people to accept it as ok to do. i don't know about you, but that seem unnecessary. Marriage between a man and a woman protects and supports the child they will most likely have.

And lastly, I believe what I do because atheism is illogical and makes little sense and no other religion comes close to Christianity in its accuracy both morally and historically and the truth it speaks. No contradiction I have yet been given holds up when you more closely study the verses in context and back in the original language when translated properly. I attempt to be unbiased in my studies but I keep finding problems with other religions that simply aren't in the bible.

As for proving it to you, that's difficult, there are some historical evidence that supports it, nothing that really contradicts it. But you run into the same issue with every other document from the Roman era. There is not real way to confirm it wasn't forged. Sure it has places that can be shown to really exist, it has some events that can be collaborated by other historical documents, but short of a time machine, what can we do?
#109 to #99 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
I don't even know if any of those sources are reliable.

if morality is arbitrary, you also don't have an argument.
User avatar #111 to #109 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
You misunderstand me. Nonreligious morality is arbitrary. Religious morality is guided by the all knowing, all see, infallible righteousness of God. The first step, sense morality is arbitrary any other way(that i have yet encountered) you must look at every religion unbiased and determine which is right. In my yet to be concluded studies,, I have so far found that Christianity is the truest.
User avatar #107 to #99 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
The last one doesn't even cite its figures. By the way, simply by looking at the URLs or the website titles. I can see that they're made by Christians - a strong bias.
All three sources are clearly biased in favor of Christianity; I can see it by the URLs, how the articles are written, or by the website titles. Show me an unbiased source (the last one doesn't even cite its sources).
Let's say that the STD rate is 100% among gays. Even then, unless you were raised in the backcountry, you know about STDs. In which case people are making the decision to take the risk of them getting it. You have the right to do what you want with your body.
Also, let's say that the depression rate is high. That is also a right that someone should have. You can't say something is wrong because someone else is harming themselves. Even if you disagree with that, and if I am to believe this article, then marriage has nothing to do with this. These mental disorders are due to genetics, not the act of marriage, so banning gay marriage won't stop this rate.
And that's with me making multiple concessions that I don't have to.
also: WHY IS IT A SIN??? Explain to me where the Christian religion actually PROVES that it's wrong.
Morality is subjective? Well then, I think that minority groups
shouldn't have the right to vote. Much more proof exists showing that
they have a higher crime/drug abuse/violence rate, anyway; than that gays have such detrimental lives.

Is being a minority the reason why this happens? Obviously not.

Morality is arbitrary. There is only a proof of the physical damage done. And the only damage done that you've tried to prove with any attempt of citing sources is self-harm.
User avatar #110 to #107 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
This particular talk moved into if homosexuality is harmful, this part wasn't specifically going into marriage. These sources state it is. And i don't think all those sources were religious based and i know that many of the studies they site weren't because i followed into them a bit.
And i agree that everything you said is possible, you didn't site a whole lot of evidence for it.
Lastly it is a biblical sin because at Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus quotes the old testament when speaking of marriage and says "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This is where Jesus clearly defines marriage as between a single man and single woman. That is the basis of why gay sex in any form is wrong, it is fornication aka, sex out of marriage, because marriage is not something a man and a man nor a woman and a woman nor a man and an animal nor anything else can do. It is a fight to keep fornication from being not banned, but simply not accepted in the law. gay sex is simply a fetish just like any other fetish. It's not how sex was meant to work and in this case, it's also a sin.
#79 to #69 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Also, I don't subscribe to a faith that says that it's right because it's right.

I'm agnostic atheist - always doubting myself, my beliefs, and my morals. I can use the argument "it doesn't hurt anyone" because I don't have a bias in this - there's nothing telling me that it's wrong, and there's nothing telling me that it's the only way people should go, too.

In contrast, your argument is simply based off of a source that can't be proven using a method other than "because the Bible says so." A belief you were raised to have a bias towards. A self-supporting argument is not an argument at all.
User avatar #83 to #79 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Well I'm telling you it's wrong haha. But I see what you mean, my problem with that is, where does what is wrong come from with you? It seems arbitrary.

And I don't believe in a "right because it's right" system either. I'm sure it's hard to believe but i scrutinize my beliefs as hard as you do, even so much as nearly dropping Christianity till i kept studying and realized why something was aid or done in the bible.

As far as the bible being unproven, that is also wrong. It is as well proven as anything else you or I believe. It contains more and more impressive prophesies that have come true than any other religion, has no contradictions(all contradictions I've been presented melt away when you look at the original text, meaning the original writings, in the correct context, and the simple message itself just contains nothing but flowing truth when you study it and try to understand it. If nothing else, it has never once failed me personally and falls short when looked at along side all other religions.

It's not self supporting just because you refuse to look at the evidence. i established that God wrote the bible and only then followed what was in it.
#97 to #83 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Give me the proof stated in the bible that proves that being gay is wrong. Besides saying that it's wrong.

Also, if you're going with the argument that it's your morals versus my morals, then even if you continue to argue your points, the movement for gay rights is growing rapidly.
User avatar #102 to #97 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Just because something is wrong doesn't stop it from potentially growing haha.
Not that i haven't noticed, you see if you falsely slap "rights" onto something, people tend to follow it without really thinking about what they're following. Tell them someone isn't being treated equally and they'll support it.

And apparently you're not the anon I was talking too above(you guys all look the same I swear) so...

At Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus quotes the old testament when speaking of marriage and says "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

This is where Jesus clearly defines marriage as between a single man and single woman. That is the basis of why gay sex in any form is wrong, it is fornication aka, sex out of marriage, because marriage is not something a man and a man nor a woman and a woman nor a man and an animal nor anything else can do. It is a fight to keep fornication from being not banned, but simply not accepted in the law. gay sex is simply a fetish just like any other fetish. It's not how sex was meant to work and in this case, it's also a sin.
#108 to #102 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
So...let's say that I'm not Christian, and I don't have this anti-gay fetish.

Then your whole argument saying that God created adam and eve, not adam and steve, doesn't hold up to me.
Prove to me that that happened, in the first place. Secondly, prove to me why I should be forced to follow those morals.
Third, that passage doesn't even mention anything about sex; only union. In which case your "sex wasn't meant to work that way" argument doesn't apply.
User avatar #114 to #108 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
It mentions sex indirectly. It clearly says in the bible sex is only ok in marriage, it mentions marriage and it is to be understood that when it defines marriage, it's saying who you can marry for the purpose of having righteous sex.
And i understand it doesn't hold up to you because you are not a believer. Your morality is based on nothing and is arbitrary because there is nothing that really makes things wrong except if those actions were given to you as a choice by God.(technically a god but i say God because I'm quite sure Christianity is right based on what i have yet studied)

When you say "prove to me" I have to say go prove to yourself. Read the bible, read the Tanakh , read the Koran, go dig up the stories of ancient Greek gods(ok, I haven't even done that haha) and decide for yourself what you think is right. i would advise you do not take your beliefs from what others say(not that you shouldn't take them into account)
That is how you figure out what is right in this world, it will present it'self to you if you seek it because a just god would not put you hear but leave the truth out of your reach.
I say this not to be lazy I promise, but what is proof for me is only an explanation you would read from me. I would need to know you, speak to you for real and over time show you the bible and why I believe in it. In my experience, the only way to convert someone is to become their friend so they let don all prejudice and walls and look at what you show them without any other motive than to see if they agree. So I very much invite you to study and find out why it is truth sense the closest you can come to studying atheism is to study religion to see why they're wrong, right?
User avatar #38 to #36 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
If the majority believed that black people shouldn't have rights, then we'd have to follow that? That's using the logic you posed.

How is granting people the same rights as everyone else harmful in any way?

Also, just because a child is related by blood doesn't mean that the parent is any less capable of raising them or have any less moral and ethical rights to do so. You seem to be making empty statements.

How are they being treated equally, and have the "same things everyone else does", by the way, if they don't have the same legal rights?

User avatar #41 to #38 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Yes, because if you'll remember, back when the majority did, it was law that they were slaves. I didn't say that the majority is right, only that the majority makes the law.
Because being gay is a sin, sinning is wrong. It's true it doesn't hurt anyone else when one person does it unless it convinces others it's right thus spreading the sin. But the worst part is that it harms the individual that is committing the sin. Sexual perversion is simply wrong, just because you are sexually attracted to someone or something doesn't mean you should have sex with them. Just because you love someone dearly doesn't mean you need to have sex with them.
And as I said I disagree, from what I have seen, not having a mother and father can hurt a child's upbringing even with others there to try and fill the gap. But it's only opinion. There shouldn't be gay union so by default there shouldn't be gay adoption regardless if gay adoption is right or wrong, it just follows. The main reason I'm against it is that is further accepts gay sex as the norm.
And for your third point. They are currently equal, name one thing that a gay man/woman can't do that I can. If you say marry someone of the same gender, i can't do that either. If you say I can get married in the normal way, they can too.
User avatar #44 to #41 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
why being gay wrong? Because it's a sin? Based on that vocab. I'd guess you believe that because of your religious teachings.

So, because morality is subjective, if I had a religion saying that people with freckles marrying was a sin (and had "personal experience" that supported that it did physical damage), then it would have to be banned, too.

you know what? screw the freckle example. Let's take the situation of inner-city teens, who DEFINITELY tend to get pregnant more often than the norm. and raise more troubled children. Much more than any study against gay adoption has shown. Now do you agree that inner-city teens shouldn't be allowed to marry/adopt? If not, then the only thing keeping you biased in favor of discrimination against gays is your beliefs.

But what is the basis for your beliefs? I'm not saying that every teaching is wrong, but certain tenents - like not allowing gay marriage - can you tell me what the basis is for that rule? WHY is it wrong?

As for gay adoption: What you're talking about is personal experience. I don't even know how you came to the conclusion that people raised by a gay couple are more harmed (did you observe a group of kids for their 18-year-lond childhood?) than those raised by straight people.

All the studies that claim this, too, are not at all conclusive, and only show trends - not the effects of an individual couple. That's akin to saying that since minority groups tend to have a higher crime rate, they shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

If you're willing to make the claim that some taxpayers don't agree with gay rights, then how about this: gays don't have to pay their taxes. That way, the people who are getting more rights have to pay more.

What would you call the discrepancy between people off opposite genders being able to marry versus people of the same gender marrying each other? Certainly not Equality.

you also seem to have the wrong idea about gays - they're not just in it for the sex.
User avatar #54 to #44 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
As far as the adoption I'm certain I went out to say that it was fully my opinion and that I haven't seen any definitive studies either. I don't know if it actually hurts children to be raised by a gay couple, I only think it does based on what I've seen e.g. the things that do cause troubled children. Note that I also see children not being raised as christian part of the troubled children category for hopefully obvious reasons.
However, the teens example is good because it shows the difference between an unfortunate situation that would have been better had it been stopped through education of the teens or short of that, contraceptives being handed out. The point being, it should have been prevented, now it must be dealt with. Why a pregnant teen would want to adopt I don't know but I would say they shouldn't be allowed too, but marriage to the father could actually be the best thing for the health of the child. While gay adoption is something that would happen after marriage as a choice for the people in charge of assigning parents. Adoption and marriage are once again, very separate issues. Adoption needs to be worried about only after the marriage question is concluded.
As for taxes, no, i do not think no taxes for gays is a solution because taxes do more than give you a right to marry, they give you both a say in government and access to all the public things they go towards.
Lastly, yes, being gay means you are sexually attracted to the same sex. You can love someone without having sex with them and you can have sex with someone you don't love. There would be no sex without that attraction but the love they have, if it's real, doesn't need sexual attraction.
User avatar #58 to #54 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
Ok so the adoption argument is clearly out.

Now, you say that "children being raised as a christian" is a "troubled child" category. Because you're christian, I assume.

Now, there's no actual physical harm to this, so it must be a moral argument - that children not raised Christian are lacking something that Christians have.

What is it, exactly? And can you prove that, using an argument that isn't "my preacher/the bible says so/ I was taught that?" Obviously you were taught that. But what's the reasoning behind it?

you still haven't addressed the root of my argument though: why is gay marriage a sin? What's the reasoning behind that, too? Beyond "I was raised that way/this Christian source says so."

Simple faith is great on its own, but when it starts to interfere in government (such as when people couldn't believe that evolution was real or that the earth was over 6,000 years old, and those two beliefs influenced a plethora of things) it's going over the line.
#46 to #41 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Married couples get tax breaks that unmarried people do not.

gay couples can't marry/be legally recognized as married.

Regardless of whether or not you think gay marraigs is a sin, there is still one group getting tax breaks that another group doesn't.

User avatar #57 to #46 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Oh don't even. gay people are not a separate group, they are normal people just like anyone else. They have a fetish for people of the same sex. They have the right to have sex, they have the right to live together, they have every right a straight individual does. But they want it put into law that marriage now covers same sex unions which breaks the definition of marriage.

It's not about rights, i'ts an attempt at sexual revolution and redefining of what marriage is.

If there are two men and one is not allowed to do something the other is then it's wrong, but in the case of gay marriage, it's that one of those men wants the other to tell him what he's doing is ok to do
#59 to #57 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
and straight people have a fetish for people of the opposite gender. Thing is, they have all the same rights as gays, plus more.

If you define marraige as the partnering of a man and a woman, then fine. But only if it's a simple definition.

If it goes into preventing others from doing what they want - especially when it does no harm at all - then it's wrong.

your last two lines are completely opposite of reality, too. gays aren't forcing other people to not get married. they're not telling other people to actively do anything. In fact, it's the anti-gay group that is telling gays to do something - not get married.

why is being gay a sin?
User avatar #64 to #59 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Straight people do not have any more rights than gay people.
And it's not preventing them from doing what they want one bit. gay people do not want to be allowed to do something, they want to be supported in what they do, they want it to be law that what they are doing is ok to do. They want it added to the norm of life even though it's wrong.
And i think you misunderstand my last sentence or at least i poorly worded it. gay people are the ones who want the rest of society to accept them and say what they are doing is right. We're not preventing them from taking any action, we're simply refusing to add it into law that we must cater to them and allow marriage in the same way as traditional marriage. It's not saying you can't get a dress and a tux and go to a church and have a ceremony, it's just that the government will not recognize it as a legal marriage. That's what gay people want, to be recognized. But what they are doing is wrong, you can't have gay sex, that's is why it is not a fight for equality they want, not equal rights. They want to rewrite sexual laws to make what they are doing called right, they already have the total right to do it already.
#210 to #36 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
So you mean that gay people (and their supporters) shouldn't have to pay taxes?

...This could probably be a pretty legit way to protest.
User avatar #230 to #210 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
That's not even close to what I said. You pay taxes to be a citizen and live here. Just because you're not allowed to do anything and everything you want and have it supported doesn't mean you don't have to pay taxes. You are however, welcome to leave.
#402 to #230 - randomzdude (03/27/2013) [-]
Wanted to reply to your other post, back to the topic at hand. If these people believe that loving another man, or woman, is the right course of action, then they would still be accepted into heaven. They would still be forgiven even though they are sinning because they believe what they are doing is right, correct? So if that's the case, why would the church step in and say that gays are wrong even though what they believe they are doing is right, when saying its okay for people to defend their country and kill people because they think it's right? This country is supposed to give equal rights to everybody. That means anyone can do what they want (within the law) and it shouldn't be up to the church to have the power to take that away from somebody.
User avatar #403 to #402 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
And i agree, if they think it is right, then they will go to heaven. But the problem with that is that a true believer will study the bible, and if you study the bible, there is no getting around that gay sex is fornication because marriage is defined. If you just kind of ignore that part of the bible then i would question if you were a true christian. If you look at it, the bible is only up for interpretation where issues other than moral law is concerned but you have to look at it as a whole, not just one sentence of verse.
A murderer can only get into heaven if he admits murdering is a sin and asks for forgiveness and in doing so, promises to never do it again to the best of his abilities. A soldier is the same, he has to study and will find that the only kind of murder that was ever ok was if God himself ordered it(if God tells you to do something, you will be sure it's him and he will protect you from any repercussions he doesn't want you to receive from it). Again, the same is true for a homosexual, they have to repent of it and promise to never do it again so help them God because if you look at the bible then there is no way to justify having sex with anyone besides a spouse and sense marriage is defined as when a man and woman unite, it's not possible for two people of the same sex who want to sexy time each other, and if you love someone but can't go without fornicating with them, then i would say that's not love but lust talking.
As for the last point, i totally agree, the church(because there is no one church) shouldn't have any authority, but the law should be based on christian values for sure. And we do all have equal rights, no on is stopping gay people from doing anything, however, there are something that we don't acknowledge too. gay people aren't being stopped from doing something, they are trying to push what they want us to do onto the rest of us.
#404 to #403 - randomzdude (03/27/2013) [-]
I disagree, the law should not be based christian values. That would make this country not free and we'd be going backwards to what we were before we made ourselves independent. This country is supposed to be FREE. The big thing being anyone can participate in any religion they want. Having the Christian church have power over what can be a law and what can't be is just like putting them in charge, and completely alienates any other religion. That thought process is flawed no matter how you look at it.
User avatar #405 to #404 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
This country is already not free, we can't murder or steal or rape or do many things like that, but you don't complain about those because you agree with them, but the instant someone else thinks something is wrong that you don't, you bark that freedom is being stripped! It's not a sound system, laws should not be based on the arbitrary feelings of the masses, they can change with the wind.
And do not try to link laws based on Christian values with other people being stopped from practicing their religion, no where in the bible does it say to ban other religions. gay people can have sex if they like, people can worship how they like, but there comes a point where the liberties of others come before your "freedoms" and the Christian law would cover that flawlessly.
#406 to #405 - randomzdude (03/27/2013) [-]
You innately know not to kill, steal, rape. Those things are instinctively wrong. You know from the day you are born that you don't want to hurt other people (ignoring the fact of mental illness). You don't innately know to love jesus from the day you are born. Actually it does, one of the basic commandments is not to worship another god! I went to church and bible study as a kid, I'm no stranger to christianity. Don't try and fib come on :/
User avatar #407 to #406 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
Are those innate? Or have you been taught them by your parents? I think you will find that children left to their own devices see nothing wrong with stealing. That your morals are based on what you learned, it is all quite learned and if left without guidance, morals could go anywhere. It's what lets people get it in their heads a certain rape needs to die or that you're only wrong if you get caught. Do you think the children in the child armies in Africa can tell what they do is wrong? All morality is taught.
And i know it says for you not to worship another god to be faithful to the true God. But it never says to strip others of their choice to have any religion they choose. The only way you should covert them is through love and respect, doing your best to show why the true way is right. I think you misunderstood me there(perhaps due to my wording) so it's no fib that the bible promotes only love, that means no laws would be made banning other worship.
#408 to #407 - randomzdude (03/28/2013) [-]
Well look at this again. You say its wrong to worship another god but they do not strip their right to do so. Why would you then strip the rights of gays, even if its wrong. Why is free choice only permittable to worshiping other gods and not everything else that's a sin?
User avatar #409 to #408 - Vandeekree (03/28/2013) [-]
Because gays are not being denied any rights. They are free to have sex just as everyone is free to worship how they please. What gay people are pushing would be the equivalent of one religion demanding the government say it is the right one.
#410 to #409 - randomzdude (03/28/2013) [-]
No they are being denied rights. They are being denied marriage rights. People who worship different religions can still be married in a church and have marriage rights. Why should the church then deny that of gays?
User avatar #411 to #410 - Vandeekree (03/28/2013) [-]
Nope, they have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex and get full benefit, just like anyone else. What they want is more, they want the definition of marriage changed so they can get the benefits they way they want and to feel like what they are doing is right. Because when two people of the same sex ask for it then it's them asking for the church to support a sin, you don't see anything wrong with that?
#412 to #411 - randomzdude (03/28/2013) [-]
If they had full rights and full benefits then there wouldn't be an issue because it would be the same. gays can't get married everywhere and they do NOT get full rights. That's common knowledge. They want to be equal, not to force the church to do something that they don't want, it just so happens that the church doesn't want to acknowledge them as equal. gays aren't attacking anyone they just want to be treated fairly just like everybody else.
User avatar #413 to #412 - Vandeekree (03/28/2013) [-]
Nope, they already are treated exactly like everyone else. There is literally nothing i can do that a gay person can't. They want the rules changed, they want everyone else to admit that gay sex is alright when it simple isn't. They are the ones pushing for change and for more. They are being deprived of nothing. The gay rights movement isn't about rights at all, it's a sexual revolution, you can quote the leasder of the gay movemnt on that.(i don't rememereb his name honestly)
#414 to #413 - randomzdude (03/28/2013) [-]
You are just straight up wrong. That is so blatantly false that it's kind of astonishing. If they were able to do everything it wouldn't be considered wrong in the first place. You don't have the right to do something wrong without getting punished for it. That's not how things work. You've just abandoned your reason and are now saying things to defend your religion without thinking for yourself. Thus I'm done having this discussion.
User avatar #415 to #414 - Vandeekree (03/28/2013) [-]
Yes, but they are equal because no one can do it. Murder is illegal too, no one can do it, just because someone wants too doesn't mean they are being treated unequal. And i think you are the one who misunderstands. You have been swayed by those who call it gay "rights". Swayed by the fact that they pout and act victimized but it all boils down to that they want something that is wrong and protest because they don't get acknowledged. Not to insult, but you are the one who is poorly informed on this issue.
User avatar #32 to #29 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
also, if you're pulling a "marraige =/= civil rights" thing on me, I just call it the same name for convenience
User avatar #37 to #32 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
As far as equal, they already are equal in every way. They can do the exact same thing everyone can. What they want is a change, they want the law extended to accept something new.
It's not about them asking for the right to do something, it's about wanting their actions to be recognized and accepted, something I will oppose because I believe it's wrong.
#117 to #29 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Don't know what the **** is with the down votes, what you said was true and nothing about it was particularly hateful, gays are afforded the same rights under the U.S constitution and subject to the same laws in exsactly the same way as everyone else. The entire argument for gay marriage comes down to taxes and money.

Being gay myself I never understood what the deal was. why is government in the marriage business anyways? that falls under the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Government should not be deciding who to marry and should only give tax incentives to those with legal dependents (children), let the churches have there "sanctity of marriage (dispute the bible recognizing no less then 8 types of marriage)

However the ability for gays to adopt and thus be able to claim dependents is another issue entirely
User avatar #124 to #117 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
I take the down votes to mean "i disagree with you but don't want to enter this argument" haha

True, but all but traditional marriage is old testament and part of the "concessions of Moses" where he bent the law in places because the Israelites were simply not willing to follow the true law.

And as far as taxes, yes, that's what gives the government a hand into marriage. The problem is most gays(that i have talked too) take issue with making a separate kind of marriage with the benefits, they have to have it be marriage in the traditional way. There actually is already a way in America to do that, it's called a civil union and from what I've heard it gives the taxes without the marriage. But part of the point of giving tax cuts to all married couples is to encourage that behavior to help make more babies.

My main opposition to it is I don't like when the law supports anything I consider morally wrong. It should be allowed if it doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it, but if it's wrong I do not want it supported and condoned.
#162 to #124 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
Tax cuts are for making babies?
User avatar #176 to #162 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Yup, tax cuts were instituted for married couples to help support the burden of having a child. It takes quite a heavy financial tole even on two people.
#240 to #176 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
i dare you to take up the path to becoming homosexual, if you say it's a choice.
just to show all nonbelievers that it truely is. afterwards you just can repent.
User avatar #243 to #240 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
there's nothing to repent for if all you do is make yourself attracted to the same sex, and I've already done that, it's not terribly hard. It's not terribly hard and I'm not afraid of homosexuality or even grossed out by it. It's just a fetish that you can turn yourself on to just like anything else.
#245 to #243 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
so you had sex with a man, or make out?
User avatar #248 to #245 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
No, I just thought about it until I was genuinely attracted to the thought of a guy. Going so far as actual sex would be a sin.
#253 to #248 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
that doesn't convince me, if you had sex and genuinely enjoyed it ok.
but sure you couldn't cause it's a sin and all. but afterwards you could repent?
and even you did it for the greater good, cause you did it to convince all nonbelievers and sure jesus love spreading belief in his words?
User avatar #254 to #253 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Well I didn't do it to convince you. And it doesn't work that way. Yes I could repent, but what is right is to not do it at all. You have a very odd logic.
#256 to #254 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
it just a possible loophole in your believes.
no, after repenting your sins are forgiven so you are in equal state as before, just with a history of casual enjoyable gay sex. and since it does not offend or disgust you i don't see a reason why you sould not try it. you love spreading the word and invinting people to learn about the bible when you could do soooooooooo much good and build such a huge faith in jesus by just genuinely enjoying ******* another man. it is for the greater glory of jesus teachings. and no harm done for you. and 100000% more convincing than any other argument.
User avatar #258 to #256 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Just wow.
Firstly, it is not a loophole, it's wrong. Being a true Christian means doing your best to avoid sin and love all. Does having gay sex sound like doing my best to avoid sin to you?
No bad, no matter how little, is worth doing, even if it could bring tremendous good, which, in this case, it won't. Do you honestly think it's a good idea to preach against gay sex while having it? What am I chatting with Satan right now?
#260 to #258 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
but if you repent all your SINS are forgiven. so where's the difference? why waste all your precious effort and time on arguing when you can prove your faith devotion by deed?

did jesus not go to the beggars, whores and other outcasts? there is a special term for something like living in jesus image, i think franz of assisi did and christians are encouraged to follow that example i guess.
would you not live the life of jesus kind of if you show your devotion and proof to us faithless the fact that homosexuality is a choice when you lay by another man?

and as i said, afterwards you just repent and all is good. there is no difference.
User avatar #263 to #260 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
You really have no concept of how Christianity works do you? You cannot just go consciously sin like that, not if you truly believe. And yes, Jesus preached to those who needed it most, he healed them and taught them but he in no way partook of their sins. I honestly can't tell if you are serious or just here to provoke reaction at this point.
#266 to #263 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
why can't you consciously sin like that? if you repent all is forgiven.
and so every soldier ever who killed another man must have been a nonbeliever and not a true christian since killing is wrong. am i rite?
User avatar #268 to #266 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
Not at all, you see, it's not a sin unless you know you are doing wrong. The word sin comes from the original Hebrew word hatat which means to miss the mark. Sin is something you do that you know to be wrong, but if you think you are defending your country and believe it is justified, then you are blameless. But to sin and know you sin is the worst kind of sin. Yes you could be forgiven, but when a Christina does not sin it is out of love for God, and I'm afraid I love him too much to knowingly sin so blatantly.
User avatar #398 to #268 - defiantly (03/27/2013) [-]
You probably meant to use "definitely".
User avatar #399 to #398 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
#369 to #268 - randomzdude (03/24/2013) [-]
I read this entire **** storm and I wanted to stay out of it, but this bothered me.
"Sin is something you do that you know to be wrong, but if you think you are defending your country and believe it is justified, then you are blameless." Aren't the rules of what is and isn't a sin concrete? Why would something be considered a sin or not based on if you believed it was wrong or right? That's making your opinion a justification of if something is a sin or not. If I believed that sleeping with my neighbours wife was the right course of action for whatever reason, would that make it not a sin?
User avatar #396 to #369 - Vandeekree (03/27/2013) [-]
Very good point, let me try to clarify what i mean. Sin is sin in the old testament. In order to get into heaven, you had to do what was right, you were judged by your actions. But then Jesus came along and fulfilled the law, meaning now you are saved by faith, not by actions. The only thing required to get into heaven is to believe in Jesus as your savior, but if you truly believe in Jesus as your savior you will try to do what is right will fall short, everyone does. No one is perfect and all sin at some point even after accepting Jesus. So when you commit a sin without knowing it's a sin or while truly believing it is best, you are still being faithful even though you may be sinning. So you have to look at it, do you think killing is permitted in the bible in the context of defending your country? If yes, then you can get away with it if you really are trying to do what's best. Personally, I think there is no justifiable context for killing a human, and so if i were to break that, it would be a sin. Although, if you're unsure but don't have time to study in depth before going to war(i know, kind of a cop out) there is no penalty for asking for forgiveness even if you're not entirely sure it's a sin, although you defiantly are responsible for studying to find out.

To summarize, it doesn't actually matter if you do good or not, only if you honestly TRY to do what's right.
#269 to #268 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
but jesus said stuff like love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek.
so it's impossible to be a TRUE christian who values jesus teachings AND kill another person EVEN if you think it's in defence for your country.
#272 to #269 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
i cannot reply directly to your last text so i guess i reply here

yeah but would you agree that a person like a soldier who kills cannot have TRUELY accepted jesus teachings, so therefore as it is the job of a nation's army is to kill no one who is still a soldier can be a true christian since he is ready to kill and would not turn the other cheek and love his neighbours/enemies.
#271 to #269 - anon (03/24/2013) [-]
i guess westboro has a point there.
User avatar #270 to #269 - Vandeekree (03/24/2013) [-]
And I would agree with that personally, so it would be wrong for me to kill another. And a true Christian studies the bible but we are only human and can't get to it all at once, so some leeway is given, besides, if you sin in ignorance, God forgives everything as you said.
User avatar #186 to #27 - TeChNoItUP (03/24/2013) [-]
It depends on your definition of equality. In all terms you would be adding rights to the constituition. Right now the laws make everyone equal with the very fact I can't marry a man the same that another person can't marry a man if they are one to. So its not about equality since the rights are equal already. What it is about is the fact that they are trying to put marriage with a government basis to include gay marriage. I call ******** on this. Even if the government hands you a marriage license, marriage is still based on religion and will always be founded in religion so two choices. One, call it something that is different from religious marriage;two, give up and never bring your very bad arguments to the table.

Now about those benefits- look at reasonable answer one. Call it gay people special license. With the only difference being that only the government will recognize it and not the church. ITS THAT SIMPLE.
User avatar #191 to #186 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
What you said right there is what I agree with.

It's not technically religion if the definition is between a man and a women. Calling blue red is not correct.

That's not the issue here, though. The issue is the same legal rights. "Straight men can't marry men" is obviously not the point. the point is that not everyone can marry who they want - only straight people can marry who they want.

Besides, giving straight people the right to marry gay people won't affect their habits anyway. So let's add the right for both groups.
User avatar #199 to #191 - TeChNoItUP (03/24/2013) [-]
We do not have the same view. My view is that gay people get "partnered". The church will not recognize the fact that they are together at all and only the government will. The only problem is that with the fact that our society is based on votes and not dictatorships, this will never happen. However, i think those gay people would rather live here than anywhere else. So in short DEAL WITH IT, you already get alot of rights and **** just by living here. I do not see gays being hanged, and burned on crosses anywhere; and at most people will speak out against them.

here is why we cannot say yes to gay marriage

We have the right to believe in our God and do not accept anything against our moral foundation. We are aware no one is perfect but we do not accept the sin of that person. So when you ask us to say yes to gay marriage, you are asking us to accept their sin when we cannot. It goes against our very being of who we are. We live by a set of standards, we are aware people break these standards but that is why God said love the sinner and hate the sin. It means tolerate not accept.
User avatar #207 to #199 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
Not asking the church to recognize it; just the gov't (which is separate from the church).

And I clearly don't believe in people oppressing others - others who pay the same taxes.

While we're at it, "Deal with it?" Clearly I don't agree with you so you can't expect me to do that.

I guess I'll just choose to not accept the sin of people being hispanic. Now, much like with gay marraige, it should be banned. Why? Because I (in this scenario) believe it. My religion tells me to.

"Tolerate but don't accept" goes both ways, and because the anti-gay group is dying out, you will see change.

If you want a more in-depth argument just see the whole series of arguments below. I'm only replying to that guy from now on because I've been at it for a while.
User avatar #211 to #207 - TeChNoItUP (03/24/2013) [-]
This is why i can never have a intelligent argument with people. You don't believe that, you are being a sarcastic smart ass. I believe in God with my whole soul,mind, and body. Also we are not oppressing anyone. You do not know the meaning of that word. It is putting down a person for who they are. We are not putting down anyone, we are supporting our beliefs and we are not trying to oppress anyone. We do not go up to them and tell them they are horrible people(we aren't supposed to at least). We go up to them and tell them about God and how you can get saved through Jesus Christ our Lord. Oppression is when i go up to a black person and i tell them they are below me, that they are a trash ****** ect.ect.ect. THAT IS OPPRESSION.

If you knew anything about the Jim Crow system you would choose your words more carefully.
User avatar #213 to #211 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
ok asswipe. I wasn't trying to be insulting to you, so calm down.

you are putting down gay people for being gay, by telling them that they shouldn't have the same rights. Saying that being gay is a sin is saying that gays are sinners (including the ones who don't follow your religion, which is an illogical thing to say, when you come to think of it) - more so than normal people. You are treating them, that way, at least - as people who are inherently worse than others, because of your unsupportable beliefs. That is oppression.

If you knew anything about logic and intelligence, you would've bothered to choose your words more carefully - at least Van here is being polite.
User avatar #219 to #213 - TeChNoItUP (03/24/2013) [-]
Everyone is a sinner, so why are gay people so special in this case? I accept the fact that I sin. Do I expect people to accept my sin? No, only tolerate it. Your very argument is a circle. I have explained that gay people have the same rights. Rights are equal to everyone in the country. You are talking about adding rights.

You can't seem to grasp these simple concepts. This is what I have been saying most of the time.

User avatar #222 to #219 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
you're saying that they sin more. Which is worse. That's a very simple concept you can't grasp.

Also, same rights? Straight men can merry who they want. gay men can't marry who they want. It doesn't matter to gay men if they can marry women.

you're taking action based upon your beliefs. If everyone did this the world would be filled with violence and hatred, much like what happens in many places (including the Middle East). To say that yours is better is a fallacy; it can't be proven conclusively any way.
User avatar #233 to #222 - TeChNoItUP (03/24/2013) [-]
This will be the last post.

Your missing something. The constitution is not subjective in anyway. It states that you can marry a women not who you want to. This means we would be adding rights to the constitution.

My "religion" which i only use that word because most people don't get it. It is bathed in blood. We have millions of martyrs paved across time. They had a simple message to love God and follow his teachings of love. It said that Jesus died on the cross for your sins so that you may accept the gift of salvation. It is a gift of love and not of works lest any man should boast.

-just a note: catholics were responsible for alot of the Christian,lutheran,and anyone with the message of God's gift of salvation deaths.I say this because people group us together with them for some odd reason. No idea why.

My religion made the constitution, it made this country. It made the judicial system. It made a way to live without regret. You owe alot to my "religion" which is God. So before you go around saying fallacies, why don't you go grab a history book and read about how the ten commandments was used in our justice system.
User avatar #237 to #233 - HarvietheDinkle (03/24/2013) [-]
Country was founded with separation of church and state in mind. Also by people looking to escape religious persecution from various Christian sects.

religion has both been bathed in blood and caused bloodshed.

Also, just because a country was founded on a principal doesn't mean it should be maintained by it.

Religion is good and bad. I shouldn't be forced to live by it though.

User avatar #234 to #233 - TeChNoItUP (03/24/2013) [-]
Note: sin is sin to a true Christian and isn't really any special sins(except for one which is the denying of God which pretty much guarantees a ticket to hell).
#273 - beroty ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-]
All these peoples...   
On my yard...   
I should stop making milkshakes.
All these peoples...
On my yard...
I should stop making milkshakes.
#262 - heyimmalk ONLINE (03/24/2013) [-]
My dad told me that he would be ok with me being gay as long as he could introduce me as his faggot son.
My dad told me that he would be ok with me being gay as long as he could introduce me as his faggot son.
#137 - ishotthedeputy (03/24/2013) [-]
I'm just laughing at the thought of grandma's face as she's writing the hate mail. "Yeah take that you whore"
I'm just laughing at the thought of grandma's face as she's writing the hate mail. "Yeah take that you whore"
#87 - mattdoggy (03/24/2013) [-]
I guess he's off cramming bananas
way to phone it in
User avatar #119 to #87 - Chubs (03/24/2013) [-]
way to turn a :'( upside down :D
User avatar #122 to #87 - malignantlybenign (03/24/2013) [-]
would have been fine if not for the phoning it in comment but then I loled hard
#92 to #87 - cactaur (03/24/2013) [-]
oh dear....
oh dear....
#98 to #87 - bdawg (03/24/2013) [-]
I tried so hard no to laugh.
I tried so hard no to laugh.
User avatar #65 - PedoHansen (03/24/2013) [-]
I used to not support gay rights. Two things changed my view.
First, was Macklemore's song Same Love.
Second, was the relationship between Agron and Nasir in Spartacus.
Spartacus spoiler alert* If you haven't seen last night's episode, stop reading.*
Last night's episode tore me to shreds. When Agron commanded Nasir to stay because he couldn't lead him to his death and the fact that Nasir instantly decided to follow Agron when he learned he was going to leave with Crixus. Ugh killed me. I didn't even realize they were gay. They were just two people in love.
User avatar #77 - daIRONman (03/24/2013) [-]
The Liberal party in Ontario just passed a bill adding Transgender people to the Ontario Human Rights Code. I was really happy when I heard this. It's great when people have rights. I was a bit disappointed in the Conservative party though, 'cause they tried everything they could to veto the bill.
#308 - Turtleboner (03/24/2013) [-]
"I am not here anymore"
**** you OP, now i'm sad.
#339 to #308 - Utkezabanje (03/24/2013) [-]
He left to get a taco... Don't worry..
He left to get a taco... Don't worry..
#350 to #339 - mondprinzessin (03/24/2013) [-]
a worthy hunt appears
User avatar #70 - antisocialtwilight (03/24/2013) [-]
Maybe this is just me here, but a few of those don't have much to do with rights, they have more to do with abuse and persecution.
Don't get me wrong, totally in favor of equal rights.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)