This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Episkey wrote on 2012-05-09 20:53
Quote from Cynic;859473:
When did I say he was always FOR gay marriage? I now know he was against it. He has however always been for all other LGBT rights, including things such as civil unions.
Whoops! My error. I clearly saw you wrote besides gay marriage - I was going to respond something different.
I never did.
Quote from Cynic;859473:
Also, him being Christian has nothing to do with his stance on LGBT people. There are in-fact a lot of Christians who are pro-LGBT, as they should be.
There's nothing wrong with being "pro-LGBT", but a Christian would never outright say "Oh yeah - let's change the definition of marriage."
At most, they would be in support of civil unions that grant same-sex couples the same rights.
-
Elena wrote on 2012-05-09 20:54
Nytachi, rather than make fun of other people for thinking differently than you, present your proof. Present evidence that they are wrong and you are right. Right now, your posts are basically infraction-worthy. Making fun of people and calling them "oblivious sheep" does not, in fact, make a solid argument.
If this thread gets out of hand I'll have no choice but to lock.
-
Cynic wrote on 2012-05-09 20:56
-
Kollin wrote on 2012-05-09 20:57
Quote from Cynic;859491:
Oh, and regarding "flip-flopping"..
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/05/mitt-romney-same-sex-marriage-barack-obama-/1#.T6rZvGLaKSo
Romney previously supported civil unions, and suddenly he doesn't. But I suppose that's "different" than Obama's recently evolved view.
Of course it is different. It supports the views of [S]those ignorant people[/S] Christians so that means it is OK.
-
Drizzit wrote on 2012-05-09 20:57
Quote from Compass;859476:
Do you have any proof?
I doubt homo erectus(es?) believed in some sort of religion
It's theorized that cave paintings were a way of paying homage to the animal spirits. Religion has certainly existed for as long as recoded history, so it seems likely it's existed since long before that.
Quote from Kollin;859495:
Of course it is different. It supports the views of [S]those ignorant people[/S] Christians so that means it is OK.
Someone sure is buttmad against Christians.
-
Conor wrote on 2012-05-09 21:00
Quote from Drizzit;859444:
Religion has existed for as long as people have existed. Your argument is invalid.
Very few of the religions that were established when the institution of marriage was created are still being practiced.
---
To those who bring up how he was against gay marriage, it's not exactly relevant because President Obama is level-headed enough to realize that regardless of how he personally feels about two members of the same sex marrying, they deserve that right just as everyone else does.
---
I can't stand people who think that marriage is meant to be between a man and woman solely. I understand that people are uncomfortable with the idea, but that's so different than believing it shouldn't be allowed. There's legitimately no reason as to why two members of the same-sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.
-
Milk wrote on 2012-05-09 21:02
People change just saying.
-
whocares8128 wrote on 2012-05-09 21:03
From what I understood, having watched the debates about 4 years ago, Obama is/was all for giving LGBT partners all the same rights as a married couple. However, there was a big fuss over using the word "marriage" to identify the union.
But honestly, if it is a "religious institution" (as Drizzit says), is there not more than one religion in this world? There is surely at least one religion out there that supports gays becoming "married."
-
Kollin wrote on 2012-05-09 21:03
Quote from Conor;859498:
I can't stand people who think that marriage is meant to be between a man and woman solely. I understand that people are uncomfortable with the idea, but that's so different than believing it shouldn't be allowed. There's legitimately no reason as to why two members of the same-sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.
But, but, then they wouldn't have a word that helps them cling to their pathetic, worthless beliefs. How horrible it would be of us to take that away from them, even though they have taken so much away from others.
-
Drizzit wrote on 2012-05-09 21:04
Quote from whocares8128;859507:
From what I understood, having watched the debates about 4 years ago, Obama is/was all for giving LGBT partners all the same rights as a married couple. However, there was a big fuss over using the word "marriage" to identify the union.
But honestly, if it is a "religious institution" (as Drizzit says), is there not more than one religion in this world? There is surely at least one religion out there that supports gays becoming "married."
Hell, some Christians support it.
-
Nytachi wrote on 2012-05-09 21:04
Quote from Kollin;859495:
Of course it is different. It supports the views of [S]those ignorant people[/S] Christians so that means it is OK.
"Those ignorant people"? Who do you think you are? Who are you to question and judge the regulations of the Christian faith?
As a Christian myself, I beg to differ.
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another.
Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Moderator Elena, are we picking favorites?
-
Compass wrote on 2012-05-09 21:04
Quote from Drizzit;859496:
It's theorized that cave paintings were a way of paying homage to the animal spirits. Religion has certainly existed for as long as recoded history, so it seems likely it's existed since long before that.
Theories aren't facts though.
Those very same cave paintings can be some sort of journal/diary.(Not saying that this is a fact)
-
Kollin wrote on 2012-05-09 21:05
Quote from Nytachi;859513:
"Those ignorant people"? Who do you think you are? Who are you to question and judge the regulations of the Christian faith?
As a Christian myself, I beg to differ.
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Moderator Elena, are we picking favorites?
That is only valid if you believe in that ridiculous little book, which I don't. Anyone with half a brain cell would just throw that book in the trash like the garbage it is.
-
Compass wrote on 2012-05-09 21:07
Quote from Nytachi;859513:
"Those ignorant people"? Who do you think you are? Who are you to question and judge the regulations of the Christian faith?
As a Christian myself, I beg to differ.
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. Men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Moderator Elena, are we picking favorites?
Oh you're bringing religion into this?
You're obviously not picking favorites.
-
Himeko wrote on 2012-05-09 21:08
A thread about equal rights and an argument regarding being kind to ones fellow human beings/respecting others personal beliefs
yet why do I see those who preach equality shutting down others views and insulting each other?
extremism swings both ways, this thread should be a celebration just regarding the fact that this is one step closer to hopefully something better for those in the gay and lesbian communities (people who are part of this community I might add).
It's sad to see that such a wonderful news thread, that a gay member of our community was excited about, that should be a cause for celebration in regards to respecting others beliefs and tolerance, has turned to this.