Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

marriage existed well before Christ or the Bible, God has nothing to do with it

The laws which were created to protect primarily women in marriage were formed when Europe and North America already had a well extablished christian tradition regarding marriage. The laws were intended to support extablished marriage tradition; not change them.

Having said that do you know of an earlier example of divorce law then the one found in Deut 24?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Maybe they have finally rejected those homosexual hate groups that call them out to protest businesses just because they don't share their views.

A business owner standing against the rights of other people = "just someone exercising his freedom of speech"

Protestors also exercising their freedom of speech = "hate groups"

Some days I just want to cry. I know the world is getting better, but the crawl is so slow that it's depressing.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage doesn't exist independent of Christianity for most christians. The bible was written over 1600 years with about 40 different writers.

So what should a non Christian marriage be called? Two Muslim people can only have a civil union? Sorry, but marriage exists outside Christianity for everyone. Perhaps instead of everyone else changing their name for there committed relationships, Christians should have Christian unions? That would make everyone happy, no?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Heterophobic maybe?

Bull$hit made-up words to justify Christian delusions of persecution maybe?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage doesn't exist independent of Christianity for most christians. The bible was written over 1600 years with about 40 different writers.

I'll take "Things that don't matter" for $500, Alex.

Seriously though, that's great that Christians have their definition of marriage. They can have it. However, civilized society need not be forced to accept an outdated definition of marriage based on religious beliefs, and the government definition should not be based on it either.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

A business owner standing against the rights of other people = "just someone exercising his freedom of speech"

Protestors also exercising their freedom of speech = "hate groups"

Some days I just want to cry. I know the world is getting better, but the crawl is so slow that it's depressing.

He wasn't standing against anyone rights. Marriage is between a man and a woman in his State. He was supporting what is the law of his State. Where do you think rights come from? God? The State? Either way homosexuals don't have the right to marry in most of America.

If homosexuals have a "right" to marry then they could go to court and demand it. The fact is they don't have that right so instead they stage a pathetic attempt at a kiss-in at some chicken joints.

What the few that showed up for the kiss-in were doing was protesting free speech. The owner of Chick-Fil-A wasn't stopping any homosexual from marrying. The law does that. He was expressing an opinion that is held by millions of Americans. He was the very opposite of a homophobe.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So what should a non Christian marriage be called? Two Muslim people can only have a civil union? Sorry, but marriage exists outside Christianity for everyone. Perhaps instead of everyone else changing their name for there committed relationships, Christians should have Christian unions? That would make everyone happy, no?

Do Muslims embrace same sex marriage? I think not.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...The bible was written over 1600 years with about 40 different writers.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'll take "Things that don't matter" for $500, Alex.

Or more to the fact, "things that aren't exactly true."

While there very well may be brief selections of the Hebrew Bible that date to before 1000 B.C.E.—and here I am thinking most explicitly of the the "Song of the Sea" in Exodus 15, the "Song of Deborah" in Judges 5, and perhaps even the "Song of Moses" in Deut 32—the fact is that the texts that form the Old Testament as we currently have it were probably compiled after the Babylonian Exile in 587 B.C.E. This is not something that is especially speculative, as studies of ancient Hebrew bear out fairly clearly that the language throughout 80–90% of the OT dates to this period. The "1600 years and 40 authors" line is a well worn bit of fundamentalist apologetics that is more fiction than reality.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Bull$hit made-up words to justify Christian delusions of persecution maybe?

How so? I just attributed them to homosexuals who wouldn't stand with their brothers(or sisters) against free speech. Perhaps those thousands of people from all ages who expressed their support for free speech on Wednesday scared them off.

You on the other hand are homophobic. You fear to stand against the homosexual political agenda.

O and just to let you know: All words are made up!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

He wasn't standing against anyone rights.

When the issue is "These people over here don't have the same rights as those people over there" and you come out as opposed to the end-goal of leveling that playing field, that is EXACTLY what you are doing. How you've convinced yourself otherwise is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If homosexuals have a "right" to marry then they could go to court and demand it. The fact is they don't have that right so instead they stage a pathetic attempt at a kiss-in at some chicken joints.

As opposed to the pathetic display by the evangelicals at some chicken joints? I thought you just said that the big 'kiss-in' never really happened?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

What the few that showed up for the kiss-in were doing was protesting free speech.

Please explain how they have attempted to protest free speech. No one has demanded that Dan Cathy be muzzled. He's voiced an opinion, and we can either agree with it or disagree with it. People vocally and publicly disagreeing with his idiotic opinion is not an attempt to stifle free speech, it IS free speech.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You on the other hand are homophobic. You fear to stand against the homosexual political agenda.

... or, y'know, Rouge isn't a bigot and thus has no need to oppose the 'homosexual political agenda'. (lolwut?)

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Or more to the fact, "things that aren't exactly true."

While there very well may be brief selections of the Hebrew Bible that date to before 1000 B.C.E.—and here I am thinking most explicitly of the the "Song of the Sea in Exodus 15, the "Song of Deborah" in Judges 5, and perhaps even the "Song of Moses" in Deut 32—the fact is that the texts that form the Old Testament as we currently have it were probably compiled after the Babylonian Exile in 587 B.C.E. This is not something that is especially speculative, as studies of ancient Hebrew bear out fairly clearly that the language throughout 80–90% of the OT dates to this period. The "1600 years and 40 authors" line is a well worn bit of fundamentalist apologetics that is more fiction than reality.

Thought you would chime in with a little more of your unbelief?

Without other Hebrew texts of the same dating to compare it would be irresponsible to conclude that these books lie about who and when they were written. You don't have that. You have theories that you chose to hold as facts.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thought you would chime in with a little more of your unbelief?

Without other Hebrew texts of the same dating to compare it would be irresponsible to conclude that these books lie about who and when they were written. You don't have that. You have theories that you chose to hold as facts.

... says the guy who lives his life in constant fear of an incompetent imaginary father figure who lives in the sky, based on no evidence faith.

[puckluck2]

Serious question for Calgaryborn. Do you believe the government's laws should be made so they respect the beliefs of Christianity?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thought you would chime in with a little more of your unbelief?

My "unbelief"??? What makes you presume a lack of belief on my part, and in what specifically? Don't fret. I plan to still get to the rest of your post—but it will take a little time, and I only have a minute here and there.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Without other Hebrew texts of the same dating to compare it would be irresponsible to conclude that these books lie about who and when they were written.

Who said anything about "lying"? Surely with all your own biblical knowledge even you recognize that the majority of the Old Testament books are anonymous.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You don't have that. You have theories that you chose to hold as facts.

Partly true. There aren't many, but there are some Hebrew inscriptions that date to the classical period that are fairly reliable for dating, but the fact that there is NO epigraphic evidence of any kind in the region from before 1000 B.C.E. does nothing to help your cause at all.

*EDIT* It should furthermore be noted that the body of evidence for scribal practices and literacy in the Syro-Phoenician region is progressively growing as new archeological discoveries are unearthed and published. We usually hear preliminary reports about these things at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, and while the record is incomplete, it generally fairly positively supports the late dating for most of the biblical texts.

[AR_Six]

I just do not understand what the point of arguing with people like Calgaryborn is. It's unlikely to accomplish anything worth accomplishing and demographics would indicate that time will effectively eliminate his viewpoint. He and people like him are well on their way to total irrelevance, the best course of action is to continue to engage in campaigns promoting acceptance and equality and ignore him until he eventually dies and is replaced by no one.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Serious question for Calgaryborn. Do you believe the government's laws should be made so they respect the beliefs of Christianity?

That is an interesting question. I believe that laws should reflect the will of the people and to that extent christians should have equal opportunity to influence the ongoing debate.

I don't believe that the scriptures demand or expect christians to set up theocracies. Freedom of religion is a christian principle which includes freedom of choice. Certainly God will judge man for his choices but, neverless he allows him to make them.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I just do not understand what the point of arguing with people like Calgaryborn is. It's unlikely to accomplish anything worth accomplishing and demographics would indicate that time will effectively eliminate his viewpoint. He and people like him are well on their way to total irrelevance, the best course of action is to continue to engage in campaigns promoting acceptance and equality and ignore him until he eventually dies and is replaced by no one.

He and his ilk are on the wrong side of history, and history will not be kind to them.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is an interesting question. I believe that laws should reflect the will of the people and to that extent christians should have equal opportunity to influence the ongoing debate.

I don't believe that the scriptures demand or expect christians to set up theocracies. Freedom of religion is a christian principle which includes freedom of choice. Certainly God will judge man for his choices but, neverless he allows him to make them.

Even if the will of the people wants Islamic laws? Personally, I think religion should have no factor in laws whatsoever. I'd rather laws that respect every single person than a law made just because of religious beliefs.

So putting Christianity aside, why shouldn't 2 gays be allowed to marry?

[Flash Walken]

Nothing stirs my convictions for christ like imagining one guy licking another guys rusty balloon knot.

I mean, I can't get up for going to church most Sundays, but put the imagery of a loose caboose in my head and hot damn, do I feel like a chicken burger.

Let's all get together to eat sloppy disgusting chicken burgers while we communally picture two bearded dudes suckin' back schlongs.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iginla

So putting Christianity aside, why shouldn't 2 gays be allowed to marry?

Because all the years of me living a lie will have been for nothing.

I worked hard to be able to maintain my erection twice a month so my wife doesn't think I'm gay, they should have to, too.