Chick Fil a - thank you

[Jiro]

This is where you are notoriously horrendous at misconstruing and twisting what has been stated. You do it time and again.

You deflected the question asked (in fact, you never mention it) and take something completely out of context for the sake of being a troll.

deflected the question asked? where?

how is it exactly misconstruing and twisting when I'm asking what you're saying? You said "This argument equates to it being hateful for "marriage" (per the "new" definition vs. the sane definition) to be denied to anyone whom wishes for it. This includes marrying your dog, your sister, your dad, ad infinitum ... to oppose this is hateful."

and I'm asking you if you believe the state governments are hateful, bigot, and racist for creating laws prohibiting that.

 

[Foxrac]

Check out about marriage
Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty not religious at all.

 

[Jiro]

Since marriage began as a religious rite, please take your secularism out of religion. Stop forcing your secularism on the religious realm, stop changing definitions (that began in the religious realm) to suit your purpose. Keep them separated.

precisely what I want! I'm fine with the Churches choosing who to wed and you should be fine with letting the court to wed a gay couples.

so why do you want gay marriage ban to be the law for this country on the basis of your religious belief? I do not follow your religion and neither do hundreds of thousands of people. How is that not forcing your religious belief into me?

 

[Foxrac]

precisely what I want! I'm fine with the Churches choosing who to wed and you should be fine with letting the court to wed a gay couple.

so why do you want gay marriage ban to be the law for this country? I do not follow your religion and neither do hundreds of thousands of people.

He used to support end the government sanctioned marriage in 2 years ago but he changed a lot of his views, reflect to right wing view.

True libertarian doesn't believe in government sanctioned marriage and anyone can marry under private matter.

 

[Steinhauer]

precisely what I want! I'm fine with the Churches choosing who to wed and you should be fine with letting the court to wed a gay couples.

so why do you want gay marriage ban to be the law for this country on the basis of your religious belief? I do not follow your religion and neither do hundreds of thousands of people. How is that not forcing your religious belief into me?

There is no such thing as a same sex "marriage". The word "marriage" has a very specific definition which has remained unchanged for centuries. You are wanting to change that definition.

By changing that definition, it allows you to label people of faith as "hateful". It is nothing more than a political - social and leftist movement which is being used as an attack on religion. Nothing more, nothing less. It is vile and hateful.

 

[Foxrac]

There is no such thing as a same sex "marriage". The word "marriage" has a very specific definition which has remained unchanged for centuries. You are wanting to change that definition.

By changing that definition, it allows you to label people of faith as "hateful". It is nothing more than a political - social and leftist movement which is being used as an attack on religion. Nothing more, nothing less. It is vile and hateful.

That's your religious belief.

See definition about marriage.
Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

FYI, political discussion isn't welcomed in my thread and my thread is all about CFA donation, not debate over marriage.

The debate about marriage has been served in other thread and it is getting more old now. I still DISAGREE with you, no change at all.

 

[Jiro]

There is no such thing as a same sex "marriage". The word "marriage" has a very specific definition which has remained unchanged for centuries. You are wanting to change that definition.

By changing that definition, it allows you to label people of faith as "hateful". It is nothing more than a political - social and leftist movement which is being used as an attack on religion. Nothing more, nothing less. It is vile and hateful.

whose definition?

 

[Jiro]

lol I just saw this from my friend's news feed

 

[rolling7]

If an organization is against people expressing their religious beliefs, that is hate. If an organization is trying to force people to suppress their religious beliefs, that is censorship and oppression. It also violates the Constitution.

Not just organizations but also governments. Fortunately, the American government ain't one of them. We do have freedom of religion in America and that includes all religions. However, China, most of the Middle East countries and others have state control religion. They suppress the population, and even visitors, through threats of death and/or jail and other punishment (i.e. caning).

 

[Steinhauer]

He used to support end the government sanctioned marriage in 2 years ago but he changed a lot of his views, reflect to right wing view.

True libertarian doesn't believe in government sanctioned marriage and anyone can marry under private matter.

......getting the government out of the 'marriage business' entirely. They have no right sticking their nose into the realm of religion in the first place (just holding up a mirror for those who don't want religion in "their" schools, "their" courts, "their" neighborhood, "their" streets, ad infinitum).

For those who want a definition of "marriage" you will have to refer to people of faith. Government intervention began 'after'...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614329/

 

[Foxrac]

......getting the government out of the 'marriage business' entirely. They have no right sticking their nose into the realm of religion in the first place (just holding up a mirror for those who don't want religion in "their" schools, "their" courts, "their" neighborhood, "their" streets, ad infinitum).

For those who want a definition of "marriage" you will have to refer to people of faith. Government intervention began 'after'...

The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

Tell to your lawmakers.

I disagree with you about marriage is part of religion.

 

[Jiro]

......getting the government out of the 'marriage business' entirely. They have no right sticking their nose into the realm of religion in the first place (just holding up a mirror for those who don't want religion in "their" schools, "their" courts, "their" neighborhood, "their" streets, ad infinitum).

For those who want a definition of "marriage" you will have to refer to people of faith. Government intervention began 'after'...

The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

so.... how do I get married in here since I don't believe in your religion?

 

[Foxrac]

Interesting to read.
Civil marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steinhauer]

so.... how do I get married in here since I don't believe in your religion?

Go to your religious leader. :roll:

Śīla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buddhist Sutra - Parabhava Sutta

Not to be contented with one's own wife, and to be seen with harlots and the wives of others -- this is a cause of one's downfall.

Being past one's youth, to take a young wife and to be unable to sleep for jealousy of her -- this is a cause of one's downfall.

So, by default ... even your religion considers a marriage to be between one man and one woman (unless, of course, you are deliberating on changing the "intent" and the definition of marriage so it can only benefit you).

But, let's just pretend that "my" religion and "your" religion do not share the same definition ...

Let's suppose, you are an atheist. As an atheist, are you required to follow federal law? What is the federal definition of marriage then?


edit to add: Anytime throughout history when a socio-political movement began that contrasted with scripture, religion was used for propaganda. This meant scripture was intentionally edited to include the agenda of the socio-political movement. A good example of this would be King Henry the VIII and his dynastic goals and the establishment of the Church of England. Another example would be the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life. The intentional editing of Scripture to promote hatred of the Jews during Hitler's Third Reich.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8820.html

Which explains why the American Anglicans have become a pariah within their own denomination.

 

[Jiro]

Go to your religious leader. :roll:

but I don't have a religious leader.

Śīla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buddhist Sutra - Parabhava Sutta

I'm not a follower of Parabhava Sutta.

So, by default ... even your religion considers a marriage to be between one man and one woman (unless, of course, you are deliberating on changing the "intent" and the definition of marriage so it can only benefit you).

my religion states no such thing as what you described.

But, let's just pretend that "my" religion and "your" religion do not share the same definition ...

why pretend? it's the fact that we do not share same belief.

Let's suppose, you are an atheist.

But I'm not an atheist.

As an atheist, are you required to follow federal law?

last time I recalled... every single person living in America has to follow federal law otherwise.... there's a federal prison....

What is the federal definition of marriage then?

the legal definition of marriage is currently being challenged at Supreme Court to make it gender-neutral.

edit to add: Anytime throughout history when a socio-political movement began that contrasted with scripture, religion was used for propaganda. This meant scripture was intentionally edited to include the agenda of the socio-political movement. A good example of this would be King Henry the VIII and his dynastic goals and the establishment of the Church of England. Another example would be the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life. The intentional editing of Scripture to promote hatred of the Jews during Hitler's Third Reich.

Heschel, S.: The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.

Which explains why the American Anglicans have become a pariah within their own denomination.

so you're saying you're fine with the laws of this country as long as it reflects your religious belief despite of the fact that it's oppressing me since I don't believe in your religion?

 

[Steinhauer]

but I don't have a religious leader.


I'm not a follower of Parabhava Sutta.


my religion states no such thing as what you described.


why pretend? it's the fact that we do not share same belief.


But I'm not an atheist.


last time I recalled... every single person living in America has to follow federal law otherwise.... there's a federal prison....


the legal definition of marriage is currently being challenged at Supreme Court to make it gender-neutral.


so you're saying you're fine with the laws of this country as long as it reflects your religious belief despite of the fact that it's oppressing me since I don't believe in your religion?

I did not ask if it was being challenged, I asked what the federal definition is.

Furthermore, the laws of this country are not oppressing your right to express your religious beliefs. The individuals whom attack those who express them are the oppressors.

Taoism also believes marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yin and Yang in harmony with nature

 

[Jiro]

I did not ask if it was being challenged, I asked what the federal definition is.

You do not understand what my reply is saying? hint - it will be just like Roe v. Wade.

Furthermore, the laws of this country are not oppressing your right to express your religious beliefs.

actually it is oppressing my belief and gay people's belief. Exactly how are gay people's belief oppressing you? They are not preventing heterosexual people from getting married.

The individuals whom attack those who express them are the oppressors.

Exactly how are they oppressors if people like you can get married and they can't? You are oppressing their belief and rights to marriage.

Your religious belief does not support gay marriage. Several state laws banned gay marriage. Why should the law respects Christian belief but not other people's belief? I thought the federal law prohibits discrimination?

Taoism also believes marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yin and Yang in harmony with nature

Are you saying the laws of this country should reflect specific religious belief?

 

[rolling7]

I did not ask if it was being challenged, I asked what the federal definition is.

Furthermore, the laws of this country are not oppressing your right to express your religious beliefs. The individuals whom attack those who express them are the oppressors.

Taoism also believes marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yin and Yang in harmony with nature

The problem, as I see it, is that people need to understand that a legal piece of paper comes from a form of government. Those whom are married "in the eyes of God" don't need a piece of paper. Those that do not have a god or want to have a union that is opposed to the given order seek to be equal by having a "marriage" recognized by a government. I'm all in favor of individuals forming partnerships and civil unions within the bounds of legal rights. These partnerships and unions would be open to two or more people. Of course, they would not need the blessing of God because they are not a marriage. They are only an attempt of a government to govern or regulate a society (also to bring in revenue). Those who wish to be married in the eyes of God do not necessarily need these government papers, they can but it is not necessary for a marriage in God's eyes. For those whom wish to know the true definition of marriage it is necessary to go back to the time of Adam and Eve where marriage was ordained. Keeping religion out of government is just as hard as keeping government out of religion. Nevertheless, the two must be seriously exclusive. Religion is to follow the laws of God and government is to follow the laws of the humans. We all know which makes no mistakes and which makes a world of mistakes.

 

[Foxrac]

For my religion, gay marriage is recognized.

My own definition about marriage is about LOVE!

 

[Foxrac]

The problem, as I see it, is that people need to understand that a legal piece of paper comes from a form of government. Those whom are married "in the eyes of God" don't need a piece of paper. Those that do not have a god or want to have a union that is opposed to the given order seek to be equal by having a "marriage" recognized by a government. I'm all in favor of individuals forming partnerships and civil unions within the bounds of legal rights. These partnerships and unions would be open to two or more people. Of course, they would not need the blessing of God because they are not a marriage. They are only an attempt of a government to govern or regulate a society (also to bring in revenue). Those who wish to be married in the eyes of God do not necessarily need these government papers, they can but it is not necessary for a marriage in God's eyes. For those whom wish to know the true definition of marriage it is necessary to go back to the time of Adam and Eve where marriage was ordained. Keeping religion out of government is just as hard as keeping government out of religion. Nevertheless, the two must be seriously exclusive. Religion is to follow the laws of God and government is to follow the laws of the humans. We all know which makes no mistakes and which makes a world of mistakes.

Excuse me, not all religions have "God" and the marriage existed without believe in the God.

The government sanctioned marriage called "civil marriage" and it has been existed since 19th Century.

I opposed civil unions if you separate from marriage, no way and you need read about civil marriage. I'm not going let you to treat me like second class citizen.