Chick-fil-a

[herbivor]

I like how the same people who don't want the word "marriage" redefined are responsible for redefining the words "gay" and "fag". True story.

[frankenbeemer]

I like how the same people who don't want the word "marriage" redefined are responsible for redefining the words "gay" and "fag". True story.

GLAAD doesn't want to redefine marriage?

[Kershaw]

his point was that they werent the ones redefining words willy-nilly. in the 80s these asshats had no problem redefining the word fag into something derogatory, but now that someone else wants to redefine a word it's a huge problem.

derp.

[mrsleeve]

yes a slag term is the same as a term that has been corner stone of society for 1000's of years

[frankenbeemer]

his point was that they werent the ones redefining words willy-nilly. in the 80s these asshats had no problem redefining the word fag into something derogatory, but now that someone else wants to redefine a word it's a huge problem.

derp.

My point was this is likely wrong. "Gay" seems to have been adopted if not originated by the gay community.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gay&searchmode=none

[frankenbeemer]

It seems that waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles dates to 1914 in the sense of homosexuality.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles

Perhaps I need more clarification of the point.

herp.

[Cliche Guevara]

yes a slag term is the same as a term that has been corner stone of society for 1000's of years

I've asked you guys time and again to demonstrate how a slight alteration in the definition of marriage (which is hugely distinctive from the "redefining" bullshit you're spouting) will result in the concept of marriage becoming completely unrecognizable. You have failed to provide an explanation. Until you do so, your argument holds zero validity.

No Just a militant religion hating, I am smarter than you Jesus people, atheist. As a non religious person I hate those types, its why I dont call my self an atheist I dont want to be lumped in with the likes of those people anymore. I have become very tolerant of others beliefs since I have grown up

Two things. First, atheism connotates nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. We're all atheists to some degree, some of us have just gone one god farther. Second, these "militant atheists" (a phrase which has zero grounding in reality) are no different than evangelical Christians. The only reason you dislike them is because their arguments make you feel uncomfortable with your own beliefs.

[frankenbeemer]

I've asked you guys time and again to demonstrate how a slight alteration in the definition of marriage (which is hugely distinctive from the "redefining" bullshit you're spouting) will result in the concept of marriage becoming completely unrecognizable. You have failed to provide an explanation. Until you do so, your argument holds zero validity.


Two things. First, atheism connotates nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. We're all atheists to some degree, some of us have just gone one god farther. Second, these "militant atheists" (a phrase which has zero grounding in reality) are no different than evangelical Christians. The only reason you dislike them is because their arguments make you feel uncomfortable with your own beliefs.

Perhaps mrsleeve dislikes "militant atheists" because of their zealous employment of reductio ad absurdum as evidenced in your first paragraph.

[mrsleeve]

Oh Lookie right on que............

I've asked you guys time and again to demonstrate how a slight alteration in the definition of marriage (which is hugely distinctive from the "redefining" bullshit you're spouting) will result in the concept of marriage becoming completely unrecognizable. You have failed to provide an explanation. Until you do so, your argument holds zero validity.

Where I have I made any such argument in this thread??? Other than what you quoted which was more common sense than anything.

Here is the way I see it since you want to know so bad. Its not so much the definition that bugs me. Its the lack of respect and decency for the rest of society that bugs the shit outta me. You being a product of the "Precious Snowflake its all about ME generation" you have little concept of respect and decency for others. Nearly all of your posts in P&R Wreak of this fact.

I have not kept up real well with this tread, but I didnt see where anyone has said the homos should not get the same legal treatment. In fact I see lots of advocates for it and I am one of them, about 90% of what heteros couples get prepackaged in a marriage license can be obtained with a simple visit to an attorney, the rest..... well the law should be changed to give them that as well.

You see I have no fucking issues at all with what consenting adults do in their own time and in their own home, and really I dont give a shit really . The marriage debate is nothing more than the homo community trying to force their life style down the throats of the rest of society and try to legitimize their life style to the rest of us. You see if it was all about the "rights" gained when heteros get married then the community would gladly accept "civil union", "Gays big party day" "Joined" "life partner" "Partnered" "Paired" or some other term. But to them its not about that now is it?? I think even you can see this.

Two things. First, atheism connotates nothing more than a lack of belief in a god. We're all atheists to some degree, some of us have just gone one god farther. Second, these "militant atheists" (a phrase which has zero grounding in reality) are no different than evangelical Christians. The only reason you dislike them is because their arguments make you feel uncomfortable with your own beliefs.

1) I dont partake in religion or a belief in a deity, but I dont define myself as an atheist because then I would be grouped in with the likes of you.

2) Me thinks you have an issue with da engrish

Militant - Adj. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause.

You and your ilk, in your Atheist fervor seem to fit that definition rather well. Your right your no different than the bible thumpers that try and push their beliefs on the rest of us, I view them as one in the same. I have (as you have quoted) explained my position on this already.

Oh lookie your so smart you think you know what I believe, and because I am a conservative I must be a church goer too, when right there in black and white, that you quoted I clearly state the opposite . I am very comfortable with my own beliefs and as I have gotten older am very tolerant of what others believe, until they try and force it on me via the law. Something the militant atheists, and gays have been doing for a while now. There is something you should learn tolerance.

[Cliche Guevara]

Where I have I made any such argument in this thread??? Other than what you quoted which was more common sense than anything.

Important bit right here:

you guys

The arguments made by you and Fabrin mold into one to me. I saw you made an argument that paralleled what he has said in past posts and I assumed that you had been taking that position the whole time. Granted, I wasn't sure, so I said "you guys" rather than just "you."

Here is the way I see it since you want to know so bad. Its not so much the definition that bugs me. Its the lack of respect and decency for the rest of society that bugs the shit outta me.

This line of reasoning is so insanely convoluted. Gays should respect the decency of people who think their sexual orientation is a sin by accepting that they be discriminated against. I'm sorry, that's idiotic.

I have not kept up real well with this tread, but I didnt see where anyone has said the homos should not get the same legal treatment. In fact I see lots of advocates for it and I am one of them, about 90% of what heteros couples get prepackaged in a marriage license can be obtained with a simple visit to an attorney, the rest..... well the law should be changed to give them that as well.

You see I have no fucking issues at all with what consenting adults do in their own time and in their own home, and really I dont give a shit really . The marriage debate is nothing more than the homo community trying to force their life style down the throats of the rest of society and try to legitimize their life style to the rest of us. You see if it was all about the "rights" gained when heteros get married then the community would gladly accept "civil union", "Gays big party day" "Joined" "life partner" "Partnered" "Paired" or some other term. But to them its not about that now is it?? I think even you can see this.

We've been over this time and time again. Seperate but equal is not constitutional. I can't believe I have to keep bringing this up.

1) I dont partake in religion or a belief in a deity, but I dont define myself as an atheist because then I would be grouped in with the likes of you.

Then you're an atheist. Just roll with it and move on with your life. If someone assumes a load of bullshit about you simply because you don't believe in a god then fuck 'em.

2) Me thinks you have an issue with da engrish

Please point out my spelling and grammar errors specifically. I enjoy having my mistakes pointed out so I can avoid them in the future. If all you do is give me shit for it then you're just scoring points for yourself and not helping me at all.

Militant - Adj. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause.

You and your ilk, in your Atheist fervor seem to fit that definition rather well. Your right your no different than the bible thumpers that try and push their beliefs on the rest of us, I view them as one in the same. I have (as you have quoted) explained my position on this already.

Meh, you'd probably like me irl because I'm not like this at all. P&R is where I come to have heated discussions, outside of this part of r3v I'm not confrontational at all. I avoid discussing politics with friends and family and have a buttload of christian friends that I'm completely respectful towards. I enjoy this sort of discussion but I'm mature enough to know that most people most of the time don't want to engage in it. I save it for places like this, but even then people still get bitchy when I don't state my views softly.

I am very comfortable with my own beliefs and as I have gotten older am very tolerant of what others believe, until they try and force it on me via the law. Something the militant atheists, and gays have been doing for a while now. There is something you should learn tolerance.

Examples of gays and atheists forcing their views via the law pls.

[Kershaw]

[randomsv650]

It's pretty easy to take any verse from the Bible and make it say what you want, or to take another one and make it say the opposite of what someone else wants. Have you ever read the entire Bible? Studied the cultural and social history in relation to what was being said, and who was saying it?

Context is important, and something atheists never really pay any attention to. But no big deal, right? Do you know what Christ said in the NT about homosexuality? About bestiality? About incest? Polygamy? That stuff was all over the OT and seemed totally "cool." (Forget Sodom and Gommora)

I could go on all night quoting scripture and picking apart each of those little boxes, but its a moot point given your general attitude towards the subject.

The simple fact is this: the people that insist we [Christians] be tolerant, also need to be tolerant of OUR beliefs. We don't hate gays. I respect them and feel they should have the same rights as any other person.

However, the meaning of the word "marriage" in the context of a Biblical worldview is FAR different than the meaning of "marriage" in a secular worldview. The traditional view of marriage is through the Biblical perspective, plain and simple.

You can't begin to understand why we believe what we believe until you study the scriptures and understand how we view things from a "biblical worldview." Trying to talk about the bible with an atheist is like trying to talk democracy with a tyrant. You can hope they'll change their mind, but the discussion is often limited due to both parties having different worldviews, with neither of them entering the discussion with a willingness to have a change of thought.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I think I'm in love with you.

















In a totally heterosexual way.

[Cliche Guevara]

The simple fact is this: the people that insist we [Christians] be tolerant, also need to be tolerant of OUR beliefs. We don't hate gays. I respect them and feel they should have the same rights as any other person.

If you define being tolerant of your beliefs as allowing you to legislate discrimination against homosexuals then I simply will not be tolerant. Now, even though I find it abhorrent and misguided, I am tolerant of your opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to wed, but that doesn't mean I will stand by as they are subjected to unwarranted discrimination. There's a difference between our plea for tolerance and yours. We ask that you simply let them live their lives to the fullest in a way that has no direct impact on you whatsoever. Meanwhile, you're requesting that we be tolerant of Christians denying homosexuals a basic human right simply because an old book says it's wrong. See the difference?

However, the meaning of the word "marriage" in the context of a Biblical worldview is FAR different than the meaning of "marriage" in a secular worldview. The traditional view of marriage is through the Biblical perspective, plain and simple.

The legal definition of "marriage" is not biblical. It is a government contract and is inherently secular. Your personal definition of marriage certainly is biblical, and as such would be unaffected by a piece of legislation that allows gays the same joy that you have with your wife (future or present). That said, do we really want the government defining something that is a very personal, often times religious, institution? I sure as shit don't. The best solution to this whole gay marriage issue is for the government to stop issuing marriage licences and instead have everyone enter into a civil union.

[joshh]

And right on cue the lefty makes it a you're either with us or against us argument...why am I not surprised...