Persecuted Christians In America!

[betsy]

As someone who believes marriage is, and should be, between a man and a woman, I am still trying to figure out what exactly SSM is allegedly taking from me or from any married heterosexual couple. Perhaps you can tell me, because neither Betsy or anybody else making that claim can back it up.

I've explained it. Some gays understood the underlying meaning why it's so important for heterosexuals - they even took out a whole page ad explaining and advocating that the definition of marriage should be left alone as it is: the union between a man and a woman.

For a christian, why is it hard for you to get the meaning of this institution that's been a gift given by God to men and women? The Bible placed so much importance on marriage.

Why would you - as a christian - gladly hand it over to share with a union that's clearly been said by God to be an abomination to His sight?

And even fight other Christians who try to preserve this gift from God?

You got me stumped again! Scratching my head over the "complexity" of Canadien.

Of course as a relativist....you'd come up with shifting answer to that, I'm sure.

If you refuse to see it...or be obtuse about it....or you just argue with me for the sake of arguing....or for whatever reason that you don't understand it....then you go thinking it the way you want to. It's no big deal to me whether you agree with me or not.

I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

Edited August 13, 2012 by betsy

[Shakeyhands]

If they think otherwise, that's one thing.....but forcing others to agree with their way of thinking is another.

Do you really not see the irony in what you are saying here?

[betsy]

Do you really not see the irony in what you are saying here?

No, I don't. Help me step-by-step to see. Explain where the irony is.

[betsy]

For a christian, why is it hard for you to get the meaning of this institution that's been a gift given by God to men and women? The Bible placed so much importance on marriage.

Why would you - as a christian - gladly hand it over to share with a union that's clearly been said by God to be an abomination to His sight?

Whom are you trying to please, Canadien?

Edited August 13, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

I've explained it. Some gays understood the underlying meaning why it's so important for heterosexuals - they even took out a whole page ad explaining and advocating that the definition of marriage should be left alone as it is: the union between a man and a woman.

We are not talking here about the FACT that marriage was instituted by God, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, so that they would sanctify each other and provide the best environemnt to bring life.

We are talking about you CLAIM that something is being taken away from married hetorosexual couples, or any Christian, because there'a a gay couple down the street with a sheet of paper saying they are marriage. No married couple I know is less married because of that. I for one, do not feel myself forced ibto not being a Christian because of that. I haven't changed my opinion about what marriage is because of that. Nothing has been taken away from me.

For a christian, why is it hard for you to get the meaning of this institution that's been a gift given by God to men and women? The Bible placed so much importance on marriage.

Why would you - as a christian - gladly hand it over to share with a union that's clearly been said by God to be an abomination to His sight?

And why do you keep LYING about me? I have said clearly I believe marriage is between man and woman. Three times now. I have said (I've stopped counting the times now) that nothing is being taken away from me, or any married couple I know, because civil law includes a definition of marriage that I do not accept. Nothing complex about that. Nothing relativist about that. Your false claim that I am handing over anything to anyone has no basis in anything I have written here.

I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

That is exactly what you are trying to do,no matter how you want to convince yourself otherwise.

[CANADIEN]

Whom are you trying to please, Canadien?

Nobody. This is not about pleasing anybody. Feel free to make up things about me about this as well. Don't worry, you won't get me angry but merely provide more hilarity.

[Shakeyhands]

No, I don't. Help me step-by-step to see. Explain where the irony is.

Honestly and sadly, I don't think there is any helping you. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

If you can't see it there is absolutely no sense in explaining it to you. I feel very sorry for you.

[Guest American Woman]

As someone who believes marriage is, and should be, between a man and a woman, I am still trying to figure out what exactly SSM is allegedly taking from me or from any married heterosexual couple. Perhaps you can tell me, because neither Betsy or anybody else making that claim can back it up.

Why do you think that I would be able to tell you that when my stand is that it doesn't take anything away?

Edited August 13, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not going to split hair over your understanding of what bullying means. If you think it's not bullying....then you don't think it's bullying. I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

You're the one who is accusing someone who just wants the same toy the other kid has of bullying - as you back up the kid denying him the right to get his own toy. If you can't figure out which one has the bully attitude, you best not throw accusations at others.

At any rate, I've already approached this from the Christian point of view, and if you've responded, I missed it. So again:

Let's say same sex marriage is a sin in God's eyes. Let's say he does disapprove. He will be the one dealing with it come the Judgement Day, right? So I'll ask again - what gives you the right to step into God's shoes and judge and dictate what others can or cannot do when it has no effect on you? That's best left to God.

As has been pointed out repeatedly now - gays having the right to marry takes nothing away from you. You still have the same rights you've always had. Your marriage remains the same. Your life remains the same.

If God approves of your marriage and disapproves of theirs, then you have His blessings and they don't. Shouldn't that, as a Christian, be enough?

Edited August 13, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

I've explained it. Some gays understood the underlying meaning why it's so important for heterosexuals - they even took out a whole page ad explaining and advocating that the definition of marriage should be left alone as it is: the union between a man and a woman.

For a christian, why is it hard for you to get the meaning of this institution that's been a gift given by God to men and women? The Bible placed so much importance on marriage.

Why would you - as a christian - gladly hand it over to share with a union that's clearly been said by God to be an abomination to His sight?

And even fight other Christians who try to preserve this gift from God?

You got me stumped again! Scratching my head over the "complexity" of Canadien.

Of course as a relativist....you'd come up with shifting answer to that, I'm sure.

If you refuse to see it...or be obtuse about it....or you just argue with me for the sake of arguing....or for whatever reason that you don't understand it....then you go thinking it the way you want to. It's no big deal to me whether you agree with me or not.

I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

So you're against other religions and atheists marrying too then, I presume?

Edited August 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Let's say same sex marriage is a sin in God's eyes. Let's say he does disapprove. He will be the one dealing with it come the Judgement Day, right? So I'll ask again - what gives you the right to step into God's shoes and judge and dictate what others can or cannot do when it has no effect on you? That's best left to God.

For an Evangelical Christian, it's as much a sin not to deliver God's word to the masses, especially those who seem to be separated from God (ie, gays).

[cybercoma]

No, I don't. Help me step-by-step to see. Explain where the irony is.

I can help you out. Just CLICK HERE.

[The_Squid]

I'm not going to split hair over your understanding of what bullying means. If you think it's not bullying....then you don't think it's bullying. I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

I know Kimmy is confused about bullying. She is the classic example of a relativist. Her "truth" is whatever she wants it to be.

The word "bullying" is not vague or poorly understood. It is English and has a definition. Your opinion about what it means is simply wrong-headed.

[CANADIEN]

Why do you think that I would be able to tell you that when my stand is that it doesn't take anything away?

And what make you think that I was doing anything other than using your comment as a way to make fun of betsy?

[betsy]

Honestly and sadly, I don't think there is any helping you. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

If you can't see it there is absolutely no sense in explaining it to you. I feel very sorry for you.

That's what they always say, those who cannot back up their claims.

Bye-bye.

[Shakeyhands]

That's what they always say, those who cannot back up their claims.

Bye-bye.

Betsy, you've had your opinions here thoroughly trounced, you've even gone as far as trying to redefine bullying to assert that what you are espousing isn't in fact bullying.

You just don't get it, and there's little sense in trying to convince you otherwise.

Thanks for your dismissive "Bye-bye" though. That was nice.

[bleeding heart]

Btw...

Fighting to re-define the word of marriage - which one knows has deep religious significance to certain groups - is bullying. It could've resulted in a harmonious ending if gays coined their own term for union.

So why is it so important for gays to re-define the term marriage?

They're not. They're demanding to be included in the existing realm.

Like in a sandbox. A bully grabs the toy another child has, even though he can have other toys available.

This analogy would only work if heterosexuals no longer had use of the word.

But they do. they're perfectly free, as always, to get married.

And again: why do think anyone "owns" a word?

[betsy]

The word "bullying" is not vague or poorly understood. It is English and has a definition. Your opinion about what it means is simply wrong-headed.

Well, the definition of bullying - from a source - was given and posted. You don't agree with it....then don't agree with it.

[betsy]

Betsy, you've had your opinions here thoroughly trounced, you've even gone as far as trying to redefine bullying to assert that what you are espousing isn't in fact bullying.

You just don't get it, and there's little sense in trying to convince you otherwise.

Thanks for your dismissive "Bye-bye" though. That was nice.

Well, what's the point of replying to you? Obviously you don't want to discuss.

You made a claim about an irony....and I really don't see it and asked you to explain where's the irony....and you give a lame response of not wanting to waste your time on me...so what else is to discuss?

[betsy]

They're not. They're demanding to be included in the existing realm.

See? You've used the right word - DEMANDING to be included. Seriously, even if someone asks politely to be included into something, does that necessarily mean they'd get what they want if they don't meet the criteria to become a member? Like for example the Men's Club - will a woman be allowed in if she asks or demand? And vice versa?

If a gay demands to be allowed to participate in Miss Canada beauty pageant since he feels like a woman - should he be allowed?

What's happening is that some people demand some places or institutions change their tenets/specific criteria for membership just to suit the demands of the "demandee."

Can a homeless guy demand to be allowed inside an exclusive country club? Should he be allowed in?

This analogy would only work if heterosexuals no longer had use of the word.

But they do. they're perfectly free, as always, to get married.

And again: why do think anyone "owns" a word?

Gays have always had the same right as heterosexuals to get married, following the traditional and Biblical definition of marriage.

As for owning the word....it's not a matter of owning the words (setting aside my Christian belief), but a matter of common courtesy. Some gay groups showed that sensitivity and understanding, by defending the traditional definition of marriage. You know, that gesture by those particular gay groups who did so (God bless them)....was really something, at least for me. All this years, I can't stop talking about them.

Really, what's with a word? If that word means so much in significance to a certain group of people (heterosexuals)....would it not been much more better if the traditional marriage definition be left as it was? What do they hoped to accomplish? True, they may've won....but again, not really.

Edited August 14, 2012 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Gays have always had the same right as heterosexuals to get married, following the traditional and Biblical definition of marriage.

sure sure.

[Guest American Woman]

See? You've used the right word - DEMANDING to be included. Seriously, even if someone asks politely to be included into something, does that necessarily mean they'd get what they want if they don't meet the criteria to become a member? Like for example the Men's Club - will a woman be allowed in if she asks or demand? And vice versa?

If a gay demands to be allowed to participate in Miss Canada beauty pageant since he feels like a woman - should he be allowed?

What's happening is that some people demand some places or institutions change their tenets/specific criteria for membership just to suit the demands of the "demandee."

Can a homeless guy demand to be allowed inside an exclusive country club? Should he be allowed in?

Just out of curiosity, is that how you perceive women's rights and civil rights? Do you believe those 'comparisons' you just posted to be pertinent to those demands for equal rights?

As for not meeting the criteria - they are two people in love who wish to become a family bonded in marriage, same as you and your husband.

[bleeding heart]

See? You've used the right word - DEMANDING to be included.

No one asks for equal rights.

Because the religious bigots would scream "no!"

People demand equal rights.

In every case. Period.

True, they may've won

Yep.

....but again, not really.

Yes, really.

[msj]

As for owning the word....it's not a matter of owning the words (setting aside my Christian belief), but a matter of common courtesy. Some gay groups showed that sensitivity and understanding, by defending the traditional definition of marriage. You know, that gesture by those particular gay groups who did so (God bless them)....was really something, at least for me. All this years, I can't stop talking about them.

Really, what's with a word? If that word means so much in significance to a certain group of people (heterosexuals)....would it not been much more better if the traditional marriage definition be left as it was? What do they hoped to accomplish? True, they may've won....but again, not really.

Well, what's with the word "marriage?"

As an atheist couple my wife and I got married and get to use the married term.

We don't have children either.

I suppose we should not be allowed to use the word "marriage" unless we act like the type of Christian that you think we should be (which is strange, because if we were to be traditionally married under the bible then I'm pretty sure I should get a few more wives).

Of course, whenever someone gets married in a church they go through (at least) two parts - the religious part and then they go sit down and deal with the civil (or legal) part.

Hence the need for the witnesses (er, I mean best man and bridesmaid).

So, in Canada, when a gay couple get married they are partaking in the civil portion and, like my wife and I - who gives a fig about the god part.

If a Church (lets say a United Church) allows gays to marry within it then the gay couple will be married within that church and under civil law. You know, when they actually sign the documents making it all legal before the state.

Now, lets say that a Church does decide that it will marry gay couples within it - would you "bully" it to not allow such a practice?

Or would you allow the members of that church to decide for themselves?

[betsy]

We are not talking here about the FACT that marriage was instituted by God, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, so that they would sanctify each other and provide the best environemnt to bring life.

We are talking about you CLAIM that something is being taken away from married hetorosexual couples, or any Christian, because there'a a gay couple down the street with a sheet of paper saying they are marriage. No married couple I know is less married because of that. I for one, do not feel myself forced ibto not being a Christian because of that. I haven't changed my opinion about what marriage is because of that. Nothing has been taken away from me.

But the fact that marriage was "instituted by God, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, so that they would sanctify each other and provide the best environemnt to bring life," is at the very heart of the issue. You can't exclude that!

I would've liked to see the traditional definition of marriage as given by God - to have been preserved.

Furthermore, to have that God-given institution be shared with the kind of union which according to God - in numerous areas of the Bible (Old and New) - to be quite offensive (to put it mildly) since God has really strong words against it!

I would understand the arguments to support same sex marriage coming from non-believers....but coming from another christian who insist to argue in support of it is really jaw-dropping, especially after I've already explained it thus:

For a christian, why is it hard for you to get the meaning of this institution that's been a gift given by God to men and women? The Bible placed so much importance on marriage.

Why would you - as a christian - gladly hand it over to share with a union that's clearly been said by God to be an abomination to His sight?

And why do you keep LYING about me? I have said clearly I believe marriage is between man and woman. Three times now. I have said (I've stopped counting the times now) that nothing is being taken away from me, or any married couple I know, because civil law includes a definition of marriage that I do not accept. Nothing complex about that. Nothing relativist about that. Your false claim that I am handing over anything to anyone has no basis in anything I have written here.

I am not lying about you. You perhaps don't think anything is being taken from you, but obviously a lot of Christians do! Whereas marriage was the union of man and woman (as God specifically wanted it to be) - obviously now, it's no longer! The traditional meaning - as God wanted it - is gone! And it is now being shared with a union that is offensive to God! You don't see that?

You may think that you're not "handing it over"....but you are arguing for it, in support of it. I'm basing it on your replies to my posts. To me you sound like a relativist....or what they call, "christian-lite."

Anyway, perhaps I'm wrong about you. I can't tell...and I don't know what's in your heart.

But I do sincerely hope that you take pause and think about all that's been discussed between us.

And also I do not wish to further argue with a fellow-Christian, therefore understand if I try not to address your arguments any more. I would also like to sincerely apologise for any hurt I may have caused you.

Edited August 14, 2012 by betsy