How to debate: A person of faiths struggle - please, PLEASE, people of faith only....

[westmanguy]

yeeks!

snfu, I have no problem with you voicing your opinions as long as they are:

on-topic
civil
respect
not condescending, hurtful, patronizing, etc.

Make a thread about the homosexuality factor of religion, do it! But don't bring those issues into your judgement and opinions if they are not on topic.

If you dislike Christianity, your only going to make good points IF you stay on the topic of the thread and are civil and courteous to fellow posters, if you are treated badly, that changes things. But if you jump into a thread, all of us should expect you to be civil and on topic.

Your being hateful and condescending.

Just take a look at the attitude of your posts, who wants to treat you with civility when you go about your debate like that!

No-one wants to treat someone with respect when they don't treat you with respect. Its human nature.

All of need to learn to be respectful and civil, and then we could actually have interesting and informative discussions that don't evolve into bickering like they always do!

 

[snfu73]

The way I see it, it's different...very different. I brought in issues at what I felt like were appropriate times...related to what people said. Threads will take twists and turns...that's just the way it is. I posted plenty in the thread that said Catholic Discussion...it's a pretty open topic...so, to say I was off topic is crap. And...what attitude don't you like, exactly? The questioning attitude? The attitude where I don't agree with everything you guys say? The attitude where I will say BS if I feel that something is BS? I mean, granted, the post that I made above is attitude filled...very attitude filled...but I felt strongly about that. How HAVE I been patronize or condescending? Can you give me a specific example? I feel that I have been trying to conduct debate...trying to have discussion...trying to do more than just say "Oh hey, I agree".

Look, I don't dislike anyone here. For the most part, I have seen a great amount of intelligence, some very well written posts, alot of great opinions (whether I agree with them or not), and have learned alot. But, again, I stress, these are public forums...and a variety of opinions will come forth, and sometimes there is harshness and sometimes you aren't going to like the things people say, plain and simple. You get hurt by someone questioning the religion...I get hurt when I know a religion is so against people that I love and care for. We are discussing very touchy subjects here. I mean, like the old rule goes, don't talk about politics or religion.What do we do in here? We talk about politics and religion. It's something you guys feel strongly about...it's something I have strong opinions about...and voila...you have a discussion. Sometimes things will be said that you do not like, or you disagree with. If things do get out of hand, there are moderators. If you don't like what someone says, engage them...tell them you don't like it, tell them it hurt you, and discuss it. Again, from what I have seen, this is a forum with very intelligent people, who seem very open and willing to discuss...there is also alot of respect and caring. I do WANT to be respectful. But, don't expect me to respect your religion. I will respect you as someone who writes well. Who argues well. But, if I feel a religion is designed to exclude and be bigoted towards a group of people, then...no way, I cannot respect that. Sorry.

Anyway, enough of my rambling.

 

[westmanguy]

Ok, lets change gears a bit here.

How is Christianity bigoted and excludes a group of people.

We believe only a man and woman should have the right to marry

Thats the only major issue we got with homosexuals, whatever other hardline Christians say, our only major issue is MARRIAGE!!

We don't believe GBLTs should be treated badly, we don't believe they should be stoned in the street, we don't believe they should have unequal opportunity at a great life.

But we believe marriage is a religious ceremony that unites 1 man and 1 woman for life. We believe that should be excluded from all others.

Gays can have common-law relationships.. and I have no problem at all with common-law relationships having all the tax and other benefits as a marriage document.

But marriage, historically is a religious ceremony, a religious ritual.

I believe marriage should be recognized as a religious ceremony, and nothing more.

I believe if a person wants to "marry" they want a religious ceremony, and unite their lives under God.

But others who want to live together for life, have the tax benefits, and be together should get common-law relationships, or in some regions civil unions.

We are excluding nothing but the religious ceremony of marriage to the GBLTs

And all this chaos that we treat them unequally, would go away, if everyone recognized the term "marriage" as a religious ceremony, and common-law/civil union, as a legal uniting of people.

I guess another issue is adoption and children by GBLTs.

I believe the best situation for a child is 1 mother and 1 father... but if that is not available to a child, then I would demand that they be with a loving GBLT couple rather then go in the system.

1 mother and 1 father is the natural equation for a child to be raised in, its the ideal family unit, but a GBLT couple/single person is WAY better than foster care or group homes.

So, I don't think we are all that hateful to Gays. We demand our religious ceremony of marriage from the beginning of time not be altered with the times.

 

[snfu73]

Well...okay...NOW we are getting off topic. BUT...um....first of all, marriage is not confined just to christianity...and second of all, people can get married by the state. Second of all, as I have expressed before, the ways of the catholic church have been to brand gays as sinners...and sinners are baddddd. I believe that Pope John Paul even used the term "evil". So, people who are gay, are not supposed to be gay...it's bad...and they are going to hell...and that is your BELIEF...and it is a belief that messes with peoples heads, has caused division in families, has crumbled the self esteem of gay individuals which leads to all sorts of issues, and has caused great strife in our communities and nations. So, the Catholic church has done a wonderful job of alienating and be condiscending to gay folks as a whole. It's most unfortunate. HOWEVER...in your statments, I am pleased to see that you would see a same sex couple as a suitable set of parents...although, not your first choice.

As far as marriage...the catholic church has been lobbying against gay marriage for a long time, thus the church is interfering with the state. Luckily, it did not succeed, however, the way Paul Martin was treated by his church after the right to same sex marriage was recognized was a disgrace. And the church does more than not sanction marriage...new priest must not be gay. So, someone who is passionate about the catholic church, but just happens to be gay, is out of luck.

So, there is more influence than you think, the way I see it. The church has more negative influence on the GLBT community than I think you realize. I think it has too often been a destructive force, in this way. I'm not saying all the time. There are many great aspects to any church....but, I don't see this issue as being one of them.

Anyway, back to the main point. We all have different viewpoints...even on who is being the bigoted one and who is not. But that is public forums.

Oh yah, the religous ceremony of marriage HAS changed alot over the years...and alot has changed in terms of marriage and the institution. I posted something that I felt was interesting and funny about that in another thread. And...I don't think the instution of marriage as we know HAS been around since the beginning of time...you might want to check on that.

 

[westmanguy]

I said Religious Ceremony, not Christian ceremony.

Second its not direct intolerance.

We don't choose to exclude gays from marriage, we belive only 1 man and 1 woman should not married.

We believe all sex before marriage is a sin.

So its regardless of homosexual sex or heterosexual sex.

Their is no direct prejudice here.

civil unions/common law, for the non-religious, marriage for the religious.

Same benefits, different contexts.

Married in the legal form, married in the religious form.

Its not prejudice.

 

[selfactivated]

Its passive agressive prejustice?????? LOL

 

[snfu73]

I said Religious Ceremony, not Christian ceremony.

Second its not direct intolerance.

We don't choose to exclude gays from marriage, we belive only 1 man and 1 woman should not married.

We believe all sex before marriage is a sin.

So its regardless of homosexual sex or heterosexual sex.

Their is no direct prejudice here.

civil unions/common law, for the non-religious, marriage for the religious.

Same benefits, different contexts.

Married in the legal form, married in the religious form.

Its not prejudice.

To me...that prejudice...to me if you said a black woman and a white man can't get married, it's the same thing. You can say it's not prejudice...but I see it as prejudice. Your believe is that it is not. My belief is that it is. And that is a discussion. That is what these forums are about.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, it has been around a lot longer than some religions. The wedding ring itself is thought to have derived from Egypt some 3000 years ago from particular bracelets. Marriages were performed in Sanskrit in the early days of Hinduism and the one just about everyone would recognize would be "Gandharva Vivaha" which is marriage between two agreeing participants. Thre were quite a few Hindu marriage types, including the one I mentioned plus Asuras Vivaha, Rakshasa Vivaha, Brahmana Vivaha, etc. Hinduism is lots older than Christianity, BTW.

 

[L Gilbert]

Marriage is even older than that, there's one mentioned in a form of text in an ancient Chinese where a couple were considered married if they held hands over a small stream. An Inuit pair used to each put a stick on the ground so that the two sticks would form an X. (Ain't anthropology a neat study? )

 

[gc]

I said Religious Ceremony, not Christian ceremony.

Second its not direct intolerance.

We don't choose to exclude gays from marriage, we belive only 1 man and 1 woman should not married.

We believe all sex before marriage is a sin.

So its regardless of homosexual sex or heterosexual sex.

Their is no direct prejudice here.

civil unions/common law, for the non-religious, marriage for the religious.

Same benefits, different contexts.

Married in the legal form, married in the religious form.

Its not prejudice.

But do you believe in separation of church and state? Having your own opinions are one thing, but imposing them on others is a different situation.

 

[L Gilbert]

How about marriage as a term for everyone, if religions want something of their own to call it, why not use their terminology - "holy matrimony"? "Marriages" are NOT exclusively religious.

 

[gc]

How about marriage as a term for everyone, if religions want something of their own to call it, why not use their terminology - "holy matrimony"? "Marriages" are NOT exclusively religious.

That sounds good to me. I'd even go so far as to say religion can have the word "marriage". But if that's the case, let's keep religion and government separate. Give EVERYONE, heterosexual or homosexual, a civil union with equal rights. If a church wants to "marry" someone, that's entirely up to them.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well, here's my take on it all, for whatever it's worth. This is a public forum on the Internet. You can expect to be challenged, whatever you post, on any subject. If you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be here. If, for instance, you start a thread about the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Catholic church in a sub-forum called Christian Discussion, you cannot reasonably expect that people who don't believe that story will stay out of it. And far too often I perceive that believers interpret any serious challenge to their positions as insult and ridicule, when it's not. I do not, for instance, believe god exists, and I'll freely say so and tell you why and challenge any believers to justify their beliefs. And I've got anonymous comments in my reputation list that tell me I'm mean and intolerant for that. That's BS. Just because your beliefs have the label "religious" on them doesn't give them a free pass. Religion has to take its lumps in the marketplace of ideas the same as anything else does, it is not automatically entitled to respect. And some religiously based ideas, like young earth creationism, deserve insult and ridicule because they are willfully ignorant and demonstrably false to anyone with the wit to understand the evidence.

It is not necessarily insult or ridicule to equate religion with mythology, or to state that god is a fiction, a human invention, or to cast doubt on a religious doctrine or dogma, though much depends on how you choose to word things. Those are positions that can be arrived at by reason and logic and they're readily defensible. So are most religious positions, as sanctus has amply demonstrated. Obviously I think sanctus is completely wrong, just as he thinks I'm completely wrong. And that's okay. Gives us something to talk about.

 

[snowles]

I said Religious Ceremony, not Christian ceremony.

Second its not direct intolerance.

We don't choose to exclude gays from marriage, we belive only 1 man and 1 woman should not married.

We believe all sex before marriage is a sin.

So its regardless of homosexual sex or heterosexual sex.

Their is no direct prejudice here.

civil unions/common law, for the non-religious, marriage for the religious.

Same benefits, different contexts.

Married in the legal form, married in the religious form.

Its not prejudice.

I hope you mean you are describing Catholic religious beliefs and not bunching Christians as a whole into that statement, because there are several denominations that take those beliefs and (rightfully) stick them where they belong.

For instance, the United Church, according to wikipedia, states that: "The United Church is now generally very open to homosexual members. The church formally states that homosexuality "is not in itself a barrier" to becoming a minister. Some United Church ministers solemnize marriages for same-sex couples, and some United Church spokespersons advocate for gay rights in the greater community. Certain United Church delegates presented evidence in favour of same-sex marriage to the House of Commons Justice Committee during its cross-country hearings in 2003 and welcomed court decisions that legalized same-sex marriage in certain provinces. The 37th General Council, 2003, affirmed that "human sexual orientations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are a gift from God and part of the marvelous diversity of creation.""

They are also pro-choice and for birth control and the usage of condoms, as well as championing women's rights. Though I am no longer a practicing member, I am very fortunate to have been brought up in the much more tolerant branch of the Christian denomination.

edit: I just saw your statement earlier that "How is Christianity bigoted and excludes a group of people," which confirms by beliefs. Please stop conflicting Catholicisism with Christianity as a whole - the two are worlds apart on almost every aspect of religion not named God.

 

[L Gilbert]

Churchwise, I'd say whatever makes their bum hum is fine with me. If they don't mind hitching gays, fine, if they do mind, no-one should make them perform the ceremonies.

 

[snowles]

I don't care who marries who, but I personally get irritated when one institution tries to lay claim to a ceremony that is clearly not their creation, or even provided exclusively by them.

First off, homosexuals need to stop pestering churches that won't marry them, to marry them, especially since there are a lot of denominations that will perform the service, if a religious ceremony is what's desired by the couple. Second, the churches need to give up the "marriage is sacred" crap, because frankly I can see a lot fewer gay marriages ending in divorce as opposed to the 50 per cent of heterosexual ones that end that way; just grow a set and say it goes against the church's beliefs. Both the homosexual community and the churches have blame to share in this debacle continuing to the point it has; that the legislature needs to step in and play big brother is just sad and can only end badly.

The problem with silly statements like ""Married in the legal form, married in the religious form" is that it implies that a: the 'problem' is black and white, cut and dry and b: that Catholic doctrine defines the definition of marraige in a religious sense for all others. Both assumptions are dead wrong.

 

[talloola]

What I find quite amusing is that, most other subjects feel "lonely" if noone writes posts which
have an opposing view, as that is what makes the conversations interesting and enlightening, and
full of life and spirit.
But, the religious people immediately take offence and label us, as interferring people who are
trouble makers, because we oppose their views. Go figure.

Eg. Why would an atheist want to talk about the "Virgin Mary" in an agreeable way, as an atheist
doesn't believe in the virgin mary, doesn't believe a virgin could ever have a child, and as soon as her name is mentioned, it triggers many opinions
about her. So, if an atheist writes a post stating their opinion, it is "NOT off topic.

If a republican wants to discuss their party with another republican, and a democrat sends in a
post criticizing the republican party, and wants to expand on that idea, it is NOT off topic.
The republican wouldn't write in an "whine" cause they were interferred with when they were trying
to have a conversation.

Religion is religion and politics is politics, and there are agreers and disagreers on both sides,and
that includes atheism as part of the religious subject, just as a dictator could be on the same thread
as a democratic leader, or the "devil" on the same thread as "god", as they would have a lot to talk about.
And, I had better add, "if there was a devil or a god" before anyone thinks that I have crossed
over,we couldn't have that now could we, as I am faithful to my disbelief.

 

[L Gilbert]

Um, this atheist is pretty sure virgin births are possible. It is quite conceivable that a mother with Turner's mosaic ( http://www.xyxo.org/ ) could produce a male offspring via parthenogenesis, but it's a patholigical scenario.

 

[china]

Titus 3
9 But avoid afoolish questions, and genealogies, and bcontentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

 

[Vereya]

Wrong. What we strongly obect to is having threads hijacked with posts that have nothing to do with the topic. For example, if a topic was about Trudeau, one would hardly expect you to jump in to talk about McDonald. If a post is about the Blessed Virgin, it would be odd to see a post attacking the Catholic view on homosexual behaviour.The point is, join in any Christian thread you want, but do try and stay on topic.

Sanctus, when you are having a conversation with anyone, do you never deviate from its original topic? When people are talking and discussing something, there always come up additional ideas, that can have very little connection with what was originally discussed. It's the way the human mind works - one idea brings out another, and so on. The same is on a forum.