Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives

AssHatZombie said:
It says citizens are responsible for transmitting the noahide laws. I bolded it.

what does that mean to you? responisibilities set forth in law. just like a law, damo. When will you stop your campaign of willful stupidity?
Click to expand...
Ah, we're back to noahide stuff. Yes, AssHat, those would be a violation of individual rights to believe and live by their own religious dogma. You are worried, unnecessarily, that I would support something like that.
 
Dixie said:
This is what Hillary meant by "willful suspension of disbelief." I've never known anyone so tied to their bigoted beliefs, they refuse to acknowledge their own contradictions! You keep insisting someone's "dogma" is being forced on you through passage of anti-gay marriage legislation, so you would think you could point out where Christian doctrine specifies this "dogma" somewhere... but you argue the exact polar opposite of that! You point out that Unitarian Christians perform gay marriages, and that Jesus never spoke specifically about homosexuality being a sin. IF this were 'dogma' of the religion, that would not be the case, it doesn't comport with logic. How can something be viewed as "acceptable" by Unitarians and Jesus, yet be contradictory to the religious dogma? IT CAN'T BE, that's how!

What you mean to argue is, people who are opposed to gay marriage, base their opinion on their interpretations of religious dogma. This is also not exactly true across the board, people oppose gay marriage for a variety of reasons, and they can certainly be devoid of religious beliefs. I am not religious, I have made the argument against gay marriage several times on the basis of law and the constitution, and my viewpoint opposing gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any religious teaching. But let's assume that we can paint everyone with your bigoted broad brush, and the only reason anyone opposes gay marriage is because of their religious beliefs... where does the Constitution prohibit that? We can't establish a religion, but we most certainly CAN AND DO make law based on our religious viewpoints and moralities. You may not like that, you have the right to voice your opposition to that, and you even have the right to be a political activist against that, but you do NOT have the right to deny people their Constitutional rights on the basis of you disagreeing with what they believe!
Click to expand...
Not on me, Dix. I point out that such laws are in no way a protection of individual rights and they are solely based on your religious dogma.
 
Damocles said:
Again, this discussion is whether we allow religious dogma to be established as legislation. You waste our time with inane blather about "political dogma"...

It is what the discussion has been about for days. You appear to attempt to take posts out of that context to make some inane suggestion about something other than the point of discussion. Religious dogma.
Click to expand...

No, this conversation is about how Damo misuses terminology to fit his own arguments on the fly, and has been soundly debunked by the contradiction of his own arguments.

No one has advocated establishing "dogma" as legislation, you haven't proven that opposing gay marriage is part of Christian dogma, in fact, you have argued the exact opposite. You want to yammer out of both sides of your mouth here, dumo! One side of your mouth is saying anti-gay marriage is religious dogma, but the other side of your mouth is pointing out how Jesus didn't speak out against homosexuality and Unitarians perform gay marriages.

The reason you are obviously trying to call anti-gay marriage initiatives "religious dogma" is because that is a convenient straw man for your pro-gay marriage viewpoint, and nothing more. By misusing the terminology, you think you are making a valid case, but you haven't established the premise, and you can't. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are not prohibited by the Christian dogma, this according to your very own arguments... Therefore, such oppositions can't possibly be called "religious dogma!"
 
Dixie said:
No, this conversation is about how Damo misuses terminology to fit his own arguments on the fly, and has been soundly debunked by the contradiction of his own arguments.

No one has advocated establishing "dogma" as legislation, you haven't proven that opposing gay marriage is part of Christian dogma, in fact, you have argued the exact opposite. You want to yammer out of both sides of your mouth here, dumo! One side of your mouth is saying anti-gay marriage is religious dogma, but the other side of your mouth is pointing out how Jesus didn't speak out against homosexuality and Unitarians perform gay marriages.

The reason you are obviously trying to call anti-gay marriage initiatives "religious dogma" is because that is a convenient straw man for your pro-gay marriage viewpoint, and nothing more. By misusing the terminology, you think you are making a valid case, but you haven't established the premise, and you can't. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are not prohibited by the Christian dogma, this according to your very own arguments... Therefore, such oppositions can't possibly be called "religious dogma!"
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. This discussion has been all about how Dixie attempts to assert his religious dogma onto others. And gay marriage is prohibited in your religious dogma, all homosexual relations at all are prohibited.

At least you aren't pretending you are "Atheistic" any longer.

It is my contention, and always has been, that legislation attempting to "define" such religious institutions as marriage are a violation of individual rights. The government should not be in the business of defining or "approving" of any set of religious dogma.
 
Damocles said:
Ah, we're back to noahide stuff. Yes, AssHat, those would be a violation of individual rights to believe and live by their own religious dogma.
Click to expand...

those.... their.... what?
You are worried, unnecessarily, that I would support something like that.
Click to expand...

It's in our law that citizens are responsible to transmit the noahide laws, yet you say there is no religious dogma in our laws. There is. Why can't you admit it.

What does "responsibility to transmit' mean to you when in a law? Does it mean it's a law that we are responsible to transmit the noahide laws? if you don't believe so, why can't you read and comprehend english?
 
AssHatZombie said:
those.... their.... what?


It's in our law that citizens are responsible to transmit the noahide laws, yet you say there is no religious dogma in our laws. There is. Why can't you admit it.

What does "responsibility to transmit' mean to you when in a law? Does it mean it's a law that we are responsible to transmit the noahide laws? if you don't believe so, why can't you read and comprehend english?
Click to expand...
If such is in our laws then they are a violation of rights. I would not support such legislation. BTW - a resolution is not legislation.

P.S. - Did this resolution pass?
 
Damocles said:
Not on me, Dix. I point out that such laws are in no way a protection of individual rights and they are solely based on your religious dogma.
Click to expand...

You've not pointed out where Christian dogma prohibits gay marriage or homosexuality. Please do so before you continue to make a fool of yourself with this false claim.

A great deal of our laws have absolutely nothing to do with protection of individual rights, that is not a prerequisite for something to be made law! A great many more laws ARE based on someone's religiously-based moral viewpoints, and the people certainly DO have the 1st Amendment right to establish laws on what they believe as a matter of their faith. SORRY!
 
Damocles said:
No, it isn't. This discussion has been all about how Dixie attempts to assert his religious dogma onto others. And gay marriage is prohibited in your religious dogma, all homosexual relations at all are prohibited.

At least you aren't pretending you are "Atheistic" any longer.
Click to expand...

Now you're going to resort to Stringy's tactic of just flat out lying and sticking your fingers in your ears while repeating the same debunked nonsense. Okay... conversation is over with you as well, DUMO!
 
Dixie said:
Now you're going to resort to Stringy's tactic of just flat out lying and sticking your fingers in your ears while repeating the same debunked nonsense. Okay... conversation is over with you as well, DUMO!
Click to expand...
Where did I lie? That the religion prohibits homosexual relations? Must we go through this again? It wasn't debunked, you spent I don't know how many pages trying to say that even Jesus said it (he didn't).
 
Dixie said:
You've not pointed out where Christian dogma prohibits gay marriage or homosexuality. Please do so before you continue to make a fool of yourself with this false claim.

A great deal of our laws have absolutely nothing to do with protection of individual rights, that is not a prerequisite for something to be made law! A great many more laws ARE based on someone's religiously-based moral viewpoints, and the people certainly DO have the 1st Amendment right to establish laws on what they believe as a matter of their faith. SORRY!
Click to expand...
Please, earlier pages and pages were spent with you trying to tell me that Jesus covered that (he didn't). The reality is, it is an "abomination" in both the Old and New Testaments. Can you tell me, do you know enough about your religion to tell me what the penalty for "an abomination" is?
 
Damocles said:
No, it isn't. This discussion has been all about how Dixie attempts to assert his religious dogma onto others. And gay marriage is prohibited in your religious dogma, all homosexual relations at all are prohibited.

At least you aren't pretending you are "Atheistic" any longer.

It is my contention, and always has been, that legislation attempting to "define" such religious institutions as marriage are a violation of individual rights. The government should not be in the business of defining or "approving" of any set of religious dogma.
Click to expand...


But he'll tell you how he calls his homosexual friends deviants, to their faces, and how he attended one of their immoral and heathen weddings.
 
Damocles said:
Where did I lie? That the religion prohibits homosexual relations? Must we go through this again? It wasn't debunked, you spent I don't know how many pages trying to say that even Jesus said it (he didn't).
Click to expand...

Uhm, I didn't spend pages, I posted one time that I thought Jesus spoke of homosexuality in a negative light, you suggested it was Paul, and I posted that you might be right and I might be wrong... that was all the posts I made on the subject. Several others argued with you about this, not me. But in that debate, you certainly didn't argue that Christian dogma opposed gay marriage or homosexual behavior, you were making the argument for the exact polar opposite of that! So tell me... just how the fuck can CHRIST not be specifically condemning homosexuals, yet it's "part of CHRISTian dogma?" Furthermore, how the hell can a Christian Unitarian church be performing an action in the church, that is a direct contradiction to their "religious dogma?"

Can you answer that with any shred of credibility and honesty?
 
Dixie said:
Uhm, I didn't spend pages, I posted one time that I thought Jesus spoke of homosexuality in a negative light, you suggested it was Paul, and I posted that you might be right and I might be wrong... that was all the posts I made on the subject. Several others argued with you about this, not me. But in that debate, you certainly didn't argue that Christian dogma opposed gay marriage or homosexual behavior, you were making the argument for the exact polar opposite of that! So tell me... just how the fuck can CHRIST not be specifically condemning homosexuals, yet it's "part of CHRISTian dogma?" Furthermore, how the hell can a Christian Unitarian church be performing an action in the church, that is a direct contradiction to their "religious dogma?"

Can you answer that with any shred of credibility and honesty?
Click to expand...
Ah, well, ID and I (I thought you had participated in it) spent pages talking about whether Jesus spoke of it. He didn't. Paul did. Some churches choose to ignore certain aspects of the dogma, it is why some other churches say they aren't "really Christian"...

Anyway, an abomination nets you the death penalty in the Bible, homosexual relations are proscribed without a doubt by your religious dogma.

And I pointed out that while Christ didn't personally speak of homosexuality it didn't change that per the religious dogma homosexuality is a "sin"... (I even used quotes in the argument).
 
Damocles said:
Ah, well, ID and I (I thought you had participated in it) spent pages talking about whether Jesus spoke of it. He didn't. Paul did. Some churches choose to ignore certain aspects of the dogma, it is why some other churches say they aren't "really Christian"...

Anyway, an abomination nets you the death penalty in the Bible, homosexual relations are proscribed without a doubt by your religious dogma.

And I pointed out that while Christ didn't personally speak of homosexuality it didn't change that per the religious dogma homosexuality is a "sin"... (I even used quotes in the argument).
Click to expand...

LOL... Oh okay, so now you want to say that Jesus wasn't a "real Christian" because he didn't follow his own Christian dogma and condemn homosexuality? But "real Christians" are forcing their "dogma" on you by opposing gay marriage?

Dumo, you are getting more and more absurd and ridiculous here, just give it up, you are turning into a CLOWN!
 
Dixie said:
LOL... Oh okay, so now you want to say that Jesus wasn't a "real Christian" because he didn't follow his own Christian dogma and condemn homosexuality? But "real Christians" are forcing their "dogma" on you by opposing gay marriage?

Dumo, you are getting more and more absurd and ridiculous here, just give it up, you are turning into a CLOWN!
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Now we're to the point where you ignore the point and try to put words in my mouth. You waste all of our time with this, Dix. I stated clearly that it didn't make it not a "sin" when he didn't speak on the subject, that there were many sins he didn't cover.

Let's not get into ridiculous inanities. At least you understand that homosexuality is proscribed against in the religion, and that your urge to legislate that is a violation of personal rights.

This discussion we're currently having is about your urge to legislate Christian dogma.

What I find most interesting is your first supposed support of legislation that would get government out of religion, then your instant support for not allowing gays to marry... There is dichotomy here, Dix, but it is yours.

If we followed your proposed solution (one that I support and that you supposedly support), gays would be married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top