The Great Chick-fil-A Snake Oil "Faith" Hustle

[Glass Cowcatcher]

That verse in Matthew was to people who already thought they were holy. People who were holy on the outside, but sinning on the inside. These people condemmed others for doing the exact same things they themselves were doing, only they wore the cloak of being a learned priest.

That verse is no way justifies sin or takes away from from how the bible instructs to live our lives.

My only offense here is first answer in this thread about saying people have a right to their viewpoints, even if it offends others. There are many veiwpoints that offend me, but I accept them. But my acceptanace of a different viewpoint is not going to change my view point and that is the diference.

This thread has dragged out, what eleven pages now? I am not going to say anymore. I have answered questions to the best of my ability.

Or in other words:

[scarygirl]

Fixed that for you.

[Anxious Girl]

Lol what are you trying to proove?

[Guest Anonymous]

This thread has dragged out, what eleven pages now? I am not going to say anymore. I have answered questions to the best of my ability.

Then the best you can do is inadequate and fucking pathetic.

[Anxious Girl]

Then the best you can do is inadequate and fucking pathetic.

Now, now; Lissar. Don't hurt the precious little snowflake's feelings. :naughty:

[Vex]

Actually, you just repeated the same lie as before.

[fundifugee]

Someone saying they support the biblical view of marriage is not an ugly opinion. It may not be your opinion, but that doesn't make it ugly.

That isn't the same thing as somone saying racial minorities should have their own water fountains or should have to sit at the back of the bus. Those are horriblly ugly opinons, but at the same time people are entitled to have their own thoughts and opinions whether you and I agree or not.

. . .

A handy quick reference guide for those of us unsure of the definition of "Biblical Marriage"

[Guest Anonymous]

Thanks, fundifugee!

[formergothardite]

Fundies do more to make Christ look bad than the heathens.

I have two questions that were never answered:

How is it not hate to deny a whole group of people (people who are not hurting anyone) equality?

And why did you think I was agaisnt a free society? Your the one that seems to be wanting to force your religion on others. Unless you are willing to admit that you are pro-choice (legally, not in your personal life) and pro-gay marriage (even though it doesn't mesh with your religion you don't believe on forcing your religion on other people)

And please, for the sake of all that is good in this world, just answer the questions and not questions that I didn't ask. Do you know how bad it makes your God look that his followers go out of thier way to avoid giving straight answers about their beliefs?

And I didn't bully you, I looked at your past behaviour here, came up with a guess and reminded you that sort of behaviour is not tolerated here. I didn't donate money to an organization who wants to deny you equality. Now that is being a bully. This is not persecution, this is a debate on a message board.

My questions that didn't get answered.

By the way, from what I have seen from this thread, Scarygirl takes some parts of the Bible as literal and some not, there is no rhyme or reason as to what is taken literal and what isn't. It is essentially based on society. When society accepted polygamy, well those verses were taken as literal. When society accepted slavery, those verses were taken as literal, when society accepted women having no rights, those verses were taken as literal, and when segregation was all cool, well there were verses to support that too. So this isn't, "I obey the Bible." it is "I obey the parts of the Bible that are socially acceptable to follow." At this point, it is sadly still okay to use the Bible to not treat a group of people with equality, but when society doesn't except that, those verses will be dumped into the "We don't take that literal" category.

[formergothardite]

I got called a bully, was told I hated God, told I didn't like a free society, I don't think it is too much to ask for some straight answers.

[thoughtful]

I know all about those verses , they trouble me too. They are still not enough for me to not know who my one saving grace is at the end of the day.

Ta-da!

Now that you've said that, you do understand that your statements about how "it isn't ugly if it's just supporting what the Bible says" are hypocritical, right? You can't hide behind "but they are just defending the Biblical definition of marriage" if you admit that there are many definitions, some of which trouble you, too.

Someone saying they support the biblical view of marriage is not an ugly opinion. It may not be your opinion, but that doesn't make it ugly.

You should reread my first post . My first post was simply refuting the article that called a a simple matter of opinion, one's support of the biblical view of marriage, as being hateful.

You are not a Biblical literalist -- that is a good thing! Congrats! Just admit it.

[Sprocket]

You win my corner of the internet today. Cake will be provided there.

I'm a hormonal mess today. This really made me cry. I don't think I've every been able to articulate how strongly I feel about what you said and you said it beautifully. I'm stealing this and running away like a thief. You're still welcome to the cake though.

[She Who Laughs]

I'm curious as to how people feel about the other groups that may want to be able to marry legally. What about siblings who want to marry? Or parent and child? Aunt/uncle and niece/nephew? Many states won't allow first cousins to marry. If gays should be allowed to marry because they are both consenting adults, then these other groups should receive the same considerations under the law and the exact same equal rights under the law. Same goes for polygamy. If a group of 3 or more adults want to legally marry, then why should their rights not be recognized? If polygamy were legalized, it wouldn't hurt other people's marriages either. I think in the years to come, we may see same-sex marriage become legal in all states, but it's only a matter of time before these other groups scream for their right to marry to become legal as well.

[formergothardite]

Polygamy might be harder to work things out legally since the system is currently set up for just two people getting married. So unless someone can cough up a good non-religious reason that gay people don't deserve to get married, then there is abosolutely no reason they should go one day more not having equality.

I am pretty sure there are non-religious reasons (not sure if they are good non-religious reasons) that the incest type marriages are banned. So it doesn't really compare to a group who are banned from marriage based only on a religion.

[debrand]

I'm curious as to how people feel about the other groups that may want to be able to marry legally. What about siblings who want to marry? Or parent and child? Aunt/uncle and niece/nephew? Many states won't allow first cousins to marry. If gays should be allowed to marry because they are both consenting adults, then these other groups should receive the same considerations under the law and the exact same equal rights under the law. Same goes for polygamy. If a group of 3 or more adults want to legally marry, then why should their rights not be recognized? If polygamy were legalized, it wouldn't hurt other people's marriages either. I think in the years to come, we may see same-sex marriage become legal in all states, but it's only a matter of time before these other groups scream for their right to marry to become legal as well.

My only problem with polygamy is the difficulty in sorting through divorce in these cases. If one person wants to leave a three person union, who gets the house or kids? However, we'd probably figure out how to work through such a union.

First cousin unions only bother me when you have first cousins continue to marry one another's offspring. One set of first cousins who marry probably won't be a genetic problem. However if you get multiple generations of first cousins intermarrying then you can have abnormalities. Some cultures still practice first cousin marriage. Even in my own family, one of my great grandparent's siblings married a first cousin. I think that it was more common in our society at one point.

The reason we don't allow sister/brother, parent/child marriage is because there is a higher chance that the offspring that come from closely related individuals might have genetic abnormalities.

[Childless]

I'm curious as to how people feel about the other groups that may want to be able to marry legally. What about siblings who want to marry? Or parent and child? Aunt/uncle and niece/nephew? Many states won't allow first cousins to marry. If gays should be allowed to marry because they are both consenting adults, then these other groups should receive the same considerations under the law and the exact same equal rights under the law. Same goes for polygamy. If a group of 3 or more adults want to legally marry, then why should their rights not be recognized? If polygamy were legalized, it wouldn't hurt other people's marriages either. I think in the years to come, we may see same-sex marriage become legal in all states, but it's only a matter of time before these other groups scream for their right to marry to become legal as well.

Incest marriages are banned because of the genetic damage that can be done to the offspring of such a union. I fully support multiple marriages so long as everyone involved is an adult and signed a marriage contract willingly.

[She Who Laughs]

Incest marriages may be banned because of genetic issues, but what if one of the people in the union agreed to be voluntarily sterilized? And just not allowing marriage doesn't stop people from having kids. There isn't anything stopping them from living together and having children right now. And what about people who are closely related who are past their child-bearing years and want to marry?

[debrand]

Incest marriages may be banned because of genetic issues, but what if one of the people in the union agreed to be voluntarily sterilized? And just not allowing marriage doesn't stop people from having kids. There isn't anything stopping them from living together and having children right now. And what about people who are closely related who are past their child-bearing years and want to marry?

I don't see our country passing a law forcing people to be sterilized. That law would be shot down quickly.

[She Who Laughs]

I don't see our country passing a law forcing people to be sterilized. That law would be shot down quickly.

So did you just not read the part where I said, "what if one of the people in the union agreed to be VOLUNTARILY sterilized?"

[Guest Anonymous]

Incest marriages may be banned because of genetic issues, but what if one of the people in the union agreed to be voluntarily sterilized? And just not allowing marriage doesn't stop people from having kids. There isn't anything stopping them from living together and having children right now. And what about people who are closely related who are past their child-bearing years and want to marry?

The number of people who engage in voluntary incest is extremely miniscule due to the Westermark effect. I can't even find any numbers/stats in regards to it. I don't think it's a comparable situation to adult, consenting, LGBTQ people who want to marry.

Incest is very difficult to confirm as consensual because one person in the relationship almost certainly has power over the other one in a way that makes true, uncoerced consent impossible. To me, that's the difference - lack of meaningful consent, coupled with the genetic problems in offspring. Sterilization/infertility removes one of those issues but not the other one.

**EFR.

[debrand]

So did you just not read the part where I said, "what if one of the people in the union agreed to be VOLUNTARILY sterilized?"

I don't think that there will ever be laws that require a few people to be voluntarily sterilized as a condition of marriage. It just wouldn't pass.

edited:to be more clear in what I meant

[jesssnerch]

So what this is saying is that God didn't declare incest to be wrong until there were enough people to multiply efficiently without being with a member if their immediate family. It was then he said that only man and woman should lie together. Population was still kind of small. A lot of kids didn't survive childhood. A lot of women didn't survive child birth. It really made sense for God to allow a man to have a ton of wives. Gotta keep the population growing, after all.

Now logically, doesn't it make sense that maybe all the scientific advancements being made in ways to conceive is God's way of telling us that a man and a woman being together is not the only way to create a family anymore? Maybe he's telling us times have changed and His word is evolving? He's apparently corrected himself before, why not now?

For the record, I believe in God and the bible just as much as I believe in Greek myths or the religion of Ancient Egypt. To me the bible was written so people at the time could have some answers to the mysteries of the world around them. We understand science a lot more now so it seems kind of silly to keep believing the stories of the bible as a literal truth.

I'd like scarygirl to address the bolded. I'm interested in her opinion.

[She Who Laughs]

The number of people who engage in voluntary incest is extremely miniscule due to the Westermark effect. I can't even find any numbers/stats in regards to it. I don't think it's a comparable situation to adult, consenting, LGBTQ people who want to marry.

Incest is very difficult to confirm as consensual because one person in the relationship almost certainly has power over the other one in a way that makes true, uncoerced consent impossible. To me, that's the difference - lack of meaningful consent, coulpled with the genetic problems in offspring. Sterilization/infertility removes one of those issues but not the other one.

There are many instances where one does not have power over the other, such as in the cases of siblings and cousins. And why would there be a need to somehow confirm it is consensual. We don't seek out any extraordinary effort to make sure other couples are totally consensual. There is always a possibility of one person feeling forced into a marriage. Not to mention the fact that some religions still do arranged marriages where one or the other person may feel like they have no say in the matter at all and might not even want to get married, yet the law still allows for them to be married.

[Guest Anonymous]

You know, if we let black people and white people marry each other, the next thing you know, brothers and sisters will be marrying each other and people will be marrying animals.

And, while we're at it, we shouldn't let women get the vote because, what's next? Giving babies the vote? Giving dogs the vote?

/sarcasm

Needless to say, I think slippery slope theory is bullshit.

[debrand]

There are many instances where one does not have power over the other, such as in the cases of siblings and cousins. And why would there be a need to somehow confirm it is consensual. We don't seek out any extraordinary effort to make sure other couples are totally consensual. There is always a possibility of one person feeling forced into a marriage. Not to mention the fact that some religions still do arranged marriages where one or the other person may feel like they have no say in the matter at all and might not even want to get married, yet the law still allows for them to be married.[/quote]

American law allows for unconsenting people to marry? I'm confused why you brought up other countries' laws.