- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jars of Clay frontman earns ire for position on gay marriage
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:07 pm to navy
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:07 pm to navy
quote:
Because I think I'm no less of a Christian ... if I still enjoy Ozzy, Metallica, Alice in Chains, Pantera, White/Rob Zombie, AC/DC, etc.
I don't either, fwiw. I enjoy a large assortment of music, a very small portion of which happens to be by Christian artists.
quote:
I similarly don't care what some Christian rock dude's opinion is on gays.
My purpose in creating this thread is not that you should care, but to point out that fans of his will. This is a guy with, like it or not, significant influence on Christians under the age of 30 that is spreading a very non-traditional Christian message.
quote:
"Christian rock" just flat-out does not compute with me.
I'm not trying to convince you are wrong, but casting aside an entire genre of music like this is odd to me, especially one in which some bands have the musicality of other bands you mention liking.
This post was edited on 7/14/14 at 3:09 pm
1
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:11 pm to TK421
quote:
I'm not trying to convince you are wrong, but casting aside an entire genre of music like this is odd to me, especially one in which some bands have the musicality of other bands you mention liking.
I'm too old to like new stuff.
I've got all my stuff from high school burned onto a sansa MP3 player ... and I'm all good.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:14 pm to navy
eh, fair enough.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:14 pm to TK421
Met those guys at a charity adoption event. Nice guys, but religious people need to learn that they get asked these questions so they can be turned into Phil Roberts, etc. sound bites. Just keep it to yourselves and you won't throw so much has on the fire.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:15 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Or it's just based in the desire not to change definitions to meet the fancy of society's every whim, but whatever.
Believing that equal rights for gays and lesbians is "the fancy of society's every whim" is also hateful and bigoted.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:18 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Believing that equal rights for gays and lesbians is "the fancy of society's every whim" is also hateful and bigoted.
Geez... is there any opinion, other than 100% acceptance, about gays and lesbians that ISN'T hateful and bigoted, well, at least according to the likes of you?
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:25 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Geez... is there any opinion, other than 100% acceptance, about gays and lesbians that ISN'T hateful and bigoted, well, at least according to the likes of you?
Its not really acceptance that is the issue, it is lack of rejection. Rights that heterosexual married couples take for granted are routinely denied gays in relationships of equal commitment.
For instance, when my wife had our son - I didn't have to file any sort of special paperwork with the state to become the full legal parent of my son - it is presumed I am parent because of our marriage. If she dies and I survive - I automatically become sole custodian - in many families with gay parents - the child will be given to the deceased relatives. What remains of the family is torn apart.
How you can see that as equal treatment is beyond me.
This post was edited on 7/14/14 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:26 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Believing that equal rights for gays and lesbians is "the fancy of society's every whim" is also hateful and bigoted.
So redefining the term "marriage" is thy only way to believe in equal rights for gays?
This is the crux of this small debate. Whether or not you care about legal rights or whether you care about forced societal equivocation between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:26 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Because I think I'm no less of a Christian ... if I still enjoy Ozzy, Metallica, Alice in Chains, Pantera, White/Rob Zombie, AC/DC, etc.
Agreed 100%. I consider myself a Christian and enjoy a vast array of rock and metal bands.
However, there are some very prominent groups that have varying degrees of Christian influences and are pretty awesome: Killswitch Engage, August Burns Red, anberlin, Skillet, Flyleaf, Chevelle to name a few.
Also, did you know that Dave Mustain of Megadeth is a born again Christian and certified badass?
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:30 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
So redefining the term "marriage" is thy only way to believe in equal rights for gays?
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception. Unless you propose going back to a system where marriages are arranged by parents or legal guardians and mixing of neither race nor religion is allowed - I'd suggest you abandon the appeal to "traditional" marriage. Heck some cultures even require you go through a third party "match maker" but I wouldn't want you to blow your mind apart by the idea that marriage is actually defined differently by different people.
I know a couple with an "open" marriage. They even bring their lovers home to spend time with the family. That's completely legal - and bears no resemblance to "traditional marriage".
quote:
This is the crux of this small debate. Whether or not you care about legal rights or whether you care about forced societal equivocation between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
It has nothing to do with "societal equivocation" as you call it - you're free to hate gays all you'd like to. No one is going to stop you from feeling disgusted every time you see two committed gay men walking down the streets holding hands - your own guilt driven revulsion is your business. This is solely a question of equal protection under the law.
This post was edited on 7/14/14 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:36 pm to TigersforEver
quote:
Also, did you know that Dave Mustain of Megadeth is a born again Christian and used to be a certified badass?
Fify
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:41 pm to TK421
quote:
Because most people read and interpret scripture wrong. I don't think scripture "clearly" states much of anything regarding morality. I think the vast interpretation has left room for people to deal inhumanly and unlovingly toward others that don't fit their guidelines.
He doesn't read well for comprehension. Scripture states a lot regarding morality really clearly. It's just not what he wants to read.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:42 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception. Unless you propose going back to a system where marriages are arranged by parents or legal guardians and mixing of neither race nor religion is allowed - I'd suggest you abandon the appeal to "traditional" marriage. Heck some cultures even require you go through a third party "match maker" but I wouldn't want you to blow your mind apart by the idea that marriage is actually defined differently by different people.
I know a couple with an "open" marriage. They even bring their lovers home to spend time with the family. That's completely legal - and bears no resemblance to "traditional marriage".
This is interesting, but irrelevant. Marriage has had a legal definition for quite some time. There is now a movement to change that definition to something that has been, at best, a fringe definition of marriage. Now we're seeking to change the definition, because simply granting the term's equal in rights and privileges wouldn't be sufficient?
And why is that? The legal recognition would be identical. Government treatment would be identical. It would be a semantical difference.
Ah, the answer is that the semantic difference is alleged to reduce the value of same sex unions in society at large. There is no tangible difference, but there is a difference in terms of social acceptance. Hence, we can't just grant the rights, we have to change the existing marriage (applicable previously only to heterosexual couples) definition.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The term "marriage" has been "redefined" - as you call it - virtually since its inception.
It's always been a dude and a chick. That hasn't changed. Citing a singular instance of a guy marrying a horse doesn't negate the reality of the historical definition of marriage.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:44 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Green Chili Tiger
Orly?
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:47 pm to TigersforEver
quote:
Orly?
Have you heard anything from Super Collider?
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:55 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Marriage has had a legal definition for quite some time.
Actually the legal definition of marriage has changed radically over the past 100 years.
Wives now own property in a marriage on equal footing with their husbands.
Divorce is now allowed in most places without even having cause - that's quite a radical change - and in all places violations of the contract are treated equally with regard to which party commits it.
Wives and husbands now have virtually equal custodial rights to their children (with the exception that some states prefer the mother in early childhood)
Inter-racial and inter-religious marriage is
allowed.
Marriage has actually been re-defined quite a bit since the birth of our nation. Mostly in the way of women's rights - but also in the way of racial and religious liberty.
But I know you don't care. Belief based hatred is impossible to counter with facts.
quote:
Hence, we can't just grant the rights, we have to change the existing marriage (applicable previously only to heterosexual couples) definition.
You're actually completely free to remain in whatever marriage you are in right now with no change in terms whatsoever - and heterosexuals will continue to have the exact same marriage rights as they have before. The only reason you would seek to deprive homosexuals of that same liberty is through belief based hatred.
This post was edited on 7/14/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 7/14/14 at 3:57 pm to the808bass
quote:
It's always been a dude and a chick.
Before that - it had always meant a chick giving the entirety of her property over to a dude and resigning all future property rights.
What's your point?
quote:
Citing a singular instance of a guy marrying a horse doesn't negate the reality of the historical definition of marriage.
Who the hell is talking about guys marrying horses? You shouldn't think out loud so much - it betrays your inner thoughts.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 4:02 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Who the hell is talking about guys marrying horses? You shouldn't think out loud so much - it betrays your inner thoughts.
Caligula was said to have married a horse. Thanks for your concern.
And the chick was expected to bear children. And continue the lineage. Because they understood what marriage was for.
Posted on 7/14/14 at 4:12 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
You're actually completely free to remain in whatever marriage you are in right now with no change in terms whatsoever - and heterosexuals will continue to have the exact same marriage rights as they have before. The only reason you would seek to deprive homosexuals of that same liberty is through belief based hatred.
Such nonsense. Can't argue substantively, must project fear/hatred/etc.
The male-female nature of marriage was not malleable. Suddenly, it has to be, or else we're all bigots. It's a cowardly argument because you refuse to level with us (or yourself) about the motivations of the "marriage equality" movement's hardcore supporters.
So again, how would civil unions preclude equal protection?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News