User Profile: HarryPotter

HarryPotter

Member Since: January 23, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 5:56pm

    Wow, I don’t think any of you understand what I was getting at. Perhaps I wasn’t being clear enough. At the time of Lincoln, civil rights and slavery were very partisan issues. Today, how many people, R or D are pro-slavery or anti-civil rights? Trying link modern politics to those issues is nonsense. At the time of Lincoln, republicans backed expanded federal power, a state university system, trans-continental railroad, ETC while democrats opposed these measures. Political parties of the past cannot be linked to those of today, the issues we face are too different, and it is apples and oranges.

  • [-5] October 22, 2014 at 1:57pm

    Patriot:
    Actually, you haven’t had that “right” in this nation for decades, if ever. You cannot deny service to someone just because they are handicapped, or a Christian, or a woman. You cannot deny to serve an interracial couple either, or make blacks use a different enteance. Gay couples want to be married, just like any straight couple. Businesses also cannot refuse service to blacks even if their religious tells them to.

  • [-1] October 22, 2014 at 1:45pm

    Pop:
    As someone who was a masters degree in history, I can assure you that I have atudies history. You should also be aware that over the course of American history, political parties have changed so drastically as to completely change. Republican ideals have become those of democrats and vice versa. If you go back even 50 years, you can not accurately link modern politics to the political parties of the time.

  • [-1] October 22, 2014 at 1:39pm

    Mar:
    Actually, at the time of the lawsuit, the Idaho buisness was not classified as a religious anything (either legally or by the business). The couple were ordained, yes, but we’re not serving as ministers or pastors. Their “chapel” served many couples of many religions and had no requirements listed. Your part on the Texas case is true though. As was everything I said above. The case was dropped (don’t think there was basis for the subpoena to begin with) and the churches were never forced to stop saying anything about gay marriage.

  • [-8] October 22, 2014 at 1:32pm

    Foo:
    What was so difficult about the civil union process? You mean besides the fact that most states never had it? That it never provided the same rights and benefits as marriage? Well other than that, the term marriage is not owned by conservatives or Chriatians or straights. Allowing gay couples to marry was no bigger of a change than allowing interracial couples to marry.

  • [-5] October 22, 2014 at 1:29pm

    Alien:
    No, it wasn’t clearly expressed in the article. The article was misleading at best. And my point was that churches haven’t been forced to accept or perform gay marriages at all. Some on the right keep trying to lie or stretch the facts to be something other than the truth.

  • [-1] October 22, 2014 at 1:19pm

    Tony:
    As I said, the Idaho couple ran a business. If they changed their business after the lawsuit, that doesn’t change anything. And in Texas, I would agree that there was no real basis for the subpoena. But the ministers were never in danger of being arrested or told that they could not preach on a certain topic. Everything I said above was true.

  • [-7] October 22, 2014 at 1:14pm

    Except liberals don’t actually say things like that. They say things like “of course gays should be allowed to marry”. It’s the other side trying to deny equal rights.

    Responses (8) +
  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 1:00pm

    Some clarification:
    In Idaho, the ordained ministers in question do not run a church, are not pastors, and in fact run a business that serves the public. They are being required to serve the whole public and not deny serve to gays, just like many other cases we have already seen. Idaho has anti-discrimination laws which cover gays.
    In Texas, the sermons were subponeaed to find material concerning collecting signatures to repeal the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. These ministers are not in any danger of arrest, and they are of course free to preach on whatever they wish.

    Happy to help bring some facts back to the table here!

    Responses (19) +
  • [1] October 22, 2014 at 12:10pm

    If someone preaches about the evils of black people, tried to stop interracial couples from marrying, and refuses to serve black people in their business, are they hateful, or just expressing a valid opinion that needs to be accepted and respected?

    In reply to the contribution Disagreement Doesn't Automatically Equal Hate

    Responses (1) +
  • [-3] October 21, 2014 at 3:45pm

    Good for this man, showing them what real Christians look like. The owners say that he is not deserving of a loving relationship or equal treatment, but he follows Jesus’ message and turns the other cheek. He is helping the couple even after their actions. I hope this man is a lesson to many of you on here on how REAL Christians act.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-1] October 20, 2014 at 5:32pm

    The bible does call homosexuality a sin. The bible does not call “smoking dope” a sin. The bible does call women speaking in church a sin.

  • [-4] October 19, 2014 at 2:03am

    808:
    “Out of wedlock sex is a sin.”
    Ok, but gay couples can get married in most states. Soon to be nationwide.
    “Disordered same sex is a sin.”
    That sounds like married sex….
    “Consensual means between two people.”
    Yes, ask long as they both consent.
    “Sin is only against God.”
    Ok, but again, nothing sinful about being gay.

  • [-2] October 18, 2014 at 11:01pm

    Truth:
    I have no problem letting people have their own beliefs. I even wrote that in my last post. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. And of course no one can force a church to change but those within it. But I will still hope for them to see the light, and encourage them to embrace equality.

  • [-10] October 18, 2014 at 5:09pm

    The Catholic Church will take time, but even they are showing signs of recognizing gays as human beings. Now don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but there is nothing immoral or sinful about a loving consensual relationship.

    Responses (8) +
  • [1] October 17, 2014 at 8:31pm

    2God:
    So that verse doesn’t mention pigs or shellfish, but that’s what it means because you say so, and the verses on homosexuality still count while others don’t because you say so. Yeah, totally valid argument. If any sex outside of marriage is wrong, then gay couples who are married are not sinning.
    If you want to be able to discriminate against anyone you want, then other businesses need to be able to discriminate against you and anyone they want. It’s that simple.
    As for history, I happen to have a masters degree in ancient history, so yes, I know what I’m talking about here. We can trace back the earliest forms of writing, and hammurabi’s code outdates the Old Testament, monotheism, and the written form of Greek that was used to write it. there is uncertainty as to when the Old Testament was first written, but no scholarly estimates put it before hammurabi’s code. I’m sorry, these are the facts, like it or not.

    1754

  • [-1] October 17, 2014 at 7:25pm

    Sleazy:
    I certainly agree. Majority does not equal right or morality. That was never my argument, I was just correcting your claim that most people oppose it. Please see my previous comments for my actual arguments.

    Thegrt:
    “Christians in name only”. They would say the same of you. “2/3 of the population will be destroyed” and what is your basis for this argument? “not unrepentant sinners” then I guess that discounts all of you trying to deny gay people equality. There is nothing sinful about being gay.

  • [-2] October 17, 2014 at 7:16pm

    Remy:
    Actually, there are accounts of marriage that predate the Bible, and monotheism for that matter. hammurabi’s code for instance references marriage. And you can be as bigoted as you want, but that won’t make it right. And you can call yourself a Christian while trying to deny His children equality, but that won’t make it true. And legally the term is called marriage. Atheist couples who are straight still get marriages. You do not own the term.

  • [-1] October 17, 2014 at 6:39pm

    Sleazy:
    Your posts do not make me angry. They often make me shake my head, and today they make me pity your “friend” whom you are harming under the guise of helping him. Sure some gays were molested as children, so we’re plenty of straights. That really has no bearing on sexual orientation, and I think you know that. You are telling him to stay in a marriage with a woman he is not attracted to, to deny himself wholeness and a chance at happiness because of some irrational beliefs about gays. Again, shame on you. God has nothing more against gays than he has against women who speak in church, or men who shave, or people with tattoos. But you go ahead and keep cherry picking Bible verses to follow and trying to deny your brothers and sisters equality and happiness. I’m sure that’s what God wants you to do….

  • [-1] October 17, 2014 at 6:32pm

    2God:
    Hmmm nothing in that passages mentions shellfish. But if you are saying that the verses in the old testament no longer apply, why should the ones about homosexuality still apply?

    As for businesses and that whole separate issue, I am again for equality. If you want businesses to be able to discriminate, it must be legal to deny service to someone because they are black, or a woman, or Christian. But until that happens, businesses that serve the public must serve the public.

123 To page: Go