User Profile: HarryPotter

HarryPotter

Member Since: January 23, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 3:11am

    Sleazy:
    Childish name calling using big words is still childish name calling.

  • [-1] October 31, 2014 at 3:09am

    Sleazy,
    You don’t ignore any scripture? So you find no marriage valid unless the bride is a virgin? You do not allow women to speak in church? You do no eat shellfish or shave?

  • [-5] October 30, 2014 at 8:55pm

    Sleazy:
    Once again, it is not the word of God. It is your interpretation of a book written by men. And you are ignoring half the other rules in this book while condemning one in particular.

  • [2] October 30, 2014 at 7:30pm

    Obama:
    First, he said nothing at all about religion, so he hasn’t denigrated anything. Second, how it is trendy to own up to an immutable characteristic you have? And third, it is still brave because those coming out today are still ridiculed insulted, and even disowned, fired, and physically harmed. Just look at some of the hateful comments on this page and you will see why coming out and inspiring young people to be open and honest about who they are is still brave.

  • [3] October 30, 2014 at 7:26pm

    Mrca:
    Consent is required for a legal contract. That is why you can’t marry animals, children, or inanimate objects. It is fairly sad that you need this explained to you. And coming out does not tell anyone about your sex life or positions. It tells people even less about this than when you introduce your spouse or partner.

  • [-3] October 30, 2014 at 7:24pm

    Rapture:
    And yet no one can refute any of my arguments. Funny.

  • [-4] October 30, 2014 at 7:23pm

    Sleazy:
    You can argue that God whispered into the ears of those writing the Bible, but they had free will to listen or not. And Jesus did not write any of the Bible personally either. He was quoted by other men, who wrote at the earliest 100 years after his death. But that is all beside the point, yes I do consider gender equality to be a good thing, and I do not find it sinful for a woman to be a CEO or to speak in church. I do not find it sinful to shave, eat shellfish, or be gay. I hope that one day your eyes can be opened, and you learn to actually help others instead of self-righteously condemning them while ignoring the other crazy rules in that book.

  • [-1] October 30, 2014 at 6:06pm

    Rapture:
    I cited a verse verbatim and since you can’t refute what I said, you try to skirt around the issue, change the topic, and resort to childish name calling. Not surprising from you I suppose. You can’t call being gay sinful because of one or two verses, yet ignore the verses calling women speaking in church a sin, or women in positions of authority a sin.

  • [-5] October 30, 2014 at 6:02pm

    Sleazy:
    A couple things, God did not write the Bible, He had no issue with me or anyone else being gay, and the Bible is just as clear on homosexuality being sinful as it is on women speaking in church being sinful. You may think you are doing right by telling gay people how sinful they are and trying to to deny them equality, but that is the same mentality the crazy Atheists have who shout down Christians and mock their beliefs. That is not helping at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong or sinful about being gay, our relationships are just as real and loving and wholesome as straight relationships.

  • [-1] October 30, 2014 at 4:09pm

    Rapture:
    Thanks for only responding to half of my argument. However, 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” Nothing about spirituality in there.

  • [-1] October 30, 2014 at 1:20pm

    Sexual orientation, not proclivities. But do people announce that they are in relationships? Getting married? They are also telling the world the same thing as this man did.

  • [-4] October 30, 2014 at 1:18pm

    Rapture:
    The scriptures are just as clear on not allowing women to speak in church or hold positions of authority. I hope you also say this about all female CEOs…

  • [-1] October 30, 2014 at 1:16pm

    Um, there is nothing wrong or “evil” about being gay, and trying to link homosexuality to harming other just makes you look rather crazy.

  • [7] October 30, 2014 at 1:14pm

    I think most of us already knew he was gay, but good for him anyway. If you want to know why it is still brave to come out today, just read the other comments on here.

    Responses (3) +
  • [1] October 23, 2014 at 12:40pm

    Sorry, but just because you are ordained ministers does not mean you may break the law. Just because you have strong religious convictions does not mean you may break the law.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] 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.

  • [-8] 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.

  • [-3] 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.

  • [-9] 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.

  • [-6] 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.

123 To page: Go