It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro-Gay Atheist: Here’s why you should stand with Christian Mingle

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I haven't been asked about it.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: DeadFoot

Already have one, my country, I am free in it as I am armed to do so.
Challengers without strength of arms are philosophers BACKED by strength of arms.
We got this.
YOU better keep YOURS together.


Oh dear.

I'm starting to believe those who vouch for stricter mental health screenings for the purchase of firearms.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrepid

I haven't been asked about it.


And yet here we are displaying..... what?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrepid

I haven't been asked about it.


And yet here we are displaying..... what?


That it's bigger than mine





posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

There are references in the Bible that state that sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex is sinful (unclean, etc.)

It could be argued that our modern concept of "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" is a more expansive idea than merely the sexual act (and all references in the Bible seem to correlate to the Mosaic restrictions on "acceptable" sex.) and includes romantic/loving interest in others, a need to partner up and create a life with them, etc. etc.

My understanding was that Christian Mingle was a dating/marriage interest site, not strictly speaking a "hook up" site.

So, on that basis, to exclude a gay Christian (who is not "cruising for sex" but is instead focused on finding a partner) based on the Biblical restrictions on sex seems lacking.

Since Christian Mingle seems to have been directed entirely at straight Christians only (although as pointed out, that's never stated in any of their material), they might suffer some damage or loss from those Christians who don't want to be associated with gays in any way shape form or fashion. HOWEVER, I think that (or maybe hope that) Christians are evolving to see that there is more involved in "being gay" than merely the mechanics of "who puts what where."

TL;DR: The Bible condemns sexual acts between those of the same sex. Does it condemn the natural inclination to love and care about (and make a life with) someone of one's own sex? I say no.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now, depending on the interpretation and some more liberal understandings and denominations, they can open the door for homosexuality, well, so if this group is one of the more fundamental interpretations of the bible, then it would be forcing them to go against what they believe in by making them include a homosexuals option.

Also, even further if that isn't who they intended to target their sales towards, than you are essentially forcing a companies hand, which perhaps may drive away business and is not good in a professional sense, so that's my argument and understanding.


It doesn't seem to have driven business away from any of the Californian Muslim Dating sites, though.

And also, they allow you to search for married people on the site, so... It's definitely a cherry-pick tactic. I find it in rather poor taste to be crying foul about your obligation to not break the law based on your religion when you're not including discriminating against straight people who would want to break the religious law; just gay people.
edit on 6-7-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, on that basis, to exclude a gay Christian (who is not "cruising for sex" but is instead focused on finding a partner) based on the Biblical restrictions on sex seems lacking.


Yes. Because it's not a site for gay Christians. What is so damn hard about that? Google "Gay Christian websites". Loads of them. But some must push I guess.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The site is not a church so...



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Read it and find out I answered as asked.
edit on 6-7-2016 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

fair point, I'm not saying religion makes sense.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, on that basis, to exclude a gay Christian (who is not "cruising for sex" but is instead focused on finding a partner) based on the Biblical restrictions on sex seems lacking.


Yes. Because it's not a site for gay Christians. What is so damn hard about that? Google "Gay Christian websites". Loads of them. But some must push I guess.


And it's also a business in California, so...

Explain why they get to break the law when other sites who are doing the same thing aren't breaking the law.

Like I said, I think this couple is being childish and that they should just go on POF like everyone else, but what we're talking about rigt now is an exemption status from the state laws.
edit on 6-7-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

Already happening and cleared by Denver Head of VA psychiatry.
So I guess YOU wouldn't know about such things.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Not that THAT has anything to do with the subject at hand now does it?
They're getting ragged at our back and forth so it ends here.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes expecting Christianity to evolve is great im with you, yes the more liberal interpretations make just that argument that it's about love and less about the mechanics, though once again Paul's teachings are bigoted and fully support the rejection of homosexuality of any kind. We don't disagree about the principal just that these people do have scriptural support for their bigotry, and how could I not say this? I condemn Islam for it's doctrines, surely I will not allow Christianity any more leeway. I also don't like the idea of forcing people to be together who in most ways do not want to be together, so perhaps from that angle I argue about the judges ruling, and of course the scriptural support for their behavior.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, on that basis, to exclude a gay Christian (who is not "cruising for sex" but is instead focused on finding a partner) based on the Biblical restrictions on sex seems lacking.


Yes. Because it's not a site for gay Christians. What is so damn hard about that? Google "Gay Christian websites". Loads of them. But some must push I guess.


And it's also a business in California, so...


That;s cool. Got to a California woman's gym. Strip down to your skivvies and tell me how that works out.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, on that basis, to exclude a gay Christian (who is not "cruising for sex" but is instead focused on finding a partner) based on the Biblical restrictions on sex seems lacking.


Yes. Because it's not a site for gay Christians. What is so damn hard about that? Google "Gay Christian websites". Loads of them. But some must push I guess.


No, it's a site for Christians; their sexual orientation should be irrelevant UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.

There's nothing hard to understand about what you're claiming. I get it. I got it. I don't agree with you.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've been an ardent supporter of LGBT folk forever. If this is their stance, not some guilt ridden individuals, I can't support that. The Gay community wasn't fond of being screwed with forever, and now they are going to screw? Nope. Not for me.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes expecting Christianity to evolve is great im with you, yes the more liberal interpretations make just that argument that it's about love and less about the mechanics, though once again Paul's teachings are bigoted and fully support the rejection of homosexuality of any kind. We don't disagree about the principal just that these people do have scriptural support for their bigotry, and how could I not say this? I condemn Islam for it's doctrines, surely I will not allow Christianity any more leeway. I also don't like the idea of forcing people to be together who in most ways do not want to be together, so perhaps from that angle I argue about the judges ruling, and of course the scriptural support for their behavior.


All I'm saying is that I don't think, on a rational basis, that the Bible makes any claims or restrictions about homosexuals but merely about sexual acts. The fact that many Christians have interpreted the Bible to condemn homosexuals could be as simple a doctrinal difference as "dunking or sprinkling" for baptism. I think it's good for Christians to apply logic and reason to their faith (mostly because I think the more they do that the more inconsistencies they will discover) in order to see that the mere fact of "gayness" is not prohibited.

I don't think that Christian Mingle merits any sort of First Amendment protection. They are not a religious organization, they are a site offering services directed at CHRISTIANS.

All that said, since the idea of being CHristian is a lot more foreign to me at this point than the idea of being Gay is, I don't understand WHY the guys who brought the suit challenged the group in the first place. Perhaps it was nothing more than a political statement, or perhaps, as Christians, they actually and profoundly felt unjustly discriminated against.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've been an ardent supporter of LGBT folk forever. If this is their stance, not some guilt ridden individuals, I can't support that. The Gay community wasn't fond of being screwed with forever, and now they are going to screw? Nope. Not for me.



I can't speak to the validity of your motivations as to who you support and don't support.

If the actions of two guys who filed a case in CA and my subsequent argument in their favor (three people) here changed your mind about "the gay community" at large ... well, I guess there's little more to say.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: DeadFoot

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, on that basis, to exclude a gay Christian (who is not "cruising for sex" but is instead focused on finding a partner) based on the Biblical restrictions on sex seems lacking.


Yes. Because it's not a site for gay Christians. What is so damn hard about that? Google "Gay Christian websites". Loads of them. But some must push I guess.


And it's also a business in California, so...


That;s cool. Got to a California woman's gym. Strip down to your skivvies and tell me how that works out.


California women's gym is a women's gym.

Christian mingle is not straight cis-gender baptist christian dating site.

And you underestimate my charisma, sir.

That is something I could probably get away with.



new topics




 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join