@ExtraLarge said:

This is our main point of disagreement. Rights don't come from the government. Rights come from God. This is what the writers of the Constitution understood. If the government gives you something, then they can also take it away, making it a privelege instead of a right.

Dude, you need to learn some history. The "writers of the constitution" had very mixed feelings about god and religion, based on the individual - especially folks like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. You can't just make sweeping statements like that and revise history because it's convenient. Also, please tell me where in the bible it tells you your "rights". Seriously. You simply do not know what you're talking about, and it's actually starting to be pretty funny.

Honestly, in just a few short years you're going to be doing what everyone else is doing now that stood against desegregating schools - lying about which side you were on.

@cbnnexus said:

@ExtraLarge said:

This is our main point of disagreement. Rights don't come from the government. Rights come from God. This is what the writers of the Constitution understood. If the government gives you something, then they can also take it away, making it a privelege instead of a right.

Dude, you need to learn some history. The "writers of the constitution" had very mixed feelings about god and religion, based on the individual - especially folks like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. You can't just make sweeping statements like that and revise history because it's convenient. Also, please tell me where in the bible it tells you your "rights". Seriously. You simply do not know what you're talking about, and it's actually starting to be pretty funny.

Honestly, in just a few short years you're going to be doing what everyone else is doing now that stood against desegregating schools - lying about which side you were on.

It's funny that out of the many authors of the Constitution (most of whom were pastors), secularists love to point out Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as their proof that the authors were not Christian. Here is a letter written by Franklin in response to Thomas Paine, who was writing a paper against the providence of God. TO THOMAS PAINE. [Date uncertain.] DEAR SIR, I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face. But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother. I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours, B. Franklin And here is a quote from Jefferson's writings. "But let them [members of the parliament of Great Britain] not think to exclude us from going to other markets, to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, nor41 to supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The god who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" Franklin and Jefferson may not have had the most orthodox view of Christianity, but they were both clearly believers in a supreme being. As for where rights are listed in the Bible, I was not specifically referring to the Bible but to the rights that are common to all of humanity regardless of their government, but the Bible does explain this in many places, as it was the main source used when writing the U.S. Constitution.

I apologize for the format of that last post. Clearly, my text editor is lacking.

@ExtraLarge said:

Franklin and Jefferson may not have had the most orthodox view of Christianity, but they were both clearly believers in a supreme being. As for where rights are listed in the Bible, I was not specifically referring to the Bible but to the rights that are common to all of humanity regardless of their government, but the Bible does explain this in many places, as it was the main source used when writing the U.S. Constitution.

A belief in god does not equate with bigotry. Neither does being Christian necessarily. The argument here is not about religion. It is about bigotry. However, that being said, Benjamin Franklin also wrote many letters to friends debating about women's rights, notably against them, describing women as "lesser" creatures.

If antiquity impresses you so much that you'll justify your bigotry with long dead zealots, sexist and racist statesmen, and of course the bible, than there is no hope for you but to either strive for epiphany or simply wait to die off. There is no place for it in the future, however you rationalize it - you know, the same way bigoted folks have rationalized it for millennia: with religion and antiquity.

@ExtraLarge said:

@ExtraLarge said:

Some people are for gay marriage. Most are against it. Why is it that the minority of people who are gay or gay supporters demand to be tolerated, but they themselves cannot be tolerant of those whose beliefs oppose their own? Both sides have the right to stand for what they believe in,

Because the those who against gay marriage have been so benevolent themselves, right? I respect your right to be against gay marriage, but I don't agree with imposing that view on other people's life. It's just like I respect people right to be racist and sexist just as long as they don't impose laws to interfere with people's life. Live and let live, that's my philosophy. When you see a gay couple, just think that they're playing house instead of a real marriage and move on. Like I said, you have the right to invalidate their marriage but forcing people to live according to your view seems a bit heartless to me. I feel like government should provide rights for people. Throughout history, it has been proven that the majority is not always right, and it was up to the government and the justice system to protect the rights of the minority.

This is our main point of disagreement. Rights don't come from the government. Rights come from God. This is what the writers of the Constitution understood. If the government gives you something, then they can also take it away, making it a privelege instead of a right.

If you don't agree with the anti-homosexuality view being imposed on other people, you should see why the other side doesn't want the pro-homosexual view imposed on people, and when it's taking up valuable pages of X-Men, it's being imposed.

Storm is a pagan witch who was worshiped as/and worships, a Goddess, Broo is an alien, Phoenix is a cosmic deity that could own Jesus Christ in the comic book world, Thor is a God who's mother is an Earth Goddess...........................Why is THIS such an attack on the Christian community?

Heterosexuality has been shoved down my throat since birth, and that was never me. I've been IMPOSED on for a great many years, between my skin color and my sexuality, I've been pretty screwed in this country. For me, there is no "other side" to understand. It's double-standard bull.

@Redberry said:

@ExtraLarge said:

Some people are for gay marriage. Most are against it. Why is it that the minority of people who are gay or gay supporters demand to be tolerated, but they themselves cannot be tolerant of those whose beliefs oppose their own? Both sides have the right to stand for what they believe in,

Because the those who against gay marriage have been so benevolent themselves, right? I respect your right to be against gay marriage, but I don't agree with imposing that view on other people's life. It's just like I respect people right to be racist and sexist just as long as they don't impose laws to interfere with people's life. Live and let live, that's my philosophy. When you see a gay couple, just think that they're playing house instead of a real marriage and move on. Like I said, you have the right to invalidate their marriage but forcing people to live according to your view seems a bit heartless to me. I feel like government should provide rights for people. Throughout history, it has been proven that the majority is not always right, and it was up to the government and the justice system to protect the rights of the minority.

QFT.

I looked up bigotry. It is the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. By that definition, I am proud to be a bigot because there are several beliefs I am stubbornly and completely intolerant of, such as pedophelia or slavery. I am not biggoted toward homosexuals, nor have you seen me say anything hateful toward anyone on here. I may have a stubborn and complete disagreement with them, but certainly not intolerance. I have several gay friends and family members and I have nothing but love for them as people. While I may not agree with the choices they have made in life, I still value the places they have in my life.

I'm done with this topic. To all my dissenters, agree to disagree. This is eating way too much of my time.

@ExtraLarge said:

I have several gay friends and family members and I have nothing but love for them as people. While I may not agree with the choices they have made in life, I still value the places they have in my life.

The fact that you allude that "gay" is a choice only proves how ignorant you are. Oh, and nice twist on the word bigoted. Nicely done. Congratulations - you took one of the most negative adjectives in the English language and rationalized it to be a positive attribute for yourself. You must be very proud.

Good riddance buddy. Good riddance.

@ExtraLarge said:

I looked up bigotry. It is the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. By that definition, I am proud to be a bigot because there are several beliefs I am stubbornly and completely intolerant of, such as pedophelia or slavery. I am not biggoted toward homosexuals, nor have you seen me say anything hateful toward anyone on here. I may have a stubborn and complete disagreement with them, but certainly not intolerance. I have several gay friends and family members and I have nothing but love for them as people. While I may not agree with the choices they have made in life, I still value the places they have in my life.

So you got gay friends but can't tolerate a few issues of a comic's plot being given over to a perfectly reasonable gay storyline that reflects what happens in the real world? This storyline is merely a reflection of the real world and is being handled in a grounded and non-partisan way. There is nothing sensational, salacious or promotional about it. It's hardly being written as a 'Be gay! Be gay!' type of story. It's not being ridiculous, such as casting Christians as pantomime villains. It's not mocking anyone's faiths or beliefs. No-one is being forced to read it should they so strongly disagree with it. Would you prefer that gay people and aspects of life are conveniently ignored in fictional media?

If anything, this comic arc just serves to remind us that people are people regardless of religious beliefs or sexual preference. Just like you and your gay friends are. Marvel also have characters with strong Christian beliefs and views similar to yours, for example Wolfsbane in X-Factor. I remember an excellent story arc a few years back where her reaction to Rictor being gay was one of shock and fueled by the belief that it was a sin. This too was all handled in a perfectly non-sensational and balanced manner.

Put it this way, there's plenty of people out there that don't agree with your beliefs I'm sure, but it would be equally wrong for them to complain were a comic/show/etc portray your lifestyle and beliefs in a realistic, non-provocative, non-judgmental manner. I respect your right to disagree with the idea of gay lifestyles, etc, but I don't agree when people use those beliefs to advocate the censorship of another person's beliefs that run contrary to theirs.

@ExtraLarge said:

It's funny that out of the many authors of the Constitution (most of whom were pastors), secularists love to point out Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as their proof that the authors were not Christian. Here is a letter written by Franklin in response to Thomas Paine, who was writing a paper against the providence of God. TO THOMAS PAINE. [Date uncertain.] DEAR SIR, I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face. But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother. I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours, B. Franklin And here is a quote from Jefferson's writings. "But let them [members of the parliament of Great Britain] not think to exclude us from going to other markets, to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, nor41 to supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The god who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" Franklin and Jefferson may not have had the most orthodox view of Christianity, but they were both clearly believers in a supreme being. As for where rights are listed in the Bible, I was not specifically referring to the Bible but to the rights that are common to all of humanity regardless of their government, but the Bible does explain this in many places, as it was the main source used when writing the U.S. Constitution.

You aware that if you want us to use what our founding father intended then we should also include Three-fifths Compromise, right? Society evolves all the time. I'm not faulting you for thinking that gay marriage is wrong. I just think that your line of reasoning is centered around what you think is right and wrong. You need to find a universal argument against gay marriage like how it could cause detrimental harm to society as a whole. Something that I find hard to prove. Gay marriage has been legalized in countries such as Canada, and nothing happens. All of Canadians didn't turn gay. Religion is not a good excuse because not all people believe in the same thing, so they shouldn't follow what your religion dictated.

I wish people would leave "I have ____ friends, so I can't be ____" argument alone. Plenty of racist people have black and Asian friends. Sometimes, intolerance is not as transparent as people may think. You don't need to like it, hell, you can think of it as disgusting or such, just as long as you don't use that belief to take away people's rights.

O_O I understand why the moms are against it but if you don't want your kid to read it don't buy them the comic. It's x-men there is a dozen or more titles under the brand just chose another one.

Besides northstar isn't the hero i think kids are even aware of or want to be lol He's kind of obscure to the mainstream

@ExtraLarge said:

I looked up bigotry. It is the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. By that definition, I am proud to be a bigot because there are several beliefs I am stubbornly and completely intolerant of, such as pedophelia or slavery. I am not biggoted toward homosexuals, nor have you seen me say anything hateful toward anyone on here. I may have a stubborn and complete disagreement with them, but certainly not intolerance. I have several gay friends and family members and I have nothing but love for them as people. While I may not agree with the choices they have made in life, I still value the places they have in my life.

So you're proud to be a bigot? That's not something to be proud of if I'm honest.

These are some people I fail to understand, for example:

You read X-men, a comic book that tell the story of people that because are born diferent than the rest of society suffer segregation, persecution and extermination.

Yet, you are homophobic and get angry because one of the characters is gay and marries another guy.

I fail to undestand this logic, do you read and pretend you do not understand the comics? Do you really like X-men, or just say you like cause "it's cool"?