Why do Christians have a problem with Homosexuals?
Apparently EVERYTHING is sin. Why bother worrying about it? We're BORN sinners, might as well enjoy it.
(This is said with my tongue in my cheek)What a fine morning it is too. Good mornin Glass, Brenda and all
It is, isn't it? I don't know about where you are, but we've got some sun here for once, and the snow is beginning to MELT...yay!! We've been pretty much snowed in since before Christmas here (with the exception of a day or two here and there...thank God, or else we'd be out of groceries and water!)
I always say that the same people that waste time out of their lives being against gays are the same types of people that murdered Jesus the king.
Because they are homophobic. It is taught in the bible along with a pile of other intolerant crap.
I really really do believe that homophobia plays a big part in it too. Im straight and can't see how so many people lose sleep over the matter lol glad i'm not them.
It is also part of society outside religion though religion may have originally been the catalyst.
Most people do not have a problem with homosexuals.
What I have a problem with is anyone coming up to me, Boldly saying here I am... This is who and what I am and you have to accept me into your life.
It doesn't matter who or what they are, or what they are doing, they do not have the right to come up in my yard and say here I am, I'm staying right here, deal with it.thats the only choice they have because they are constantly being snubbed out just like blacks used to get murdered and enslaved until they boldly stood up and said here I am deal with it. I use blacks as an example because American society used to be just as disgusted if not more by black skin as they were and are of homosexuals. It used to be just as repulsive blacks marrying whites as same sex couples. Most people do have a problem against homosexuals just because they are different.
Thats alittle dramatic Leonard. Christians like gays well enough it's the adultry, sodomy and the agenda thats the problem. If they didn't act out and kept their sexual behavior to themselves and in their community there would be no problem.
At the center of my comment was, Coming up in "MY yard" saying Here I am, here I am goina stay. deal with it.
I don't want anyone coming up saying here I am deal with it. I don't gotta deal with it. I have too much other stuff to deal with.
When I see you in the restraunt you have my respect as a person regardless of who you are. Now if while standing there, you start telling me how you cheat at checkers and you took your moms car out last night without her knowing and wrecked it. or that you are homosexual or a repo man: You may loose some of the respect that I had had for you.
If I told you all about myself you might loose a little respect for me.
Even if you are two heterosexuals, I don't want to watch "Toooo" much expression of your love for each other while I am eating dinner.
You should just do what works for you; and like the rest of us short, fat, ugly people do, that are discriminated against.
Deal with it.
Everyone is at least a little choosey as to who they want to hang out with.
That is how I see it anyway..
The more tolerant the society, the more you will see homosexuals. In my city many live in the centre of the city where a lot of worldly people live. Areas where the less tolerant seem to accumulate have very few homosexuals, they are ostracised in these places and avoid them.
My favourite coffee shop is in down-town Prahran in the inner city.
Many straights who enjoy conversation go there to chat. I have been frequenting the gay coffee houses for many years and never, not once have I been hit on.
The thing about homosexuals that stands out is their acceptance.
I guess they learn a lot about empathy by being outcast by homophobes, sometimes even in their own family.- brotheryochananposted 15 years ago
0I had trouble with homosexuality before i was saved. I thought lesbians should not be allowed to use dildos since they gave up that right by choosing women. And the idea of men sucking other men just gave me the shivers.
Im glad god thinks the same way i did. I'd hate to have to be a homosexual to please god. I'd quit christianity. As it is i have a hard enough time thinking the best of them now, thank god they can change. Male and female is best. God is all wise.Oh my God! I can't believe you said that............but then again, you have your opinion....i just struggle with your thoughts I must say. homosexuality seems to always come down to sex and nothing about people, friendship, relationships and love or anything else. isn't that what it is all about?
The thought of me having sex with a women digust me and makes me ill all day!. That's why I'm a gay man and you are a hetero man. Come on, Think about it.
me too Friendly - the thoughts of sex with a woman! LOL! just kidding...
Cause christians are intellectually and emotionally challenged by their dependence on the wisdom of long dead, bronze-aged men who had very limited knowledge and understanding.
PS: AS LONG AS HUBPAGES ALLOWS THIS DANGEROUS HATE SPEECH TO GO ON IN THEIR FORUMS AND HUBS; I'M GOING TO ANSWER IN THE STONGEST TERMS I KNOW HOW. I DONT GIVE A DAMM WHAT THEIR REASONING IS FOR ALLOWING IT TO GO ON. CHRISTIANS ARE NO LONGER FED TO LIONS FOR THEIR SICK TWISTED ACTS. YET THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DEATHS OF INNOCENT HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN EVERY DAY. THE PEOPLE THAT ALLOW THIS CULT TO SPREAD THEIR DANGEROUS SICK TWISTED HATE SPEECH ARE JUST AS GUILTY AS THE TRUE BLIEVERS THAT INCITE MURDER OF HOMOSEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN. SHAME ON ANYBODY THAT ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN IN A SUPPOSEDLY FREE MODERN SOCIETY.
Why do Christians have a problem with Homosexuals?
I don't think that this is an honest question!
Why do SOME Christians SEEM to have a problem with Homosexuality?
OR
Why do some Christians seem to FOCUS on it so much like it is the worlds greatest problem?
We can not say these things about all Christians any more than we can say that All homosexual are this way or that way
It's kinda like saying that a dog with a white spot on its head bit me! therefore I don't like dogs with spots on their head because they have a tendency to bite.
OR Barking dogs bother me. All that I ever hear dogs do is bark. I don't like dogs cause barking is all that they ever do.
WE DON'T EVER HEAR THE DOGS THAT DON'T BARK ????
WE FORGET ALL ABOUT THEM.Basically because they think everyone in the world must follow their rules...
Dear me. As I said - no morals.
Calling your God an invisible super Daddy is not creating a strawman argument. You are the one creating the strawman.
Once again I will repeat what I said as your morals apparently allow you to use semantics to avoid the discussion. This is what I said:
I stand by it. But very, very well done distracting the conversation away from what I said.;
What exactly is wrong with eating some one else? Inherently? Nothing. By concensus - at that time it was morally acceptable. Now - we have jointly decided that it is not. Maybe if the two of us were stuck in an airplane in the Andes with a dead companion and no food - we might change our minds?2 against 1, Fun!
@ mark- either didn't the entire post or you're intentionally being obtuse, either way I’ve made my point. Have a good day.
@ Q- you finally wrote a hub congrats.
Let's define the terms
ideology- the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
How is "helping mankind” defined? Killing humans once they reach 65? Liberal overpopulation fanatics would think so. Or killing everyone born with a physical or mental birth defect? Hitler(before you say Hitler was a Christian ask yourself, "what teaching of Jesus was he following?") and Stalin thought they were helping mankind by doing these things and used evolutionism as a way to justify it.
Since we know evolution is based on a 5000 year old pagan myth, and based on the correct definitions and your "logic". Evolutionism is a bad ideology with religious overtones and has caused the worst atrocities. Have a good day!You are the one being obtuse spider. You have continued to ignore what I said in favor of persuading me that you are qualified to tell me what I should be doing. And the only point you have made is to back mine up. Thank you. You are more interested in propagating your morally bankrupt religion than understanding and moving forward.
You need not make stuff up to support your position, that is dishonest.
Why do you make stuff up like that? Can't you find any facts to support your argument?
Again, you are fabricating information to support your argument, why are you doing that?
I can now see why Mark continually states Christians have no morals whatsoever. It would appear that fabricating information to support an argument trumps all.You got to be kidding me, right. You are committing the Pious Fraud fallacy. Denial of the facts I provided does not equal proof for your side.
It can be defined in making sure there are no ideologies that would conquer and divide us, that we are humans, not puppet slaves to invisible and undetectable super beings.
well, now, if I could try to explain how "energetically" speaking, homosexuality or heterosexuality are not the Ultimate goals...but androgyny is...would that help find common ground for peace...?
the missing link in understanding life about health and disease is the concept of energy that animates our being (i.e.chi, prana, life force). This energy from God/Universe is intended to flow in a specific way through the electromagnetic field into meridians and chakras and into the physical body's systems and organs...when there is distortion/blockage of flow created by our free will choices away from that original flow, that allows other energies to come into what was originally a pure stream of energy and eventually diverts that pure energy into impure flows.
everyone on the planet has some degree of impure flow, to put it simply...and we are here to clean up our flow and get back to the original clarity of flow
homosexuality and some aspects of heterosexuality -in the acts of sex_-are just two small points on the spectrum that can create "diverted" flow from purity and the manifested consequences of that "blockage/distortion"...
who is less "sinful" than another is not our call, because we can't see the whole picture because we are in our own impure world of living...
but we can see the Truth missing in abuses of free will, manipulations, violences, murder and the seven deadly sins as well as child abuses, just to name a few- Brenda Durhamposted 15 years ago0
Wonderful.
More "friendly words" that aren't friendly at all, comparing a Christian to cultists and terrorists.
And someone still wonders why Christians have a problem with homosexuals! Typical and obvious attack on anyone who boldly opposes the gay agenda.False Christians compare Homosexuals to murderers and child molesters. You should have left us alone. You hurt me I'm gonna hurt you back. You want me to kiss your hand after you slap me in my face? That's why I call it a cult. Because of the senseless cult behavior.
It is you and others who speak as you do that are "cult-like".
And it's the "Christians" who agree with your erroneous accusations and agenda that are "cult-like".
IF the gay agenda wasn't being blatantly shoved into the faces of Americans and anyone else in general, trying to legalize things that should be personally-dealt-with individually, then you might not get responded to at all. So it's obvious that you WANT a reaction, you NEED to hear the Truth, so you and others make threads and posts like this thread in order to HEAR the Truth that you then so foolishly decide to not even listen to, but use as an attack on those of us who DO speak the Truth.
God hates all sin. Not just homosexuality. But you don't see thieves making threads asking people to say "hey it's okay if you steal, I'm sure you can't help stealing, I'll even help you make it legal to steal, and hey God never condemns stealing, Jesus was sooooooo tolerant and politically-correct".
I didn't hurt you by speaking Biblical Truths. Maybe you still have a conscience left and THAT hurt you. That would actually be a good thing. That would mean you're not so far gone that you can't get forgiveness for your sins. Lash out at me all you want, but it's you who needs to consider your own problems and get help for them instead of whining and trying to shove them off onto someone else and never taking personal responsibility for them yourself.
I think, and it looks like to me, from many posts around here, that most people assume that every Christian abides by Catholicism or the standards/non-standards that Church touts, where abortion is wrong but pedophilia is covered under their umbrella of religiosity, and where homosexuality is...well...honestly I have no idea of the Catholic Church's stance on that; I only know that the word of God does NOT condone it anymore than it condones any other sin. I'm personally quite tired of people confusing the Church with Christianity. While there are many Catholics who are Christians I'm sure, I do want to say that the two words are NOT synonymous.
Would opposing the "gay agenda" be friendly, Brenda?
Or, are your actions and words that of a cult member?
You have just answered these questions.Cult members dont feel shame or regret.(You will never get a reply that includes either of these sentiments.) They dont feel their words are hateful or intended to cause harm to innocent people. That's why they are so shocked by the PERSONAL ATTACKS we heap on them. They have no idea why we are not accepting their words of love and fellowship and screaming Glory Hallelujah Sisters!
"Why do Christians have a problem with Homosexuals?"
I'm Christian and I don't have any problem with homosexuals. I think people who say they are "Christians" and condemn others because they are different (either because of sexual preference, color, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or other forms of identity) don't really understand the core values of Jesus Christ's teachings, examples and moral.
Jesus never judged others and he always preached and above that, like a true spiritual leader, he ACTED with benevolence, compassion, sympathy and love for everyone. So my stance as a Christian is, if Jesus never judge and condemned others, WHO AM I to do that?
Peace!If you're a Christian, you need to read your Bible, or read it again, or read it better. Jesus IS the ultimate Judge, and yes He did "judge" people when He was on earth. He "judged" both the religious people and the sinners. He cut them all some slack in order to show them He Loved them and His intent to DIE for them, for us all!! But those of you who are watering-down the Gospel continue to intentionally (and quite conveniently for the leftists including gay activists) dismiss His words of "Go and sin no more". They (and you) want to stop after the word "Go".
It doesn't work that way. At least not with Christianity nor with God. It only works for your agenda and caters to the anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-traditional-marriage activists/proponents who demean and verbally assault those who have the guts to come out of the namby-pamby diluted religious closet and boldly proclaim that, yes, sin is WRONG and some sins that are so blatantly shoved in the faces of others and down others' throats are shameful, totally shameful because they're proclaimed as being right under the umbrella of political correctness and accusations of hatred at the dismissal of all conscience.
I guess you have the legal right to be "politically correct" and insinuate that Christians are not only haters of gays but also racist and bigoted and all that, like you've done above in your post, but in so doing, you're only proving your own bias and/or lack of understanding. You tickle the ears of the haters of Jesus and Christianity in general. Well, I'm sure that's enjoyable to feel like everyone likes you because you're so "accepting" and "tolerant" and "modern-thinking" and all that. But which do you (as a "Christian") really want? To be liked, or to speak the Truth in hopes of someone's soul being saved either now or later?
So far, looks like you've chosen the former. And indeed you are not alone! It's the on-going habit around here among several who claim Christ, to be first in line to soothe the feelings of gay-proponents while ignoring the state of their souls. There IS power in those numbers, very effective so far, but it is not the Power of God that you wield, it is not His word that you speak. Apparently you fear the backlash from those who hated Him just like they hate anyone who stands with Him.
If Jesus walked the earth today, He would not condone homosexuality, just as He did not condone it then. Neither did He condone any other sins. What He did was tell everyone that He is the WAY OUT of all sins, the WAY to forgiveness for all sins.
Because people did not succeed in turning Christ into that watered-down version of Himself they wanted, and He didn't cave in, and it led to His death, they now label Him with it, thinking He's not really around to speak Biblical Truths to them anymore. Well, He IS around! You just can't literally call for His crucifixion again because He already went through that; so you attempt to crucify His name and reputation again, labeling Him a wishy-washy man of "tolerance" and "peace" and forgetting that He is the Savior and the God who not only can and will overturn the tables but will send you and everyone to the place of their choosing----heaven or hell.Your world must be a very scary place. Some of us wonder how you can live in it.
My world is an exciting place of deep Truths and the knowledge of good and evil that surrounds us all, and it is a place of Spiritual battles, but most of all it is a place of the Peace of God that passes all human understanding.
I can understand that you'd rather not live in this world of mine. You'd rather live in a state of apathy, never listening to the voice of conscience, never having to argue with anyone, easing your mind with the sand your head is buried in.We live on earth. It is a place in which humans attempt to get along with one another, however there are some very bad ideologies that exist here in which those who do not meet the standards of others are hated and alienated, even when those who hate and alienate do the very same things as those they hate and alienate. Those people live in your world.
I would not want to live in a world where I am forced to hate and alienate others for acts I committed myself. Why do you?But, didn't you say you got divorced? Isn't that a sin?
It can be.
The divorce of mine in widespread question around here was NOT, because I had Biblical reason.
However, yes, there are many other sins besides homosexuality of course. And I've stated several times around here, even, that the laws of divorce should be stricter in my opinion.
Another however is that I'm not publicly advocating for people to condone my divorce nor any divorce; I'm not shoving it in the faces of people in my community nor my country. And divorce comes, at the very least, from a situation that IS normal---traditional marriage---instead of a perversion. At the hand of that perverted agenda here, I've been called upon to defend myself concerning my divorce, which is much different from a scenario if I were to be posting thread after thread after thread asking people to please listen to my whining and condone my blatant sin.
However, if you (and others) would like to discuss that topic, you're perfectly free to go make a thread about it and see if you get responses. That would be much more "tolerant" and "civil" than it would be to harrass me in this thread which has nothing to do with the subject.
So why not go ahead and make a thread. You might start a whole new political activism agenda against divorce in America or wherever you live. You might be the catalyst that warns people about the hazards of getting divorced and how sinful it is! Do something good with your opinions! Be a rebel! Be a patriot! Set right the wrong things! Save the people from themselves and from each other! I wish you the best. But I bet you won't do it, 'cause I don't think you have it in your heart to try to keep marriages together. Looks to me like you're only interested in avoiding the subject of this thread.What biblical reason, exactly?
No one is harassing you because your divorce, which is a sin has everything to do with the subject. You can't accuse others of sin when you yourself have sinned.
Not really, it's just that it would quite hypocritical for those who sin to complain about others who sin, don't you think?What I think is that many people (like you, perhaps?) don't want ANY rules of conduct in their lives nor in anyone's life; they want a free-for-all with no fear of being held to accountability. Which would, of course, ensue in chaos. That's what I think.
So, there was no biblical reasons.
Sorry Brenda, people don't need religions to tell them how to live. Christianity creates conflict and chaos, the words of Christians here are undeniable proof of that.
We are held accountable, Brenda, to ourselves and those we love, not to the myths and superstitions of the past.
And, of course, I've never been divorced.Yes, there was a Biblical reason for it. I've said that before. Look it up if you want to in the Bible.
However, I'm not sinless. I've never claimed to be. No one is.
It's just that my sins are now covered under the blood of Jesus because I REPENTED and turned from my former wicked ways. I emphasize REPENTED because these days even the churches are often prone to downplaying that very necessary aspect of forgiveness.
And no, we're not just held accountable to ourselves and those we love; we're held accountable to Christ Himself, the only sinless man that ever lived.
Homosexuals, at least the most outspoken ones that I've had occasion to see speaking or to meet, refuse to even admit that they are sinning, so they will never be able to accept forgiveness and stop that sinning until they're willing to admit that it's sin. They cannot "go, and sin no more" as long as they keep running away from the Holy Spirit's conviction.
Good for you that you've never been divorced.
...eh...have you ever been married in the first place? (Just thought I'd ask; your statement could be a tricksy one. lol)
So....since we all sin, why do you think you have the right to try to condemn me because of my sin? Isn't that the very reason you're so upset with me to start with, because you think I judge others?
A reminder----Jesus DID "judge" sin. He told the prostitute to Go and SIN NO MORE. What made the difference between her and the men who were gonna stone her?--------she STAYED and allowed the Lord to convince her of her sin; she didn't run away like her accusers did; she had hope of repentance because she placed herself in a position to actually hear from Jesus and be "preached to"; therefore she found forgiveness.
But indeed, since you're not a Believer, you're not going by any old rules, I'm sure.Then, I don't think you can be sure your repent has any validity since there is no one to confirm that other than yourself, and of course, no one can be sure of their status with Jesus, right?
Whether Christ is a myth or not, he's long gone and we are not accountable to him any longer. That was hundreds and hundreds of years ago, Brenda. It's time to move on and let the past rest in peace.
Perhaps, they think your version of sin is irrelevant to them and they have already decided to take their chances in the afterlife, if that is what they believe. Lets not forget that prisons overflow with Christians who have also sinned and have decided to take their chances with their god. You have nothing to worry about if you already believe Jesus will send them to hell. Done deal, right?
That is their choice to make, not yours.
I'm not condemning you, Brenda, I'm simply reminding you that glass houses can be easily broken with rocks.
If you mean, am I going by any old rules such as the bible, I would say I am not. I am also not going by the rules of Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, etc. etc. etc.
But then, neither do you abide by those rules, so that makes it such that we are very much the same in that regard, except that you decided on one set of rules out of many because you believe they are THE god given rules on which to abide."Homosexuals, at least the most outspoken ones that I've had occasion to see speaking or to meet, refuse to even admit that they are sinning"
You're half right Brenda. I'm guilty of many sins over the span of my life. None of my sins involve who I love, who I have sex with or how I have sex with them. It's not a sin or a crime against man or GOD. Face up to your real sins and stop making Gay Men your means of distracting GOD from your evil ways.
Even if you were successful in turning away GODS attention to me; dont you realize I'm washed in the same blood of Jesus that is on you? Glory Halelujah!Interesting.
I want to hear your testimony of your conversion, then, about how you became born-again.
(Hint: that requires....repentance...which would mean that you would no longer be a practicing homosexual or a practicing adulteress or adulterer or thief or whatever your temptation is.)I thought I made it clear I'm not a Cult follower! I dont practice rituals. Being born once was more than enough for me. From the age of twelve I knew I was responsible for my sins from then on. Whatever sins I commited since; I pray that God will not judge me to harshly. But I accept the consequences of my actions. I think group religions are evil and dangerous. You no longer feel accountable, so you act out in the worst way and harm innocent people.
Well, I've been scouring the bible as you suggested and have found that well beyond a shadow of a doubt, your soul will be sent to hellfire for an eternity, Brenda, for divorcing your husband and committing adultery. Sorry to hear that.
Are you concerned about me, then, Q?
If so, tell me how I can be saved. I want to know if you understand how a person can be saved.
I don't know, Brenda, you really don't seem very peaceful, or at peace, however you want to put it.
As far as how I live, my conscience guides me in everything I do, and I am very much a part of the real world. Did you know that I was once nominated for a religious title in high school? Teachers nominated me based upon my behavior and the way I treated others, not realizing that I did not believe in God. I was one of only three students chosen, out of 600. What do you think of that? I'm curious to know. I thought it was fascinating that just because I conducted myself a certain way, it was assumed that I was religious. Of course, some extremely pious individuals were overlooked. What do you think of that?What do I think of that?
...I think you should've been "vetted" better before anyone considered nominating you! Because you say you didn't even believe in God. I think they were looking for a leader-type that apparently you were, but they overlooked the basic "job description"! I think they acted foolishly.
Did you accept the nomination or not?
I will add that my opinion is nothing against you personally, and I'd imagine you're a likeable friendly person, but since you asked me, that's my opinion of it---that they were foolish to try to fill the position with someone who didn't fit the position or mission or whatever it was.The teachers nominated, and the students voted. I quietly requested that people not vote for me. If they asked why, I told them.
The "vetting" was based upon them knowing me and the type of person I was for four years. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? You automatically assume that atheists don't have a conscience or moral compass. Apparently, when people are judged solely on who they are and how they conduct themselves, and not on what they worship, it becomes evident that believing in God is not a prerequisite for being a good person.Sure.
However, you said it was a "religious" position, and you mentioned it was God you didn't believe in. So I can safely assume it was a Christian-based position?
My answer is this-----you still didn't fit the position, no matter how well you conducted yourself. Because the Bible says that being "good", being a "good" person, is not enough and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things! What matters is whether you're a follower of Christ/God or whether you're not.
That was one of the hardest things for me personally to understand and overcome....the fact that I (and others) saw myself as "good" when I was a teenager, yet I still needed to be born-again. I didn't do wrong things. I didn't rebel against my parents (at that time anyway); I was quiet and never caused any trouble. I was a "good" person. But yet, at church, I kept being prayed for and called upon to make the choice to accept Christ. I finally figured it out. Being "good" didn't matter in the eternal aspect of it. For one thing, the Bible says there is no one "good" except God. I had to accept that fact; I had to accept His sovreignty and His Love before I was a child of His. It's not about us in the long run. It's about HIM. We can never rightly claim to speak "for" Him unless we make that commitment to Him."Because the Bible says that being "good", being a "good" person, is not enough and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things! What matters is whether you're a follower of Christ/God or whether you're not."
I offer a very enlightening quote about this, for the First Corinthians Letters
" Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity."What is it with these new age “Christians” with their erasable bibles with only the happy, feel good parts? Go back a read the entire thing, please. Jesus Christ spoke more about hell than about heaven and said that the majority of people are heading there. In Matthew 7.13-14, He said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
So the most loving thing Christians can do warn them. Show them that they are sinners and are in need of a Saviour, that's real love.
"Jesus said that people "will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" and into "the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," (Matthew 8:12 and Matthew 13:42). In the verses Mark 9:42-48, Jesus said that if a hand, foot or an eye caused you to sin, it would be better to lose it and enter heaven maimed than to be tossed into hell because of the sin it causes. Because, Jesus said, in hell the worm doesn't die and the fire is never quenched. The fire represents external torment and the worm describes internal torment, neither of which ever end. There are many other verses which describe hell as a terrible, dark place of eternal, fearful punishment."
"1 John 4:8 says that "God is love." He has proved this love to the world through His Son Jesus. However, little thought is given to the fact that He is also Holy, Righteous and Just and that He will do exactly what John 3:36 says will be done ... "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
You've made the mistake of assuming a God of love can't be a God of Justice. If you love someone and see them ruining themselves (stealing, drugs, adultery, homosexuality, promiscuity) don't you get concerned, worried maybe even angry, of course you do, not despite your love, but because of your love for them. Anger isn't the opposite of love, hate is and the final form of hate is indifference ("I don't care" "do what you want, peace" the position you've taken based on your entries here))
Source: an article by Mick Alexander entitled "The Reality Of Hell"Again, I offered a respectful comment and yet I'm bashed by someone who doesn't know me. I HAVE NEVER offended anyone here, much less you; so I demand for the same respect. I don't have anything against "New Age" followers, but I think the tone of your remark is offensive, since you are attaching a label to me in order to try to delegitimize my comments and my believes (which BTW are shared my many). Now that issue is off my chest...
I'm contributing specific quotes related to the particular issue at hand, I think that is the responsible thing to do. Maybe later, when I have more time, I can comment on the specific quotes that you offered.
On the other hand, I don't think homosexuality belongs in the same bag that stealing, addictions, adultery and promiscuity. That's my opinion but I will not try to impose it on you or others. I don't believe I'm the owner of any truth. I just try to be the best person that I can be (I already shared those thoughts in another comments).
You said... "I don't care" "do what you want, peace" the position you've taken based on your entries here."
I was answering Brenda Durham's question, and of course you don't have to care about what I or others want or believe. But if you don't care, why the need to offer me your attention?
Finally, for the sake of others (since you already said that you don't care what I think) I believe in the merciful, loving and just God that Jesus taught about, not the enraged, vengeful God that is everywhere in the OLD testament.They're the same God.
The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. The book of John explains this. Jesus is the manifestation of God in the flesh.
John also explains the subject of Judgement. Actually, Jesus Himself explains it in the book of John.
It tells us that all judgement has been committed unto the Son. John 5: 22 says "For the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgement unto the Son".
When we of course reconcile that with the fact that Jesus IS God, we realize that it means that mankind is no longer under the strict Old Testament rules that were literal rules and not Spiritual ones. Just like animal sacrifice is no longer required because Jesus gave His life as the ultimate sacrifice. But what it does NOT mean is that the two are separate Gods."They're the same God.
The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. "
I feel that I must clarify my words, since that was not my meaning.
Since the books that comprise the Old Testament and the New Testament were written by various authors and in different historical contexts (I hope we can agree on that), what I meant is that I believe in the view or interpretation of God that permeates in the New Testament (which comes from Jesus teachings and actions) rather than the notion that permeates in the Old Testament.
Ms Durnham, thanks for making me be more clear. I sincerely appreciate it. Take care!
So, you believe you speak "for" God and that you have a right to do so?
Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
I try to never judge anyone.Can't say that I don't ever fall into that trap but I try not to. I know that we are supposed to use discernment of peoples character before we choose to have a relationship with them.... Kinda like... It don't matter what ya say ,, if ya hang out in a tattoo parlor long enough you will get one.
I don't generally hang out with people that I don't have something in common with. I seldom hang out with anyone. I'm not really a hanging out kind of guy. Been doing more ot that here on HP than I should.
One thing that I learned at an early age is that we gotta be careful what we hate and how we go about hating it cause it is too easy to become worse than thee thing that we are hating.
And every minute that we spend thinking about what other people are doing is a minute that we are neglecting our own faults.
If Christians can truly be more like Christ , more like the loving and understanding side of his personality FIRST before we moved on to the judging part. There wouldn't be so much judging needing to be done.
One of my burdens in life is this thing about Judging others. Jesus said to give him our burdens. So I do. I want him to do all of my judging for me. This way I feel that I wont be judged for a job improperly done.
Something like that anyway. Gotta get outa here for a short while back later.There would need to be no "judging" at all if people didn't shove their agenda into other people's faces, like this thread does. This thread ASKS a question, and I have the guts to answer it without reservation. The Bible speaks time after time after time about Jesus's Love for EVERYONE; His sacrifice is common knowledge even to those who kick against it. They refuse to acknowledge that, however, and conversely expect Christians to stop right there and label Jesus as a wimpy God of political tolerance, something He is not. Any Christian can see what's happening here.
Those who want to lend a hand to sinners need to actually PULL some of them out of the fire instead of telling them it's okay to BE in the fire. And the way to do it is to fight fire with fire (for those who're in so deep that they won't acknowledge His sacrifice) because the Spirit of conviction is what the Holy Spirit DOES----it convinces the sinner of sin and it COMFORTS the new Believer.
You'll never make a difference by telling them it's okay to stay in the pit.
It may not even make a difference by me telling them they're IN the pit!
But at least I will have tried.
At least I will have carried the Cross I'm commanded to carry by my Lord; that Cross where HE was reviled and spat upon and falsely accused; that Cross where He was mocked and bled; that Cross where those who hated Him defined Him as impotent and powerless; that Cross that showed both His Love and His intent to die for the Truth. Ya know, that Cross that people so conveniently forget and/or wish to label as something other than what it was, like saying He died for the homosexual agenda. Well, He didn't die for the homosexual agenda. He died for the homosexual, so that they could perhaps see that He went through EVERY temptation know to mankind and yet had the self-control to remain sinless even at the cost of his life, not just at the cost of being "happy" or "tolerated" for a period of time.Life would be much simpler if it wasn't such an oximoron.
Yes you are correct and yet ... Just had a flach back.. That reminded me of what Jesus said to the seven Churches in Revelation. You are correct in this respect and yet you are lacking over here in that respect. I guess we are all right and wrong at the same time.???
I'm thinking out loud when I am on here and learn while attempting to be sensative in my statements. I have learn a lot about myself when doing that.
Sorry I just lost my train of thought. And I do gotta go.
Maybe I'll remember what I was going to say ..
God bless ya and talk more soon.Yes we are all lacking in some respects.
Does that mean we should sin or condone sin so that grace will more abound?
The Bible says no. Paul says God forbids it.To me; because I am a selfish person, choose to keep cleaning my house until it is clean before I cross the street to clean my neighbors house. I know !!! I'm suposed to love my neighbor as much as I do my self. I guess I should spend as much time on his house as I do my own; but like I said before I'm selfish. I am going to concentrate on my house until my neighbor asks for help cleaning his.
To spend my time attempting to clean his house before he wants to have it cleaned would be a waste of my time. He'll keep messing it up till he is ready to have a clean house.
Then I'll be wrong to not help him. But only one can change his mind about what he wants. And that aint me.Very humble, very easy-going, maybe good for you if that's how you see it.
But I'll ask you this----do you allow your neighbor to bring his trash over to your house and scatter it all over your floor? Or even on the public street in front of your house where you have to drive/walk or view? And not only that, where they picket to make laws giving them leeway to KEEP that trash right there?
I doubt it. I betcha you'd fight back too, for the sake of your own liberty as well as for their good, and for the sake of your own family.It don't matter what I would...WWJD...
No I wouldn't like it if somebody started dumping their trash om my place. when they come in my yard with a dump truck with whatever.. to dump in my yard...I am sure somebody is goina die, or don't do it there, cause I'm not Jesus.
Don't come in my house uninvited at night either.
But I am not goina be looking to see what is in every dump truck that I see dumping stuff all over the world.
I think that God wants for us to take our glasses off when looking at others and put them back on when we look at ourself.
GOD BLESS YOUR TRUE CHRISTIAN HEART! You're not a sap, like Brenda would want you to think you are. You are a very good man with the light of Jesus shining through you. It's so nice to hear people come along, sometime, on these forums with the wisdom and good sense God gave them.
Brenda Durham said:
" I guess you have the legal right to be "politically correct" and insinuate that Christians are not only haters of gays but also racist and bigoted and all that, like you've done above in your post, but in so doing, you're only proving your own bias and/or lack of understanding."
I agree with you that I HAVE the LEGAL right to be politically correct Thanks for aknowledge that but my post was not about political correctness in the strict sense of the word. My post was about my position as a CHRISTIAN who tries to live by the philosophical and moral path preached and follow by Jesus Christ. I'll come to this point a bit later...
How I did insinuate that all Christians are bigots and racist when I'm offering a position that states otherwise? I choose to collaborate in this thread, because the statement creates a "truth" that must be challenged, that is "ALL Christians have a problem with homosexuality". IMHO that is not true, and I think is a misleading premise. I did mentioned other issues of identity, besides sexual preference -which is the topic here- because sadly, and incomprehensible by me, there are some people who call themselves Christians, who use "Chistianity" (or rather, the Old Testament) as a hammer against difference. This is not new, but it is something that must be overcome. Remember when interpretations of "the Bible" were used to justify the perpetuation of African slavery?
Interestingly, as more self identified Christians collaborate here, debating the premise -as Jerami have done- will definitely help to deconstruct the alleged truth of the statement. On the other hand all of us who call themselves Christians must reflect on the content and profound value of Jesus' teachings. Jesus himself emphasized content over form. (There are several examples in the Gospels)
On the other hand, I made a very respectful comment and DID NOT attacked anyone personally -it is not my style- hence, I ask the same respect for my person. You are in your right to interpret whatever you want about Jesus teachings, words, morals and examples, as I have.
Since I believe you know the Gospels very well, you must remember that the ONLY time Jesus harshly condemned something was at the TEMPLE. (This is one of the few stories that is mentioned in ALL four Gospels- Mk 11: 15-19, Mt 21:12-17, Lc 19:45-48, Jn 2-14-15) He damned the "merchants of the temple" because they were corrupting it, Since Jesus most of the time spoke in parables he said: Give the Cesar what belongs to the Cesar, and give God what belongs to God. Meaning -for those who aren't Christians- that the TEMPLE was a place for pray and spirituality; issues related to the "material world" did not belong in the Temple. I believe that is a very powerful message. Other stories of Jesus and "sinners" in the Gospel are about forgiveness, acceptance, inclusion and judgement from own conscience. Jesus never taught hate, never instilled hate on others, not even enemies. He stated very clearly:
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." Luke 6:27-31.
Brenda Durham said:
"You tickle the ears of the haters of Jesus and Christianity in general. Well, I'm sure that's enjoyable to feel like everyone likes you because you're so "accepting" and "tolerant" and "modern-thinking" and all that. But which do you (as a "Christian") really want? To be liked, or to speak the Truth in hopes of someone's soul being saved either now or later?"
Again you don't know me and you are judging me, but I will answer your question...
What I want is the regeneration of my spirit and the spiritual evolution of humanity. I think that will happen when each one of us focus more in the cultivation and positive transformation of our souls, instead that trying to mold the life of others. (Remember Mattew 7:3-4: " Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?") Transformation come from within and as we forge and irradiate love and understanding among all, instead of discriminating, excluding, and instilling intolerance and hate. In my view, that is one of Jesus core teachings, who even didn't condemned his accusers, judges nor his executioners.
I truly believe that my moral and spiritual regeneration will be paved by the less condemnation of others and the expression of love for others, that is thru charity ad humility. That's what I believe. Jesus said it very clearly:
“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” Luke 36-38,
and,
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 25:31-45
I am truly trying to follow this golden rules, but no one is perfect I admit; but I think the sincerity of thought, intention and acts of love may be a good beginning.
Finally I think this passage speaks volumes...
"Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great." Luke 47-49.
--------
Please excuse my long post but I think it was necessary to include some quotes from the Gospels. P
Peace!!
Of course not! But false Christians out here want to feel good and want you to feel good about them hating you and wishing you would die! Most people face up to their hate or even feel proud of it. That's the type of hate that's honest instead of cowardly.
Friendlyword said But false Christians out here want to feel good and want you to feel good about them hating you and wishing you would die! Most people face up to their hate or even feel proud of it. That's the type of hate that's honest instead of cowardly.
==========
key word here is False.... This statement can be true regardless of the subject matter. I bet ya a nickel there are a few that feels that way about me and I'm not even Gay.Someone you know, that claims to be a Christians wants you dead because GOD says you should die. They throw Bible verses at you? They say you are just as bad as a murderer of child molester?
Where's my Nickel?Someone ya know personally? Now that is tough.
According to scripture they are right to an extent.
According to what is written? Homosexuality is a sin as is murder and rape .. but ... they need to know that it can also be compared to steeling a cookie.
It is also written that all sins are equal. Disobedience is disobedience
....to hate, or to commit character assassination is murder. To judge another is to be sitting in the judgment seat. That is Gods job. I don't think he likes it when we sit in his chair.
It would be sad to condemn someone and find out that God thought more of them than he does on me. Now that is scary.
I kinda think that when we stand before him asking for forgiveness and love that he is going to ask to see what we got in our pockets. If we are carrying hate and unforgiveness that is what we should expect to get.
and I'm sorry to say..I owe you a nickel
Secondly,
Jesus came to earth for the specific purpose of dying for our sins.
If people don't respect that, I'm sure they wouldn't respect if I laid down my life. There is a time to be a "martyr" literally I suppose, as some have, and as most of the Prophets did. But today's blatant attacks against Christianity often require a personal "martyrdom" of one's reputation or peace of mind or etc. Hence, I care not what names I'm called when I witness that I've been forgiven. But what I do refuse to do is to allow that to distract from the other issues, like homosexuality being condoned in our legal system, etc.
And I don't buy your opinion that each Christian may have a different opinion on that subject. The Bible is plain and clear. Even if Jesus did not specifically say certain things, the Apostles spoke Gospel in His name, and that's still Truth.
This is a very long and bla bla bla thread. I only read 1/4 of it.
All I can honestly say is this :
Christians feel that they need to justify their own close-mindedness and lack of understanding by hiding behind a deity. They do not see it this way -- but it is what it is.
Some Christians are not like this, many are. However, as time advances beliefs die out. It's only a matter of time before this is all considered an archaic train of thought, and it wont even matter. Gays, like all people, deserve their freedoms and eventually get it. Laws protect them from people like rabid OT freaks who want to harm them. Whether they like it or not, civilization is surpassing their religion.I came home and did as I always do and looked at the last post that I had made. Didn't look at anything else.
didn't read all that was written between that post and the last one before this one but I think that I got a general jest of some of them.
We need to give Brenda a break , she is doing the best that she knows how to do. The same way that all of us other sinners are doing.
God loves all of us, Why is that so easy to forget. No don't answer that just think about it.
Everybody needs to give everybody else a break or nobody is goina get one.
How is that for spontanious and no sp, Ck. either.Ya gotta have a little bit of both "Good" and "Bad" stirred up in the pot to make good chili.
For many of us; the hell that we are goina get is going to be that which we are trying to make this life be.
Who are WE to think that we know better than "EVERY BODY" else
OK I'm done now. BYECan one be in favor of lesbianism yet against homosexuality in men?
Would that make me a hypocrite.. or just someone whose judgment is heavily influenced by esthetic criteria?esthetic criteria???
Are you saying you dont really care about this subject? You just want to see two women gettin it on? A man that likes Porno! SIC EM BRENDA!!!Haaaaa haha
Yeah I saw Greek's post too; even started to respond, but got distracted by something and never posted it.
I doubt he's very scared of me anyway.
But yeah, he's very selective about his temptations of perversion, ain't he?!
Greek-----porn is porn, no matter what parts of it you like and what parts you don't!
(Should I run before Greek One gets back in here????)
- Brenda Durhamposted 15 years ago0
...Except for the "group religion" (if ya wanna call it that) of just being simply a Christian, I agree with you for the most part. I don't practice rituals either. What Christ allows us to do is simply "walk" with Him, so-to-speak; He doesn't make us join any man-made church....
But..I think you're talking about the religion of Christianity and not simple Christianity.
Confuses most people.
At any rate, the act of being born again only comes by acknowledging that Jesus is Lord, repenting of your sins, and living for Him.
This is not religion versus religion. It's about people's souls.I'm sorry I'm not talking about a particular religion or belief. I'm not just talking about religion. The Gang mentallity is dangerous in any form.
qwark wrote:
Hi Mame:
God demands the death of homosexuals in the bible.
Leviticus
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Do ya thing this might be a reason alledged christians hae homosexuals?
===================================
This reminds me of a story I heard about the CIA agent
The agent went to a jew and said "psst see that Arab over there.. well he is talking about beating you up... here you need this baseball bat"
The agent walks across the street and says " see that guy over there with a base ball bat... he told me that he is going to hit you with it... you should buy this knife"
The agent walks back across the street and says "OH man that bat ain't going to help you out very much... he has a knive you need a gun"
So who is trouble maker... the Jew or the Arab?
agent eventually buys a piece of property from one of their widows. He doesn't care which one.- SirDentposted 15 years ago0
Jesus condemned sin. We are likewise to condemn sin. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. All were bound by sin of one type or another. Many are still bound. The only way to break the bonds of sin is through Jesus Christ.
Dear Brenda:
Thank you for doing so much to educate us regarding God's Law. Ihave learned a great deal from you,and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... end of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness - Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,Hello Bearded Lady.
...You're a bit late in the game, unless you're a duplicate like your post is a duplicate of what's already been hashed and hashed over....
Stick around; I'm sure you'll get some answers to those if you do! Right now I'm just happy you're interested. I hate being ignored, don't you?
Welcome to HubPages! Always nice to meet someone new.
Not even one answer to one question. At least tell the lady what to do with her daughter! These are hard times.
I'm experimenting with the development of a habit of only answering when it's obvious that people really want an honest answer.
Whatta ya think? Reckin I'm doin' okay with that so far?very slippery of you Brenda. You're absolutely right. Our questions and comments were cheap and ridiculous...but are these the WORD OF GOD? Dont they deserve a response from you?
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 25:44
Exodus 21:7
Lev. 15: 19-24
Exodus 35:2
Lev. 21:20
Lev. 19:27
Lev. 11:6-8
Lev. 19:19
Lev. 24:10-16
Lev. 20:14
I'm sure you wouldn't want us to think you are avoiding a question because you have no sane answer.Many of those rules are simply practical reasons, common-sense reasons. The others have a deeper reason. And actually htey ALL have a Spiritual reason. No matter what, they're the commands of God and are valid. Who is it who replies against God's words? It's a fearful thing to fall into His hands. He is Sovreign. Even if there wasn't a good reason for His rules, I'd still want to at least TRY to follow them, because, like I said, HE...IS...GOD. Why wouldn't anyone listen to an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing Being? Rebellion at Him makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever! I've been there...in rebellion....and the initial freedom of it turned into a bondage. There is pleasure in sin for a season, but redemption brings a joy that far outweighs the former pleasure.
Okay.
...The warning about the menstruating woman...is practical and Spiritual. A woman's body "cleanses" itself through menstruation. Women need to be strict about personal cleanliness especially during that time. But from what I understand, that warning and related warnings about discharge of blood and spit and semen were mainly (if you'll read preceding verses in Chapter 14) a matter of preventing disease and preventing the spread of disease! Chapter 14 speaks of the plague and such. God wanted His people to live! It was that simple!
Let's parallel that to the subject of homosexuality (I KNOW that's what you really want to hear, so let's delve into that right off the bat). Sodomy is, for all practical purposes, unsanitary and subject to causing disease and spreading disease. And even if a person, then or now, were to take precautions to try to "make it clean", it's impossible to do so because of the very nature of the activity. It's also a spiritual uncleanness, because, first of all, God SAYS it's unclean; it goes against the flow of nature that He created when He created Adam and then Eve FOR Adam.
Still wanna go on with this discussion or not?
Hey Brenda,
It's the false compromise fallacy, Making you to feel "if you only answer A they will do B", in this case "If you only answer these few questions they will believe you or at least concede said point" It is false because they have no intention of conceding or believing anything you say and will follow up with ad hominem and emotive language fallacies rather than dealing with any response you provide. Since this is a logical fallacy you should avoid.Hi spiderpam!
I'm sure you're right. I didn't see your post as I was typing mine, and I was munchin' on snacks too. haha
Well, guess we'll see if Friendly Word really wanted to try to handle the Truth or not.....There's a truth you need to handle Brenda, The practice of Jewish People circumcising their male children came out of necessity and later put in the bible by a man. The male population was suffering and dying from infection due to a lack of water to clean themselve in the desert.
The thought of a man having sex with another man is an ABOMINATION to any real Straight male or female. That's who was in control of what was put in the Bible at the time that particular book of Leviticus was written.
It is an abomination for me to have sex with a women(gagging)but the powerful gay males of that time had no access to what was written in the Bible or were too cowardly to speak up.
Well here comes the "Emotive Response" you wanted. Why is it very educated people waste everybody elses time trying to impress people. And the rest of their time stary like bugged eyed fools at everyone else, waiting for them to make some type of mistake with their comments. We do have two eyes and two ears and one mouth for a reason. To look, to listen, AND TO SPEAK!
Leviticus was written by MEN for Power and Control over Men. If Leviticus was written by a Lesbian Woman; do you think the the verses would be the same?I almost expected a less typical response. And I didn't even get to the questions yet about the other verses. Guess spiderpam was right.
Don't you get tired of being typically defensive? You spoke with that one mouth way before you thought of using those two ears. You're never gonna learn anything about the word of God that way.Oh My! Ad Hominems and Emotive responses! Didn't you learn anything from Pam?
Your interpretation of the bible is nonsense Brenda. You do not need saving any more than I do. Sorry for your loss.
Ah,
but it would be nice to bury my head in the sand and think that.
You may choose to live in that arena of serene hopelessness, but I don't.
Mark, we both need saving ultimately.No Brenda. I do not need saving. I do not feel hopelessness either. That is your personal delusion that makes you feel better than others thinking that you are "saved" when they are not.
Drat.
No enlightenment for you today either Mark.Brenda - you are about as far from "enlightened" as I could imagine. But you keep on thinking that you are superior. I am sure that is what Jesus meant to say really.
You must repent and go back to your first husband. Then ask for God's forgiveness.
You are half right.
Repentance is correct. Umm...repentance IS the same as asking for God's forgiveness. It also means to turn from our wicked ways.
What else?
What does the Bible specifically say one must do in order to be saved?Stop teasing her. Brenda, all you have to do is believe your own words. Didn't you say you were washed in the Blood Of Christ? Everything that needed to be done, has been done by our Lord and Savior. Amen, Sister!
Put it down and never pick it up again. Simple, but effective.
So, I've been hearing a lot about this so-called "Gay Agenda."
What is this gay agenda? What are gay people trying to accomplish that's so scary? Because nobody has mentioned any specifics about the gay agenda. There's just this nebulous agenda that we need to oppose at all costs. I for one would feel better about opposing the agenda if someone would tell me exactly what the agenda was....The only "agenda" I know is about equality of life and living, and rights. That's pretty threatening to those who already have them, I guess. It's incredibly difficult for me to understand why this is a threat. As if such things would obliterate hetero relationships/marriage, families and rights.
Very, very irrational.The agenda is to legalize what God has called abomination and what America has previously refused to legalize; to make a Christian nation into an unGodly one; to follow Obama's "experimentation" of basic morality via riding the coattails of the formerly-legitimate civil rights movement.
Any other questions?No questions, but it sounds like your interpretation of things.
Divorce and adultery are considered abominations, aren't they? If so, then it might not really matter what you would have to say about your divorce, since it would be considered illegal and you would go to jail, and then to hell. Yes?
"The agenda is to legalize what God has called abomination..." You mean like eating shrimp and crab and crawdads? Or eating rattlesnake? Or women wearing trousers? Or a divorced couple reconciling? Or sculpture? Or wearing cotton/ wool blends? Or holding a seance? Those things that God called an abomination?
Oh, wait, every "abomination" I listed is legal in the United States. It seems that the United States doesn't really care about abominations unto the Lord. Oh, except for the gay thing. The US really cares about that particular abomination for some reason.
"...to make a Christian nation into an unGodly one..."
Okay, this is a whole 'nother can of worms, but the US is a secular nation with a Christian majority; it is not a "Christian nation." There's a difference, and it's pretty big. For some reason the religious right seem to take delight in perpetuating the falsehood that the US was founded as a Christian nation.
"...to follow Obama's "experimentation" of basic morality via riding the coattails of the formerly-legitimate civil rights movement.." Uh, I have no idea what you mean by this.
Look, here's my thing: if you believe that God condemns homosexuality and if you do it, you'll burn in Hell of all eternity, for goodness' sakes, don't be gay. But why on earth would you want to spend your time, energy, and dollars trying to make some stranger's earthly life a living hell just because of what you believe they shouldn't be doing?
If two random guys decide they fancy a bite of lobster, what's it to you or me if they toss a shrimp on the barbie? It neither breaks our legs nor picks our pockets, nor sends us to Hell for all eternity (to paraphrase Jefferson).
Likewise, if two random guys decide they fancy one another, what's it to you or me if they should get married, buy a house, and go and have hot steamy nookie in their bedroom? It likewise neither breaks our legs, nor picks our pockets, nor sends us to Hell. So why the grief?
The militant homosexual group ACT-UP is well known for having burst into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 and screaming at Cardinal O’Connor, “You bigot! You’re killing us!” They then proceeded to chain themselves to the pews and throw Communion wafers to the floor. A gang of them more recently disrupted a church service in Colorado by throwing condoms at the parishioners.
http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Homosexual-Agenda
There are homosexual activists who claim “Jesus Christ was a homosexual, who would surely approve of the celebration of God-given sexuality in the face of continuing rejection and hostility from church leaders.”
No gay agenda? It sure looks to me like they have an agenda. That is not a link to one of my hubs. It belongs to another writer here.So, ACT-UP represents all gays? Like the Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians?
Just because one sub-group of a larger group acts like a bunch of mean-spirited jerks doesn't mean that the rest of the larger group are a bunch of mean-spirited jerks.Amen, Jeff.
Can I have a hallelujah in the house!?I didn't say that did I? You asked about the gay agenda and I showed a little of what it is about.
Are you offended by it? If so then condemn it and get on with your life.
Did you happen to check out the hub I linked?"You asked about the gay agenda and I showed a little of what it is about. "
No, I asked about the so-called "gay agenda" and you showed me an example of some gay people acting like jerks. The actions of the jerks in your example were reprehensible. They were acting like jerks.
"Are you offended by it? If so then condemn it and get on with your life."
If by "it" you mean the actions of the jerks in your example, then done, and done. If by "it" you mean this mysterious "gay agenda" (which has about as much credibility as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by the way), then no, I'm not offended by something that doesn't exist.
"Did you happen to check out the hub I linked?" Yup. It's an embarrassing collection of vitriolic propaganda without a shred of evidence to support its paranoid assertions. The guy has the right to say that stuff, of course, but he doesn't have the right to be taken seriously by me. Plus, he makes us reasonable Christians look like ignorant hateful jerks by association. I found it especially amusing that he captioned a photo of Mein Kampf
with "PLAYBOOK OF HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA." This is also evidence of the writer's ignorance, as he didn't know that the Nazis condemned and persecuted homosexuals as being incompatible with Nazism. Thousands of gay men perished int he concentration camps, with the pink triangle badge on their tunics. Are you proud to be part of that tradition?
Again, (and again and again) if you believe it's wrong to be gay, then don't be gay. Nobody is going to condemn you for not being gay. But seeing as how a couple of strangers being gay somewhere in the world (or in the country, or in the state, or next door) neither breaks your arm, nor picks your pocket, nor condemns you to hell, why do you have such a concern that two adult men might get together and consensually pleasure each other?
There's enough pain and misery in the world without adding to it.There is just too much for me to address in Mr. Watkins Hub. But let my try.
Most of the child molesters in this world are straight men.
ACT-UP are people with AIDS fighting to stay alive. The Christian community is guilty of the murder of thousand of sick gay people back in the 1980s.
Gay people love their family. Father, Mother, Sister, Brother. Christians are destroying the Family and the world without any help from Homosexuals.
Most people, Gay and Straight, want to live in peace. You people on the fringe of society want to destroy people and this world to profit yourself. Take your own advice. "Shake off the dust and move on to the next person that wants help and God" You know who I'm talking about. "Whenever you have a sermon and you want to preach against homosexuality; also include Adultry, sex with animals, Abortion...Just throw everything into the pot!
Sooooo....Where are the Hubs and Forums on Adultry, Sex with animals, Abortions, Theives, MURDERERS!
SHAKE IT OFF!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZVdDl_asYY
- Brenda Durhamposted 15 years ago0
Jesus has something you need. The offer may not always be readily available.
But who am I to try to change your way of thinking?LOL - As I said - your nonsensical interpretation of the bible is not what I need. I don't think you are qualified to make any offers on behalf of the invisible Sky Daddy either.
You are just a human animal, making its way from the cradle to the grave, doing what ever it is you need to do to make that palatable - same as me.That's true, you've been divorced and have committed adultery, which is an abomination in your gods eyes, just like homosexuality is an abomination in your gods eyes. Shouldn't you be going back to your first husband and asking forgiveness from Jesus?
No, that'd be an abomination too, haven't you been paying attention, Q?
Deuteronomy, 24:4 "Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
Of course, that only pertains to a woman who married a second husband and was divorced or widowed by him. If she hasn't remarried, it's probably okay to reconcile.
If god will make human beings born with both male and female physical body parts... isn't it possible people can be born with the internal wiring crossed.... BY GOD!!
Yes figment I believe it is certainly possible people can be born with the internal wiring crossed.
Sorry ladies. Dont go by the stereotypes. I am a gay male that never wore a dress or make up and have no desire to ever do so. I'm a man and I love being a man. I dont want to be a woman, look like a woman or dress like a woman. God blessed me by making me a man. I love other men. A few of us feel stuck in the wrong body. Most gay people look like you and me.
May God bless you Brenda.
Before I posted I read the entire thread...from start to finish...but I must have been sleeping cause I was unable find where my questions had been hashed and hashed over .And I would not have minded in the least if you had ignored my post. In fact I kind of thought you might do just that...as in fact you have ended up doing.
However this is not about getting you to answer my questions... It is about integrity...Ignoring the questions does not produce credibility which is an ingredient if one is to be taken seriously...But I realize that is not one of my problems. So although I may stick around it will not be to aspire to argue with you in any way.
For the record I am a Christian...I am not gay...and I did not compose my previous post. A Doctor did, and a gay person sent it to a friend of mine (who is not gay) who sent it to me, and I edited it to fit the situation.
I think you are as sincere as you can be Brenda. But there is another answer to this issue...It can be found in the New Testament... May God give you the grace to find it. Amen.
To the rest of you...especially those who are gay...There are far more Christians than you realize who are not like this. The Church I belong to has had a man in a dress in our pulpit for one Sunday morning service, who was/is supported by his wife.
The best to you all.That's not a Church. That's a playground for wolves who want tax-exempt status.
Tax-exempt status is granted based on what a Church provides for the community...And I guaranty that you will not come up with a Church (who as a whole) provides more to help the poor locally as well as world wide.
Most cross-dressers are not gay... obviously that guy supported by his wife is not...
"Yes figment I believe it is certainly possible people can be born with the internal wiring crossed." - but, Brenda should still be accepted for the way she is...Gee, that's so "tolerant" of you. If that wasn't so twisted, it would be almost funny.
I am well aware that most cross-dressers are not gay...Bearded Lady...is a man that is comforted by wearing woman's clothing, and I am wearing a dress as I type this. I'm a man and I love being a man. I don't want to be a woman, or look like a woman.
I have met a lot of gays who are extremely nice people, although as in any group you have the good as well as the bad. (and that includes Christians) As far as attempting to change them I simply won't waste my time. I prefer to spend my time doing things that I enjoy that make me happy. And as such I choose to accept those kind of people that have something positive to contribute to my life.
The others I accept them as human beings...but won't waste much of my time with them. It is called building ones life...or in other words choosing ones support group.
It may have something to do with "god's word"
From the bible:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Homophobia was one of the psychotic homicidal sky fairy's many neurotic beliefs.psychotic homicidal sky fairy? LOL
You know, those early Christians didn't have the benefit of the sophisticated science we have now.
Accordingly, they did not know then that homosexuality is for most gays not a "choice" but a biological manifest destiny.
As stated in an earlier post, true Christians are about love and tolerance. Singling out gays to attack makes about as much sense as singling out Gingers or left-handed people.The Human Genome Project concluded that homosexuality is not hardwired, at all. EVERY SINGLE attempt to show a genetic aspect to homosexuality are inconclusive at best. They are typically performed by homosexual and homosexual advocates who want to justify their behavior. The fact that there are thousands of people who leave the homosexual lifestyle proves it’s not inborn. So sophisticated science debunked any genetic component to homosexuality.
Google : Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
“Prior to the 1990's, no researchers on either side of the fence said either that homosexuality was genetic, inborn, or otherwise "hardwired", or that one could not change one's orientation. Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Masters and Johnson, all pansexual proponents, said that persons could change, and that it was their own business -- difficult, but possible. Even some homosexual groups are now admitting the "inborn" case to have failed. Why because if you can blame your gene for one behavior why not all as I’ve mentioned several times during our exchange."
“Even IF desires are not a choice, sexual behavior always is. So even if a person honestly believes that he’s been born with homosexual desires, he is certainly capable of controlling his sexual behavior. If you claim that he is not—that sexual behavior is somehow uncontrollable—then you have made the absurd contention that no one can be morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation.” "IF you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? (According to pedophiles it does!) What homosexual activist would say that a genetic predisposition to anger justifies gay-bashing? (Born gay? What if the gay basher was born mean?) " Frank Turek
What is it with these so-called “Christians” with their erasable bibles with only the feel good parts. Go back a read the entire thing, please. Jesus Christ was very intilerant. He spoke more about hell than about heaven and said that the majority of people are heading there. In Matthew 7.13-14, He said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." Not only do unrepentant sinner go to hell those who approve of their sin go to hell too. Jesus called people wicked, serpents, and he even called Peter Satan. Jesus told the truth and never backed down and died for the truth that’s a true Christian.
Promoting problem behaviors is anything but compassionate. Jay Budziszewski observes that real “compassion ought to make us visit the prisoner, dry out the alcoholic, help the pregnant girl prepare for the baby, and encourage the young homosexual to live chastely. But how much easier it is to forget the prisoner; give the drunk a drink, send the girl to the abortionist, and tell the kid to just give in. False compassion is a great deal less work than true.”
“People are being hurt by our false compassion that promotes homosexuality. Such false compassion not only entices more young adults to experiment with homosexuality, but makes the struggle more difficult for homosexuals who would like to leave the lifestyle. As George Gilder points out, “Some gays . . . are not helped by the aggressive gay liberation movement that wants to flush them out of the closet and into the street where they can be exploited by the gay rights brigade. They want to live quietly and productively and are thoughtful enough not to want to inflict their problem."
You made the mistake of assuming a God of love can’t be a God of Justice. If you love someone and see them ruining themselves(stealing, adultery, lying, homosexuality, promiscuity) don’t you get concerned, worried maybe even angry, of course you do, not despite of your love, but because of your love for them. Anger isn’t the opposite of love, hate is and the final form of hate is indifference(false compassion). So the most loving thing real Christians can do is warn homosexuals, thieves adulterers, liars, and ALL others sinners. Show them that they are sinners and are in need of a Saviour.No, it shows homophobia. Hate and fear, what a lovely christian way to think!
I know you are scorched earth Mormon(since you found out the LDS weren't true, you assume none must be true and now you think you're stardust how sad), and I feel bad for you, but if you want converse leave the childish name-calling outside, I’m not homophobic(you don‘t scare me), but I’m drunk driver-o-phobic, drug-o-bic, diseases-o-bic, cancer-o-bic, spider-o-bic snake-o-phobic etc.
Spiderpam Wrote:
“Gays . . . are not helped by the aggressive gay liberation movement that wants to flush them out of the closet and into the street where they can be exploited by the gay rights brigade. They want to live quietly and productively and are thoughtful enough not to want to inflict their problem."
You display some degree of education and intelligence. So wouldn't it be better for you to choose to change your appearance to a more acceptable example of educated and intelligent people. You know a lighter complexion and less nose would do you wonders toward you becoming a more acceptable part of society.
But then again; you would still be a woman. Shouldn't you consider surgery to correct that little fault? It’s widely and easily available to you…
But of course you have to want to change.As a black woman who was called ni**er in preschool for wanting goldfish crackers and myself being involved in a interracial marriage. I find it offensive that you would equate being born black with practicing SODOMY. Look up Ota Benga, James Byrd, or the history of slavery. Educate yourself.
Homosexuals have NOT been forced into servitude as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been denied medical treatment at a heterosexual only hospital as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been segregated in school bathrooms, water fountains as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been bought and sold a property of a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been hunted, captured decapitated or placed in zoos and museums as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been denied housing as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been denied service at a restaurant as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been placed under Jim Crow as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been forced to sit at the back of a bus as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been denied education as a matter of law.
Homosexuals have NOT been denied employment as a matter of law.
Homosexuals ARE protected as a matter of law blacks were not.
And when black people marched in parades we kept our clothes on!Hi, Spiderpam.
You're right that homosexuals have never been forced into servitude or had any of the horrible things done to them by law that black people have had done to them by law.
It used to be that you couldn't be married to the person you love, your spouse (whom you say is of a different race from you), by law.
It is true now that gay men and women can't marry the person they love, as a matter of law.
Gay men and women cannot visit their loved one (not their legal spouse, even if they've been married in a non-civil ceremony) in the hospital, as a matter of law, while heterosexual men and women can, even if their spouse is not of the same race.
Gay men and women (and even straight men and women who are perceived to be gay) are, not as a matter of law, but as a matter of discrimination, denied housing, denied jobs, denied equal access to education, and get harassed all the time.
And no, homosexuals are not protected by law, at least not universally. In some places it's illegal to discriminate against gay people, but in most places, loud conservative factions have preserved the heterosexual majority's right to discriminate against gays if they want to.
Imagine not being allowed to hold hands with your husband in public. As a black woman married to a non-black man, it won't be hard; the white majority has behaved abysmally to black people and continues to do so, much to the embarrassment of some of us.
Why would you advocate inflicting the same pain on a consenting adult gay couple?
They're not randomly sodomizing unsuspecting strangers, after all. They're merely consensually pleasuring each other. It's not my thing, but hey, heterosexual couples do things with each other that don't turn me on either. As long as it's mutually consensual, and done in the privacy of their home, what the heck business of mine (or yours) is it?"For a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, the basic requirement for which is one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.
Race is irrelevant to marriage—gender is essential to it. Nothing is wrong with interracial marriages because men and women are designed for one another, regardless of their racial backgrounds.
Furthermore, interracial marriage was opposed without any valid grounds. Opponents hid their prejudice with false speculation about birth defects and the like. Since all racial groups interbreed, such problems do not exist. In other words, there really is no such thing as interracial marriage because there is only one race—the human race. Interethnic marriage poses no physical problems. However, same-sex couples don’t breed at all, and their unions are often unhealthy.
Ironically, it’s not conservatives, but same-sex marriage proponents who are reasoning like racists. Instead of asking the state to recognize the preexisting institution of marriage, homosexuals are asking the state to define marriage. Well, that is exactly the line of reasoning racists used in their effort to prevent interracial marriage. Racists wanted the state to define marriage as only between same-race couples, instead of having the state recognize what marriage already was—the procreative union of a man and a woman regardless of their racial/ethnic background.
While racists and homosexuals may want to alter the legal definition of marriage, they cannot alter the laws of nature that helped produce the recognition of legal marriage in the first place. The comparison of homosexuality to race is completely invalid. Skin color is benign, but sexual behavior is not. Having a certain skin color does not hurt anyone, but homosexual behavior can and does hurt others. Furthermore, sexual behavior is always a choice; race never is. You will find many former homosexuals, but you will never find a former African-American.
Second, homosexuality is not an identity or class; it’s a behavior. Homosexuals are not a class of people any more than heterosexuals are a class of people. We are males and females, not gays and straights. In other words, we are males and females by anatomy, but gays and straights by behavior.
Why not classify people by their desires as homosexual activists demand? Because if we start to classify people by what they desire to do sexually, then why not give people with all sexual desires special marriage rights? On what grounds should we say that same-sex marriage is fine but not marriage involving polygamy, incest, or bestiality?
“But those behaviors are harmful!” you say. Exactly, and so is homosexual behavior. So why is it legitimate to carve out a special case for homosexuality but not for those other behaviors?
To equate sexual preferences with skin color is demeaning to African-Americans and people of any color, including white, who certainly do not morally equate the practice of sodomy with the color of their skin. This is not a civil rights issue, skin color has no correlation to sexual behavior. Humans are heterosexual by inherent design regardless of how some individuals wish to express their sexuality. This simple truth cannot be legislated away.
People can desire to marry whoever or whatever they want, but the behavior of actually marrying a person is what the law is concerned with. The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people “love” one another. It endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways we’ve seen (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.)
Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage between a man and a woman is the core of the basic family unit, which is the most important element of a civilized society.
Without laws that protect the sanctity of a stable family unit, no culture can long survive. Persons who have established a same-sex relationship have the same rights available to them as that of close friends and acquaintances, and is commensurate to circumstances of the relationship. Specific issues such as hospital visits, property rights, and inheritances are adequately covered under current law regulating wills, powers of attorney, and medical caregivers.
Let’s look at the consequences of liberating marriage laws:
In the Netherlands, where gay marriage/partnerships is already legal, the average "committed" gay relationship is lasting just 1.5 years.
Dr. Timothy Dailey, Center for Marriage and Family Studies, said, "These so-called committed homosexual couples had an average of eight extra-sexual partners per year."
An even more startling statistic that one study found is that 43 percent of white homosexuals slept with 500 or more men, and 28 percent had sex with a thousand or more men.
Dailey said, "It's really something radically different and do we really want to subject children to this kind of environment?"
"Oh, don't worry!" say some same-sex marriage advocates. Gays won't pervert marriage; marriage will tame gays. But gays may have no intention of being tamed(from their own words).
One popular activist wrote that homosexuals should seek to "...redefine the institution of marriage completely...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake...is to transform the notion of 'family' entirely." But why would they want to do that?
The negative impact on society of "gay" marriage has also become evident in Scandinavia, where homosexual persons have been allowed to marry since 1993. In an article titled The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, by Stanley Kurtz in the February 2, 2004 issue of The Weekly Standard, he states, "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution."
Marriage has been weakened by liberalized divorce laws. Does it make sense to weaken it further by liberalized marriage laws?
What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage?
What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage?
Sources: Correct, Not Politically Correct by Frank Turek
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, by Stanley Kurtz
Center for Marriage and Family Studies
The Homosexual Rights Agenda: Reframing the Debate: Allan Dobras, Earle Fox
and other contributors"Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition." So your marriage, and mine, will be fundamentally changed if we let gay people marry? I'm not buying it. I can only speak for myself, but my marriage is built on a stronger foundation than that.
"Nothing is wrong with interracial marriages [s]because men and women are designed for one another, regardless of their racial backgrounds[/s]. "
"Nothing is wrong with interracial marriages." There, fixed it for you.
"Opponents hid their prejudice with false speculation about birth defects and the like. Since all racial groups interbreed, such problems do not exist." And since gay couples do not breed, no such problems exist.
"On what grounds should we say that same-sex marriage is fine but not marriage involving polygamy, incest, or bestiality?"
For polygamy, as long as all participants are informed consenting adults, what's the problem? Polygamy's history shows that it's usually been a case of older men marrying underage girls. This is reprehensible. But a polygamous marriage between informed consenting adults does not have those ethical problems.
As for incest, we have plenty of data that shows that reproduction between close genetic relatives is much more likely to produce birth defects in offspring than reproduction between unrelated couples. So there is an actual reason not to allow incestuous marriages, even in the case of consenting adults.
As for bestiality, there's the danger of disease jumping from species to species, and of course, the fact that the animal in question cannot give its informed adult consent.
"[The state] endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways we’ve seen (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.) " Okay, gay couples can't have children, but how exactly does a married gay couple not give the same other benefits to society that a childless straight couple does?
"Persons who have established a same-sex relationship have the same rights available to them as that of close friends and acquaintances."
Sure, but that's not good enough. My wife and I are more than "close friends," and are legally recognized as such. A committed gay couple, however, is legally prohibited from being recognized as anything at all.
"Specific issues such as hospital visits, property rights, and inheritances are adequately covered under current law regulating wills, powers of attorney, and medical caregivers."
No. No, they aren't. No amount of pretending will make it so.
You quote an interesting bunch of statistics. I took the liberty of googling "netherlands gay marriage statistics" and "netherlands gay divorce statistics." The articles that came up seem to contradict your statistics about the stability of gay marriages. According to gmax, the divorce rate among gays in the Netherlands is about the same as among heterosexual couples. According to Wikipedia, the divorce rate among gay couples in the UK is a mere 1%, and even lower in Denmark, whereas the (hetero) divorce rate in the US is somewhere between 40% and 50%. It seems that it's not the gays who do not respect the sanctity of marriage.
And where the heck does a guy find time to have sex with over a thousand partners? I mean, you've got to have a job to support yourself, and you have to sleep occasionally, so that only leaves so many hours in the day. Unless the dude is "doing it" professionally, I find it hard--no, impossible--to believe that 23% of gay men have had over a thousand partners. How were these statistics gathered, I wonder?
"Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution." What you've got here is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. You've established a timeline, but you haven't established causation. It looks like the institution of marriage was already eroding in those countries. The fact that they let gay people legally marry may have something to do with its continued erosion, or it may not. The erosion started before gay marriage, though, and that's important. It's equally possible that the erosion of het marriage caused the legalization of gay marriage. Who's to blame for that?
"Marriage has been weakened by liberalized divorce laws. Does it make sense to weaken it further by liberalized marriage laws?" I don't see how liberalizing marriage laws will weaken marriage. It won't weaken my marriage, I can tell you that.
"What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? " Divorce lawyers would be out of a job.
"What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage?" I don't think that's a realistic scenario. With all the rampant homophobia in the world, it's pretty obvious that most people don't want to live in a same-sex marriage, faithfully or otherwise. Don't conjure chimeras in a vain attempt to obscure the issue.
The issue is that a minority are being oppressed by the majority, and it's wrong. A gay couple, living together in the next town, in the next neighborhood, or next door neither breaks your arm, nor picks your pocket, nor damns you to eternal torment, so why would you spend so much time effort and energy to make their earthly lives a living Hell? If you're right about gayness being an abomination, God will take care of that in the afterlife, and vengeance is His, after all.Darn forum ate my post.
Lemme sum it up.
First, there's nothing wrong with so-called "interracial" marriage. There never was. There is something wrong with incentuous marriage, in that there actually is a high rate of birth defects from the offspring of incestuous couples. So there's an actual reason to prohibit incest. As for bestiality, diseases jump from species to species that way. So there's an actual reason to oppose that. As for polygamy, it has historically been the case that polygamists either took advantage of child brides or married multiple women without their knowledge. If informed consenting adults agree to a polygamous marriage, why should we stop them?
Likewise, if an informed consenting adult gay couple want to get married, why should we stop them?
"[the state] endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways we’ve seen (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.)" So how is a married gay couple any different than a childless married straight couple? (Hint: the difference is aesthetic only.)
"Specific issues such as hospital visits, property rights, and inheritances are adequately covered under current law regulating wills, powers of attorney, and medical caregivers." No they're not, and pretending won't make it so.
Your statistics are interesting. I googled "gay marriage statistics" and "gay divorce statistics" and found that the divorce rate among gays in most places that allow gay marriage is comparable to that of het couples. In the UK it's a mere 1% and in Denmark it's even lower. With the US (straight) divorce rate at something like 40-50%, perhaps it's not the gays that are wrecking the sanctity of marriage.
"Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution."
What you've got here is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. you've established a chronology, not a causation, and besides, the marriage rate was already deteriorating in Scandinavia before gay marriage was legalized, so a more compelling (but still logically unsound) argument would be that the decline of heterosexual marriage caused the legalization of gay marriage.
And where the heck does one person find the time to have over a thousand sexual partners? That's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of. A person has to work and sleep. Unless one is "doing it" professionally, I don't see how such a statistic is even possible, especially for 23% of the gay population. How were these statistics obtained?
And finally:
"What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage?"
Don't try to obscure the point by conjuring chimaeras. Only about 10% of the adult population would want to have a same sex marriage, so this is at best an imaginary problem, and at worst...a deliberate scare tactic to frighten the weak-minded.I find it very telling that you would get your “facts” from a homosexual (with a half naked couple same-sex couple on their homepage and labels anyone who disagree a homophobe) website with no references for fact checking. You also used WiKi I guess I’ll have to correct them too. Even IF those figures were accurate(which they aren’t) you do realize that before 1940 the divorce rate was only 14% before that the rate was in the lower single digits, even after the divorce laws were liberating the rate only increase to 5-10%, only in the last few years has the rate risen to 50%, now if homosexual “marriages” start out at 50+% what does that say?
The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people “love” one another. It endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways we’ve seen (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.). Besides, if marriage is merely a private affair, as same-sex advocates contend, then why do they want the government involved at all? They do not need the government to do what they want to do. As I mentioned above, people who have homosexual desires can pledge fidelity to one another already—they don’t need state sanction to do so. Must the government recognize every desire people have as a right?
Calling their relationships "marriage" may be a way to tap into government perks, but faithfulness has never been part of the homosexual lifestyle. By their own measure, fewer than 2% of even plan to be "monogamous", let alone succeed at it. And by their own measure, among those who attempt faithfulness, almost no homosexual pair remains faithful beyond five years. Faithfulness is not part of an addictive condition. They have to redefine faithfulness in absurd ways to apply the word to themselves.
Marriage as a "social contract" is not what stabilizes. Neither is merely being "heterosexual" the stabilizing factor. Pansexual perversions are participated in to some degree by heterosexual as well as homosexual.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
While it is true that we often associate marriage with love, the primary reason the government endorses marriage is because it brings the country as a whole tremendous benefits—it is the best way to produce children and propagate a civilized and stable society. Homosexual unions by nature cannot do that, and equating the two types of relationships diminishes the connection people make between marriage and childbearing.
Sometimes sexual acts can be unloving. In fact, even sexual acts inside of natural marriage can be unloving—when they are medically dangerous for example. This is the case with homosexual acts. They are medically dangerous. What is loving about sex acts that regularly cause bleeding, disease, and pain? When sex is medically dangerous, the most loving thing you can do is not to have sex with that person.
Some may argue, “When two adults consent to engage in homosexual acts, they are each seeking the good of the other. Each person wants it and chooses it.” But if you truly love someone, will you do something that is likely to cause disease and may even shorten their life span dramatically? As we saw in point 3, the life span of gay men may be as much as twenty years shorter than that for heterosexuals.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_do … tprint.pdf
With the consequences so severe, if a man really “loved” another man, he wouldn’t engage in homosexual acts with him. Besides, sex isn’t the only way you can demonstrate your love for someone. Men usually demonstrate their love for one another without having sex. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.
Yet even if homosexual relationships were just as healthy as heterosexual relationships, there is a big difference between permitting such relationships and promoting them. The government already permits homosexual relationships. They even permit private same-sex marriages—there is nothing stopping homosexuals from pledging lifelong fidelity to one another. But most states do not promote and provide benefits for such unions by offering government-endorsed same-sex marriage.
ATLANTA, Georgia, August 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population. Dr. Amy Lansky revealed this statistic during a plenary session at the 2009 HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.
http://www.avert.org/canada-hiv.htm
The long-standing claim that 10 percent of the population is homosexual has been disproved by numerous studies. Both the New York City Department of Health and the Centers of Disease Control have stopped using the 10 percent figure, which stems from the fraudulent Kinsey Report. The National Opinion Research Center, the Family Research Institute, and
the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center all note that homosexuals compose between 3
and 4.5 percent of the population.
“What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? It would result in a dramatic reduction in crime, welfare, abortion, and child abuse. On the other hand, what would be the effects on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society and the human race itself(no scare tactic intended)While universal homosexuality of course, would not occur, the two questions should help us realize that the two types of relationships can never be equated because they are not equally beneficial.
"No. No, they aren't. No amount of pretending will make it so."
This response is not an agrument, it's denial of simple first year legal facts.
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years! In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yr. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yr. compared to 56 yr. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians. "What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking. "Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.
Liberals and their media love to restrict the rights of consenting adults who smoke (because smoking can be harmful), who drink alcohol (for obvious reasons), who own guns (because accidents and murders happen), who believe homosexual activity is immoral and penalizeable (because liberals mistakenly think that there is a right to aberrations like homosexual behavior and also think that any "speech" that reflects negatively on homosexuals---like the information you are reading ---should be considered "hate speech"), etc., etc. Liberals love to patronizingly restrict our freedoms ("for our own good").
However, liberals apparently believe it's perfectly okay for people to spread sexual diseases all over this country. Why, we can't restrict the rights of people who spread STDs! That's oppression and fascism! Liberals are such hypocrites.
Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair---and homosexuals are so selfish they don't care. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!! It's pretty clear that homosexuals care little about those who die of prostate and breast cancers and other diseases that are relatively underfunded compared to AIDS. Where is their humanity and sense of fairness?
Another point that needs making: homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. (In 1984 "the Centers for Disease Control found 74 percent of hemophiliacs who received blood factors made from the plasma of U.S. donors were HIV positive.") And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex. Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages.
To sum up, for various reasons (homosexual acts are physiologically unnatural, homosexuals are inclined to be notably promiscuous), the "homosexual lifestyle" tends to be a very unhealthy one---unhealthy both to individuals and to the society that indirectly pays for or suffers the consequences. To encourage anyone to engage in homosexual activity is clearly irresponsible and depraved. Source: www. home60515. com/index.html
When people resort to name-calling as you have, they have reached the end of their ability to articulate a rational argument. I guess you’ve reached your intellectual end, but it’s been fun.
Sources not mentioned above: Monifa Thomas, "Baxter, other drug firms hit with AIDS-related lawsuit," Chicago Sun-Times, April 25, 2005, p. 65.
Correct, not Politically Correct by Frank TurekI find it very telling that you would get your “facts” from a homosexual (with a half naked couple same-sex couple on their homepage and labels anyone who disagree a homophobe) website with no references for fact checking. You also used WiKi I guess I’ll have to correct them too.
Okay, first, the article I saw on gmax got its data from Dutch city registers, which you'd have known if you'd bothered to read it. Perhaps the Dutch cities are all in cahoots with the gay agenda? Or perhaps they're just keeping records, and the records show data that disagree with your narrative. Wiki has extensive references in their articles, so if you think you can convince them that their information is false and that you have access to better, go right ahead. Somehow I doubt you'll be successful.
Even IF those figures were accurate(which they aren’t) you do realize that before 1940 the divorce rate was only 14% before that the rate was in the lower single digits, even after the divorce laws were liberating the rate only increase to 5-10%, only in the last few years has the rate risen to 50%, now if homosexual “marriages” start out at 50+% what does that say?
It says that homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages are currently about as strong as each other. It doesn't let us draw any conclusion at all about how strong they would have been in relation to each other before 1940, since gay marriage was illegal before 1940 (and is still illegal in most of the US today), and therefore there are no statistics for it.
The state does not endorse natural marriage because two people “love” one another. It endorses man-woman unions because they benefit the public welfare in the numerous ways we’ve seen (children, health, reduced social costs, etc.). Besides, if marriage is merely a private affair, as same-sex advocates contend, then why do they want the government involved at all? They do not need the government to do what they want to do. As I mentioned above, people who have homosexual desires can pledge fidelity to one another already—they don’t need state sanction to do so.
Because spouses gain certain legal rights, and unless a couple is legally married, they do not have those rights. Sure, a gay couple can pledge fidelity to each other, as can a hetero couple. But unless they get a marriage license legally signed, neither couple are married and they don't have the rights that spouses have. That's all gay couples want. Why is that so hard to give?
Must the government recognize every desire people have as a right?
I think it already has done.
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Q.E.D.
Calling their relationships "marriage" may be a way to tap into government perks, but faithfulness has never been part of the homosexual lifestyle. By their own measure, fewer than 2% of even plan to be "monogamous", let alone succeed at it. And by their own measure, among those who attempt faithfulness, almost no homosexual pair remains faithful beyond five years. Faithfulness is not part of an addictive condition. They have to redefine faithfulness in absurd ways to apply the word to themselves.
Marriage as a "social contract" is not what stabilizes. Neither is merely being "heterosexual" the stabilizing factor. Pansexual perversions are participated in to some degree by heterosexual as well as homosexual.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Well, they haven't been allowed to get married, have they, so why plan for it? And it’s nice that you recognize that hetero couples do some unusual things together, though the word ‘perversions’ seems to indicate a prejudice against any kind of sex that you yourself don’t enjoy.
As an aside, I find it interesting that you found it "telling" that one of my sources of data was a pro-gay source, when nearly all of your sources are decidedly biased anti-gay ones. But hey, who's counting?
While it is true that we often associate marriage with love, the primary reason the government endorses marriage is because it brings the country as a whole tremendous benefits—it is the best way to produce children and propagate a civilized and stable society. Homosexual unions by nature cannot do that, and equating the two types of relationships diminishes the connection people make between marriage and childbearing.
So a hetero couple who do not have children should have their marriage annulled, since having children is the only important reason to get married? I think many childless (by choice or as an accident of biology) hetero couples would find that pretty insulting.
Sometimes sexual acts can be unloving. In fact, even sexual acts inside of natural marriage can be unloving—when they are medically dangerous for example. This is the case with homosexual acts. They are medically dangerous. What is loving about sex acts that regularly cause bleeding, disease, and pain? When sex is medically dangerous, the most loving thing you can do is not to have sex with that person.
Huh. See, I would have said that sexual acts inside of marriage can be unloving when they’re nonconsensual for example. Priorites. Anyway, hetero couples can give each other bleeding, diseases, and pain, too, and often do. Homosexual sex is not by definition physically harmful. Of course it can be, but so can hetero sex.
Some may argue, “When two adults consent to engage in homosexual acts, they are each seeking the good of the other. Each person wants it and chooses it.” But if you truly love someone, will you do something that is likely to cause disease and may even shorten their life span dramatically? As we saw in point 3, the life span of gay men may be as much as twenty years shorter than that for heterosexuals.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_do … tprint.pdf
Yeah, I’m seeing those statistics interpreted in a decidedly anti-gay way. Another interpretation for the seeming drop of gay men past age 60 might be that gayness was so frowned upon, persecuted, bullied, etc. when the over-60 crowd were young that gay men over 60 don’t identify themselves as gay out of shame or fear. Also, the fact that married men live longer than unmarried men and gay men (who aren’t, or until recently haven’t been, allowed to marry) tells us nothing other than gay men and unmarried men have similar life expectancies. Perhaps if gay men were allowed to marry, their life expectancies might increase?
With the consequences so severe, if a man really “loved” another man, he wouldn’t engage in homosexual acts with him. Besides, sex isn’t the only way you can demonstrate your love for someone. Men usually demonstrate their love for one another without having sex. In fact, most of our loving relationships are non-sexual.
True, it’s possible to love another person without having sex with them. Try not having sex with your spouse for a year or so. Or two. See how much you enjoy that.
Yet even if homosexual relationships were just as healthy as heterosexual relationships, [which they are, or can be—and there’s nothing that says a heterosexual relationship is inherently healthy, by the way] there is a big difference between permitting such relationships and promoting them.
Of course, this is true.
The government already permits homosexual relationships.
Well, it doesn't (actively) prohibit them. There are still anti-sodomy laws on the books in many places, but they're rarely enforced.
They even permit private same-sex marriages—there is nothing stopping homosexuals from pledging lifelong fidelity to one another. But most states do not promote and provide benefits for such unions by offering government-endorsed same-sex marriage.
A hetero couple and a homo couple could easily choose to pledge their fidelity to each other, but most hetero couples get the license. Why? Because without the license, their pledge of mutual fidelity has no legal weight whatsoever.
ATLANTA, Georgia, August 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population. Dr. Amy Lansky revealed this statistic during a plenary session at the 2009 HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.
http://www.avert.org/canada-hiv.htm
AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community? Of course it is. I would never try to dispute this. It is important to note, though, that the virus cannot spread unless one of the partners is infected. AIDS doesn’t spontaneously generate when two people have anal sex. It’s a virus, and you can’t catch it from someone who doesn’t have it, not even if you drink their blood (though why anyone would want to do that is beyond me).
The long-standing claim that 10 percent of the population is homosexual has been disproved by numerous studies. Both the New York City Department of Health and the Centers of Disease Control have stopped using the 10 percent figure, which stems from the fraudulent Kinsey Report. The National Opinion Research Center, the Family Research Institute, and the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center all note that homosexuals compose between 3 and 4.5 percent of the population.
And the percentage of gays in the population is relevant to whether they should have equal rights how, exactly? I mean, Hindus, for example, make up only about 0.4% of the US population. Perhaps we should ensure that Hindu marriages are not legally recognized, since there are so few of them? This is absurd, of course.
“What would be the effect on society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? It would result in a dramatic reduction in crime, welfare, abortion, and child abuse. On the other hand, what would be the effects on society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? It would be the end of society and the human race itself(no scare tactic intended)While universal homosexuality of course, would not occur, the two questions should help us realize that the two types of relationships can never be equated because they are not equally beneficial.
Sorry, not buying it. Hetero marriage is not a panacea against crime (crime occurred before legal gay marriage was even considered, and was by all accounts pretty bad during Prohibition, when the divorce rate was much lower than today) welfare (more tied to economic strength than anything else) abortion (gay people don’t make babies when they have sex, remember?) or child abuse (most of that occurs in nuclear families, ‘cos that’s where most of the kids are). Plus, gay people would be pretty miserable. Universal homosexuality would not occur for the same reason that universal heterosexuality does not occur: not everybody is gay, and not everybody is straight.
"No. No, they aren't. No amount of pretending will make it so."
This response is not an agrument, it's denial of simple first year legal facts.
No, it’s a denial of something that isn’t true. State an actual fact, and state your interpretation thereof, and I’ll argue. Say something is true that isn’t, and I’ll call BS. You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
Studies have shown that years of smoking shortens the lifespan of the smoker from 1 to 7 years. But analysis of the age of death in Norway and Denmark for gays who are legally married suggests that engaging in homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan by 24 years! In Norway, married heterosexual men died at an average age of 77 and the 31 gays at 52 yr. In Denmark, married women died at an average age of 78 yr. compared to 56 yr. for the 91 lesbians. In Norway, women married to men died at an average age of 81. v. 56 for the 6 lesbians. "What justification is there for condemning smoking and endorsing homosexuality?" asked Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. "Today, all across the Western world, school children are being taught the acceptability of homosexuality and the wrongness of smoking. "Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA, is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.
Okay, what you have here is another post hoc ergo propter hoc argument coupled with a false analogy between smoking and gayness. A correlation with causation has been shown between smoking and all kinds of diseases. That is, we know, from scientific data, that smoking causes illness. A correlation, but not (yet) causation, has been shown between being gay and shorter life. It may be that just being gay shortens life, or it may be that the way the hetero majority treats gays (and they get treated pretty badly) shortens their lives. We don’t know the answer to that question. Therefore, smoking and gayness are not good analogs, and the shorter lives of gays may be due to their treatment at the hands of the majority rather than some life-shortener inherent in gayness.
Liberals and their media love to restrict the rights of consenting adults who smoke (because smoking can be harmful),
Rather, they love to preserve the rights of nonsmokers to not be subjected to the pollution of those who choose to smoke.
who drink alcohol (for obvious reasons),
Funny, the only restrictions I’ve noticed on my drinking are these: I don’t get to drive when I’m doing it (fair enough—if I did, I could kill someone!), and for some reason, I’m not allowed to buy booze before noon on Sunday. Did the liberals make that rule?
who own guns (because accidents and murders happen),
Yeah, I don’t get this one. Why would someone who calls himself a liberal try to restrict someone’s freedom to own and/or carry a gun? Restrict their right to shoot someone? Of course, but that’s already covered under the laws about assault and battery and so forth. But we’re drifting.
who believe homosexual activity is immoral and penalizeable (because liberals mistakenly think that there is a right to aberrations like homosexual behavior and also think that any "speech" that reflects negatively on homosexuals---like the information you are reading ---should be considered "hate speech"), etc., etc. Liberals love to patronizingly restrict our freedoms ("for our own good").
See, this is where we’re going to argue a lot. I have no problem with people thinking that homosexual behavior is wrong. I even have no problem with people saying that homosexuality is wrong. What I have a problem with is people who try to restrict the rights of consenting adults while accusing others of “patronizingly restrict[ing] our freedoms.”
However, liberals apparently believe it's perfectly okay for people to spread sexual diseases all over this country.
Uh, no they don’t. That’s why they’re trying to get sex education taught in schools: so teenagers will know how exactly how STDs are spread, and how they avoid catching them.
Why, we can't restrict the rights of people who spread STDs! That's oppression and fascism! Liberals are such hypocrites.
I’m going to come back to this point later.
Incidentally, spending on AIDS research is excessive, totally out-of-whack, unconscionably unfair---and homosexuals are so selfish they don't care. In the year 2000 we spent around $180 million on prostate cancer research versus around $7 billion on AIDS research, but the number of men who are stricken with prostate cancer each year in the U.S.A. is several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS!! And in the year 2000 we spent only around $425 million on breast cancer research versus the $7 billion on AIDS research, even though the number of women who are stricken with breast cancer each year is again several times the number of people annually stricken with AIDS in this country!! It's pretty clear that homosexuals care little about those who die of prostate and breast cancers and other diseases that are relatively underfunded compared to AIDS. Where is their humanity and sense of fairness?
So, homosexuals are immune to breast cancer and prostate cancer? And there are no non homosexuals who have gotten AIDS? Whoops, nope, plenty of straight folks have contracted AIDS, as you note below. And since the gay population is so small (somewhere about 4-6%, right?) how the heck can the gay community have caused that? With their powerful voting block? Please. AIDS research is so well-funded because straight people are scared to death of AIDS. Disproportionally, to be sure, but there it is.
Another point that needs making: homosexuals have done much damage to this country. For example, thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because HIV-positive homosexuals infected the blood supply. (In 1984 "the Centers for Disease Control found 74 percent of hemophiliacs who received blood factors made from the plasma of U.S. donors were HIV positive.")
In 1984, we hardly even knew what AIDS was, or how it was spread, and the Red Cross either wasn’t testing for it or didn’t have an accurate test. You can’t really blame gays for donating blood that they didn’t know was infected.
And for another example, we are spending millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on anti-AIDS drugs for homosexuals who voluntarily engaged in unsafe sex.
And for straight people who voluntarily got blood transfusions. Don’t forget them.
Because of these outrages homosexuals collectively owe America an apology and reparations for the damages.
They might need to take a number on that whole reparations thing, as the white hetero majority have visited more atrocities on minorities of all kinds than the gay population have visited on the rest of us.
To sum up, for various reasons (homosexual acts are physiologically unnatural, homosexuals are inclined to be notably promiscuous), the "homosexual lifestyle" tends to be a very unhealthy one---unhealthy both to individuals and to the society that indirectly pays for or suffers the consequences. To encourage anyone to engage in homosexual activity is clearly irresponsible and depraved. Source: www. home60515. com/index.html
Those aren’t facts, but opinions, to which you and HOME are entitled, and with which I disagree.
When people resort to name-calling as you have, they have reached the end of their ability to articulate a rational argument. I guess you’ve reached your intellectual end, but it’s been fun.
Except I haven’t called you any names. I’ve argued against your post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, I’ve disputed your statistics with statistics from other sources (one admittedly biased, the others deliberately trying not to be biased), and I’ve disagreed with your opinions. I just double-checked, and I can’t see where I called you a name, not even in friendly jest. I didn’t really expect to; name-calling isn’t my style. I didn’t even do any name-calling at third parties, as you have done (you called liberals hypocrites).
If you want to pretend that I’ve called you names and take your toys and go home, that’s cool. But don’t pretend that by pretending that I called you a name when I didn’t you’ve gained some kind of victory. That’s just intellectually dishonest, and I know you value intellectual honesty.It's great that you take the time to respond to people you have no chance of reaching. Remember this Jeff?
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/y … on-991161/First of all the FACTS I provided are cited and proven not mere opinion. You didn't dispute them they were from government health sources, wide spread survey or homosexuals themselves. You have a hard time disputing them due to their orignal source. They come from homosexual publications admitting as much, so you obviously did read any of it. Typical. If I could prove you were being played by the homosexual agenda would you ever think for your yourself and learn the truth? I'll try get the book "After the Ball" you'll see that you just a puppet.
http://www.silencingchristians.com/
I already showed, that the article you reference did not get a reference for fact checking my sources did.
"The US began keeping fairly careful statistics on divorce beginning in 1867. From 1867-1929, the number of divorces steadily increased, from 9,937 in 1867, to 201,468 in 1929."During this time, the population of the US increased from 37 to 122 million, so the divorce rate per 100,000 population increased six fold, from 26.8 to 165”
Oh I get if the government survey or the scientific case study or even the homosexuals themselves words don’t speak glowingly of homosexual behavior it’s anti-gay. Got it!
Public policy should promote the family because the family provides the foundation for society. Homosexuality promotes an antifamily attitude by encouraging promiscuous sexuality, a self-centered morality, and socially irresponsible behavior that exacts huge costs on society. Must the government recognize every desire people have as a right?
If your going to quote the constitution read in context at least Geez
Desires do not constitute rights. Just because you have a desire to do something doesn’t mean you have a right to do it. Even among “consenting adults,” there is no right to prostitution, polygamy, adultery, or incest. And even if you were to claim a private right to such behavior, you certainly have no right to government endorsement of that behavior.
Yet that’s what homosexual activists demand for homosexuality. While proponents of same-sex marriage cast this as a moral issue (that’s why they use the word “rights”), they lack any moral authority for their position. By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be established? Certainly no founding Constitution of any state, or the federal government, says anything about same-sex marriage. Is there a standard beyond the Constitution? Yes, God—but God is the last subject homosexual activists want to bring up. If they appeal to “nature’s God”—or the “self-evident” “laws of nature” that come from God as the Declaration of Independence declares—then they have to make the case that God believes homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage is a right. That’s anything but self-evident, as virtually the entire history of religion, the “laws of nature,” and the design of the human body attest.
Notice that homosexual activists cleverly avoid the real issue. When speaking of homosexuality, they always talk about rights rather than acts. They know they won’t win if they describe the acts that they want us to endorse through government-backed same-sex marriage. Since a majority of Americans find such acts unnatural, immoral, and repulsive, homosexual activists hide the real truth about what they do behind the word “rights” because no one can be against that. This language manipulation extends to other terms they use (such as “gay” and “pride”) and is a common propaganda technique used by radical abortion rights proponents as well. It’s too difficult to advocate child dismemberment, so partial-birth abortion advocates talk about “choice.” We should ask the manipulators the following: “A right to choose what?” and “A right to do what?” They won’t call it what it is because the naked truth would hurt their case with most Americans.
“As an aside, I find it interesting that you found it "telling" that one of my sources of data was a pro-gay source, when nearly all of your sources are decidedly biased anti-gay ones. But hey, who's counting?’ Really nearly ALL of my sources come from government studies, homosexuals themselves, or nationwide survey you might want to check the actual sources, because people reading along will able to tell you're not telling the truth.
Some marriages do not produce children…
Yes, but again they are the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children. By the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this—no exceptions. Second, sterile heterosexual marriages still affirm the connection to childbearing because sterility is not generally known on the wedding day. And in those instances where sterility is known, as with older couples, the man-woman union still models what is generally a procreative relationship. There is a difference between having old plumbing and having the wrong plumbing.
Finally, it would not be possible or desirable for the state to attempt to determine which men and women are capable of procreation and which are not. However, since no homosexual relationship produces children, no homosexual relationship can fulfill this basic function of marriage. Not to mention the overwhelming number of childless couple you adop children and give them the BEST possible home for that child 1 man 1 woman.
Homosexual sex IS by definition physically harmful. There I corrected you again. I'll avoid using blunt examples from homosexuals themselves.
"Also, the fact that married men live longer than unmarried men and gay men (who aren’t, or until recently haven’t been, allowed to marry) tells us nothing other than gay men and unmarried men have similar life expectancies. Perhaps if gay men were allowed to marry, their life expectancies might increase?"
This is the "Hypothesis Contrary To Fact" fallacy Dr. Timothy Dailey, Center for Marriage and Family Studies, said, "These so-called committed homosexual couples had an average of eight extra-sexual partners per year."
An even more startling statistic that one study found is that 43 percent of white homosexuals slept with 500 or more men, and 28 percent had sex with a thousand or more men.
Homosexuals admit this much
Homosexual author Gabriel Rotello, "Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity…I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun. He also says, "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a 'sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,' and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a 'communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.
Signorile, another well known homosexual advocating safe sex, speaks of the "raunchy, impersonal atmosphere" of sex in public parks and bathrooms, "There's nothing morally wrong with this--and I say that as someone who has certainly had my share of hot public sex, beginning when I was a teenager and well into my adulthood.”
"And the percentage of gays in the population is relevant to whether they should have equal rights how, exactly?"
You brought up false numbers I just corrected you. Now I you really think for such a small percentage why do homosexuals lead in nearly ALL new cases of sexually transmitted diseases?
“State an actual fact, and state your interpretation thereof, and I’ll argue.” Sorry it’s fact. Persons who have established a same-sex relationship have the same rights available to them as that of close friends and acquaintances, and is commensurate to circumstances of the relationship. Specific issues such as hospital visits, property rights, and inheritances are adequately covered under current law regulating wills, powers of attorney, and medical caregivers. You need to look into and spread the truth to your homosexual friends.
In regard to the scientific study , please learn the difference between logical fallacy and scientific study. There was no fallacy it’s scientific study.
Then homosexual rights activists concede to the health facts regarding their lifestyle they argue that homosexuals simply need to be taught how to perform their sex acts safely. However, despite innumerable education efforts, the homosexual male population remains plagued by disease.
And for straight people who voluntarily got blood transfusions. Don’t forget them.
Who voluntarily gets a blood transfusions? You can’t be serious. Bad Analogy
Not opinion FACTS http://www.home60515.com/4.html scroll down and check the fats yourself
You threw homophobic out there several times it get old and is unfounded.
You threw homophobic out there several times it gets old and is unfounded. I got a plans for the next two weeks so I won’t posting. All the best!"First of all the FACTS I provided are cited and proven not mere opinion." I didn't dispute the actual facts you cited. Several times I even said "I would not dispute this fact" or something very like that. It's the false facts, and the opinions-dressed-as-facts, and the opinions derived from a decidedly anti-gay (and unscientific) interpretation of data, that I dispute.
"If I could prove you were being played by the homosexual agenda would you ever think for your yourself and learn the truth? I'll try get the book "After the Ball" you'll see that you just a puppet. "
A puppet, am I? Heh, what was that you said a couple posts ago about name-calling, and the end of one's intellectual capacity?
"If your going to quote the constitution read in context at least Geez...Certainly no founding Constitution of any state, or the federal government, says anything about same-sex marriage."
Exactly. And the Ninth Amendments says, explicitly, that even if we didn't mention something, that doesn't mean it's prohibited. So even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant me the right to stand on my head on my front lawn, or practice yoga in the nude in my basement, I still have those rights. I don't however, have the right to stand on my head on your[i] front lawn, or practice yoga in the nude in [i]your basement. In your basement, and on your front lawn, your rights are paramount, not mine.
"By whose standard of morality must same-sex marriage be established?"
Who cares? Look, there's no reason that informed consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into any kind of relationship they want to, and if one kind is recognized by the state, why must another not be recognized by the state? I can enter into a business partnership with another man, or with a woman, if I want to. In some countries, a man entering into a business partnership with a woman is considered immoral, on religious grounds. Probably some people in the USA consider it wrong for a man to go into business with a woman. So, to those people I say, Well, if you're a man, don't go into business with a woman; if you're a woman, don't go into business with a man. It's simple. But you don't get to stop me just because you disapprove: it neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket.
"Notice that homosexual activists cleverly avoid the real issue. When speaking of homosexuality, they always talk about rights rather than acts. They know they won’t win if they describe the acts that they want us to endorse through government-backed same-sex marriage."
No, I disagree with this as well. It's a matter of what the sides perceive as the "real" issue. Gay people see it as an issue of being treated as equal citizens before the law, being able to do things like visit their loved one in the hospital, bequeath property to them without legal wrangling, buy property in common, etc ad nauseam, just as straight couples are legally able to do. Anti-gay people want to make the issue basically this: "But they have teh buttsecks!!!!1!eleven!!1 OMG! taht's so gross! Do you want to make it legal for people to sodomize each other? Plus, God gets mad when gay people are happy."
Nobody is trying to make it illegal for straight couples to engage in consensual sodomy, cunnilingus, analingus, fetishism, etc. Imagine the outcry if such a bill were introduced in Congress. Sure, most of us don't want to do any of that stuff, but most of us dont want some government authority checking up to make sure we don't do it, either.
And yes, I know, gay people can already do whatever they want with each other in the privacy of their homes, except be married. And by being married, hetero partners get to do all that stuff, and get to jointly own property, etc.
So forbidding gay marriage isn't actually forbidding all that gross stuff that is an abomination unto the Lord. It's just treating people who engage in those behaviors (which harm nobody except, perhaps, the participants, but that has not been proven, only asserted) as second-class citizens.
"An even more startling statistic that one study found is that 43 percent of white homosexuals slept with 500 or more men, and 28 percent had sex with a thousand or more men." And again, I simply can't believe this statistic. It's absurd. Where does someone find the time (and the endurance, for goodness sakes!) to have sex with a thousand different people? Over the course of a shorter than average lifetime? I suppose it's possible to have a steady regimen of one (different) partner a day for a thousand days, but given that gays are such a small segment of the population, a gay person would have to do a lot of traveling, be very well organized, and be reasonably sure that he wasn't walking into a trap (because some hetero folks enjoy beating up fags) to get that accomplished. And he'd have to do it when he was fairly young, because as men age, well, you've seen the commercials for Viagra.
And let's get this clear: the gay guys who are running around having sex with anything that moves are not the ones who will be getting married. People who enjoy free love (heterosexuals included) generally don't. Even if this ludicrous-sounding statistic were true, it's not a good reason to deny those gays who do want to marry the right to do so.
'"And the percentage of gays in the population is relevant to whether they should have equal rights how, exactly?"
You brought up false numbers I just corrected you.'
So you concede that the percentage of gays in the population (whether it's 4%, 10% or 15%) has no bearing on whether they should or shouldn't receive equal rights? I agree with that.
"Persons who have established a same-sex relationship have the same rights available to them as that of close friends and acquaintances, and is commensurate to circumstances of the relationship." That part is true. But it's not enough.
"Specific issues such as hospital visits, property rights, and inheritances are adequately covered under current law regulating wills, powers of attorney, and medical caregivers." This part is not true, and as evidence I present Greene v. County of Sonoma et al.
Google it. This elderly couple had taken all the legal precautions available to them, but to no avail. When one of them took a fall and had to be hospitalized, the couple were separated. The hospital refused to let the uninjured man visit his partner, the county treated the injured man as though he had no family, treated the uninjured man as the injured one's roommate, forcibly placed both men in separate nursing homes and auctioned off their property, in spite of the supposedly adequate legal protections available to them, and which they had taken. So don't pretend that gay partners have the same protections that spouses have, or that their legal filings are worth anything. They do not, and they are not.
'"Let me simply say that I have no moral objection to promiscuity…I enjoyed the '70's, I didn't think there was anything morally wrong with the lifestyle of the baths. I believe that for many people, promiscuity can be meaningful, liberating and fun."' So? Really, some gay people groove on free love. I get that. (So do some straight people, by the way.) Because some (or even most) gays enjoy free love is no reason to deny the legal protections of marriage to those gay couples who wish to marry. The free love crowd aren't going to get married anyway.
"In regard to the scientific study , please learn the difference between logical fallacy and scientific study. There was no fallacy it’s scientific study."
I do know the difference. A scientific study generates data. The data are not the problem. It's the interpretations of the data that are the problem. Some lessons of logic: Correlation does not imply causation. If A happened before B, A did not necessarily cause B. That's what logic looks like.I don't dispute your data; I dispute the conclusions you draw from the data, which are based on scientific data and faulty logic.
Scientific data + faulty logic = illogical conclusions.
"Now I you really think for such a small percentage why do homosexuals lead in nearly ALL new cases of sexually transmitted diseases?"
Wait, what? So heterosexuals almost never get STDs? Where are your data for that claim? I don't dispute that gays are disproportionally infected, but there's no way that 4% of the population gets 90+% (nearly all) of STDs.
"Who voluntarily gets a blood transfusions? You can’t be serious."
No, I was being facetious, but still making a valid point: non homosexuals, even those who did not engage in risky behavior, have been infected with HIV. They benefit from the research just as much as gay AIDS patients do, and once again, it's straight people's fear of AIDS that drives the research funding, not gay people's "selfishness."
"You threw homophobic out there several times"
No. No, I didn't. I used it exactly once, when I said
"With all the rampant homophobia in the world, it's pretty obvious that most people don't want to live in a same-sex marriage, faithfully or otherwise. Don't conjure chimeras in a vain attempt to obscure the issue." Find at least one other use of the word (actually, two more would be required for 'several,' but I'm feeling generous) or admit that you misspoke.
Look, it all comes down to this.
Some gay people want to marry their partners and enjoy the same legal status as a married straight couple enjoys.
But some people think this would be a bad thing to allow.
The anti-gay marriage crowd argues that allowing gay marriage would somehow harm the institution of straight marriage.
I have yet to hear someone explain exactly how straight marriages will be ruined if gays are allowed to marry. The institute of straight marriage is being harmed enough by the actions of straight people, if you ask me.
The anti-gay marriage crowd argues that allowing gay marriage is "unnatural."
But animals have been documented engaging in homosexual behavior in nature, not just a few times, but in statistically significant numbers.
The anti-gay marriage crowd argues that allowing gay marriage is bad because gay people are promiscuous.
So what? The promiscuous ones don't want to get married anyway.
The anti-gay marriage crowd argues that allowing gay marriage is bad because it condones sodomy, and sodomy is icky.
So what? If two informed consenting adults agree to it, why is it anyone else's concern? Will sodomy cooties invisibly spread from their bedroom, somehow tainting the fabric of all society? Clearly not, as people are engaging in sodomy even now, and the rest of us are not being tainted.
The anti-gay marriage crowd argues that allowing gay marriage means we would have to allow polygamy, incest, and bestiality, too!
First, if polygamy were limited to informed consenting adults, it would be fine. But alas, most polygamy cases involve child brides or spouses who were unaware of each other's existence. That's why we don't allow polygamy, though the law should be changed from an outright prohibition to one requiring informed adult consent of all parties.
Second, incest has been shown to have a high danger of having offspring with birth defects. Gay marriages would have no offspring, so the analogy is false.
Third, bestiality is a known vector for disease to jump species, and there's no way to get the animal's consent. Another false analogy.
The anti-gay marriage crowd argues that allowing gay marriage would be offensive to God.
Again, so the Hell what? Hindus marry in Hindu wedding ceremonies and it's legally recognized. We let Zoroastrians marry in Zoroastrian ceremonies and it's legally recognized. I could go on. If a church can be found that will perform a marriage between two gays, then that marriage should have the same legal recognition as one performed in any other church.
It all comes down to variations on "Gay marriage is bad because I don't like the idea of dudes doing it, and neither does (my interpretation of) God."
You don't like it, but nobody is making you watch, and nobody is making you do it, so no problem. You might be right about God not liking it, but there's really no proof that you are*, and even if there were, isn't that between God and the gay people? Plus, more people eat meat with dairy, eat shellfish, wear wool/linen blends, and do all manner of other so-called abominations unto the Lord, and nobody's getting all bent out of shape over those. I suggest that if you believe that it's wrong to wear wool/linen blends, eat shrimp, or engage in sodomy, that you not do those things. But if the idea that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying a cheeseburger (or gay sex) makes you so mad you have to put a stop to it, I suggest counseling. Seriously. This seems really unhealthy. Just my opinion.
Well, It's been fun playing the "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" game with you. Have a great couple weeks!
*The Bible is not "evidence." It's true because the Bible says it, and the Bible says that the Bible is the truth is circular logic of the worst kind. The Bible may be the true, inerrant Word of God, or it may be an Inspired allegory written by fallible humans (my view), or it may be a complete fabrication. We don't know, we can only believe. Belief /= proof.
Rilli? How about some denominations of your own delusion - oops, sorry, religion - where marriage is between one man and many women?
No way! Did you tell me to educate myself?
What good has an education done you? No one on this forum has made as many ignorant statements as I have read on your post. By the way, most of what blacks went through during the period of slavery and Jim Crow here in America can be reasonably match by the hate, the denial of medical care for Aids back in the eighties, the discrimination, the torture, the murder…Actually EXTERMINATION of homosexual people that has gone on forever.
Smart people know that Blacks are not the only people hurt by racism, hate, and INGNORANCE.I'm ignorant because I refuse to accept your behavior as good? Or because I know all your talking point and am not impressed? I know you guys have to play the victim in order to get people like Jeff to feel sorry for you and check their brains at the door in order to support your destructive behavior. But I care for homosexuals too much to endorse medically dangerous behavior. I help them leave homosexuality if they want and many do through the healing power of Jesus Christ. Homosexuals on the other hand bash and mock and ridicule ex-homosexuals, Why?
One of my favorite testimonies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy65tNr5FlQ
Let me ask you a question how did AIDS spread so quickly in the homosexual community? To avoid your spin I'll answer from promiscuous and unprotected sex, which is very common of the addictive and lethal behavior of homosexuals(based on homosexuals own admissions. Not from being homosexual(thoughts and desires) but from the behavior.
The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.
References: Psychological Reports, 2003, 93, 410-416.
As for the very rare cases of actual hate crimes against homosexuals I’m not naive to think that they don’t occur, but the media has fabricated stories just to make it seem that every straight person want to kill gays and that’s a lie, but many homosexuals and homosexual advocates believe the lie and spread the lie. If there is extermination going on it’s self inflicted.
What about this?
We Shall Sodomize Your Sons
We shall sodomize your sons,
emblems of your feeble masculinity,
of your shallow dreams and vulgar lives.
We shall seduce him in your schools,
in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums,
in your locker rooms, sports arenas,
seminiaries, truck stops, male clubs,
and in your Houses of Congress.
Wherever men are with men together,
your sons shall become our minions
and do our bidding.
They will be re-cast in OUR image.
They will come to crave and adore us.
All laws banning homosexuality will be revoked.
If you dare cry "faggot", "fairy", or "queer" at us,
we will stab you in your cowardly hearts.
All churches who condemn us will be closed.
Our only gods are handsome young men.
We shall be victorious because we are
fueled with the ferocious
bitterness of the oppressed.
We too, are capable of firing guns
and manning the barricades
of ultimate revolution.
Michael Swift(homosexual male), Gay Community News, 2/15/87
Are these the words of a poor mistreated homosexual? No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGqxK2bOnq0
You wanna talk real extermination?
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority(Black, Latino) communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today? Yes!
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
http://blackgenocide.org/negro.html
Again I say educate yourself.So you're going to STRAIGHTEN ME OUT!!!
I was laughing so hard I replied to the wrong post. I can not believe Jeff or I or anyone for that matter; wasted so much time with a CHEAP SNAKE OIL SALESMEN. How much do you charge for your STRAIGHT PILL? Does it come in a time release formula. It should have dawned on me sooner. Your infomercial size comments should have alerted me and everyone else to the fact you were trying to sell something.
You forgot the testimonials from all the satisfied customers you straighted out.
If it's all the same to you; I'll wait for the generic brand.What? What are you talking about? Didn't you start this exchange with me? I don't know Jackie personally, I just saw your story online and found it amazing and very touching. The ministry that helped her does good work. I witness to homosexuals share the gospel, and pray for them. Wow, you sure showed your true colors what happened to the "poor victim" act. See Jeff I told you, you’re being played.
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts." 2 Peter 3:3Just so you don't waste your time(time is money and all that). I'm done with you.
We all must repent and trust in Jesus, whether you’re homosexual, a thief, or an adulterer, repent and trust in Jesus and God will forgive you. Just come as you are to Him are and He(not me) will change you inside and out. That's the truth in love. I didn't start this exchange, but if you must flee, flee. All the best!
"Are these the words of a poor mistreated homosexual? No."
No, they're the words of an Angry Young Man(tm) who feels persecuted and justified in visiting violence upon those he perceives as having wronged him. He's also an idiot if he actually believes in the crap he wrote.
"I know you guys have to play the victim in order to get people like Jeff to feel sorry for you and check their brains at the door in order to support your destructive behavior."
Heh, I don't know when I've been called a mindless pawn with that level of politeness ever before. I can't even bring myself to feel insulted.
"You wanna talk real extermination?"
Y'know, it sounds like your time and energy would be better spent battling the disproportionate incidence of abortion in the black community than trying to stop gays (who can't even make babies on their own) from getting married.
Cheers,
JB
Hi MM! Yes I got that part right. Psychotic.
This is the word of god apparently, yet it did not stand the test of time.
I like my belief better, that it is the word of a few controlling old men reworking the threats of previous gods to control first the ignorant, then the masses.
This belief system is only supported by circular logic. No proof for any god has ever been documented not even once, Jesus said nothing, others spoke for him apparently.
I have been through the religious experience and am thankful daily for having my life back!What would a mormon think?
Still getting over being called a mormon! For everyone not selling something...This is the Sky Fairy Guy. Right Earnest?
There are many here who don't believe in the sky fairy. I am one of them.
Apparently this has been interpreted to mean I am a mormon! I have been called a few things by believers, but never a mormon before! ( see posts above) Like I said, some people are too busy selling something. They don't have the time to get to know the people they're talking to.
So true. It seems many do not notice.
They often include others in their belief systems, offering to punish them with their invisible entity. This gets pretty thin too.
Jeff - do us all a favor and use the "import and edit the quote" facility. Please...
And you may as well talk to the chair you are sat on for all the sense you will get out of this one. Sorry, Mark. I realize that the exchange must have been pretty confusing for someone not involved in it. I'll remember in the future. But the quote feature doesn't seem to be working for me.
Above the words "Sorry" is the following text in my post:
*kwote=Mark Knowles*Jeff - do us all a favor and use the "import and edit the quote" facility. Please... */kwote*
with [square brackets] instead of *asterisks* and the word "quote" spelled correctly. That's what the formatting tips say to use when quoting, but I only get white space when I use it. What am I doing wrong?
Yeah, it does seem to have degenerated into a more sophisticated-sounding game of "I know you are but what am I?"Marcus, you bought a camera!
Does this mean you will be spending more time harassing tourists for €4 a photo -with you of course? Just breaking chops man. -James
It seems like the issue really comes down to why do Christians not want to call a relationship between two men or two women a Marriage???.
And why is a civil union with all of the legal rights of a married couple not sufficient for Homosexual/Lesbian couples.
Is it a name tag that is the issue?
Or is the issue that some people are prejudice against Gay people? It isn't just Christians that are. And not all Christians at that. But that depends upon your definition of preudice?
I think that everyone is prejudice against somebody or something?
So what exactly is at the center of the arguement.
You say ....
I don't want everyone to call it civil union...
I want everyone to call it marriage??
They say ... I don't want you to call it a married cause that is what I am and you ain't me ??
Name Tag ???Hi Jerami
It's not about names. It's not about being called names. It's not about a name tag of Marriage or civil union. It's not about Christians feelings toward me. It's not about anyone hating me for who I am. I could care less about what somebody thinks of me. Those that want to attack me physically; by all means take your chances. That does not matter to me or concern me as much as being denied equal rights under the law. What religious nuts think dont matter. What homophobes think or do to me does not matter.
What hurts me most is state run discrimination. A gay person in any type of relationship in this country is not covered under federal law with the same rights a married straight couple has. That's all I want. Equal justice under the law.
I have no agenda other than to live my life in the country I was born in, and pay taxes in, to live with equal justice under the law.Which is your right.
The laws need to be changed. They are currently discriminative.
Any fair minded person who examines these laws will see how cruel and thoughtless they really are.
I am not gay myself, but can easily see the way gay people are treated under the law is a disgrace!Hmm. So what law should be changed to satisfy what national necessity exactly?
A personal need of a group that has 100% legal and social rights already? That's called lobbyist in my book. The problem is laws are being bend and broken or changed for appeasement, not social integrity or betterment. Might as well bring back Haight-Ashbury, at least they had political and social ground. How does SEX equate a national law? Civil rights are already in place. As a card carrying member of the ACLU, seeing what is going on is much different than what people think. This is mass media brainwashing at its best...
I don't see any problem with Gay couples having equal rights under the law with civil unions. Any two people should be able to write any kind of Contract that the two of them wants to agree to.
I think that your the biggest problem is the insurance companies.
They do not want to open the door to anyone being able to name someone that is not a family member to their health insurance as a dependent.. If they open this opportunity for Gays they will then have to do the same for any and everyone.
If I could adopt (so to speak) anyone I wanted to as a dependent on health insurance,THE Health insurance co. couldn't keep up with the paper work and fraud.
Yea I think it is a sin. But I have enough trouble keeping track of my own to be concerned with yours.
I don't remember any stories about Jesus running after people to condemn anyone??? I think that if you came up to him and asked him about it he would tell you the same thing that he would tell me. He'd say quit doing that (or this ?)
The Christians that I know are mostly opposed to putting the name tag "Marriage" on it. Or making it look like they are condoning it.
But that is just my opinion.The problem is alot of gay people care what you think and they want legitimacy in your eyes. They have to be "MARRIED" with a church and a steeple and all that other BS so they can feel "normal".
I dont care what you want to call it, marriage, civil union, A-Team! I want anyone I'm with to have the same rights your wife or your husband has. I don't want you to like me or accept me. That's not a requirement to be a Free American. At least that's my opinion.I can understand that. I was replying to your comment that nametags wasn't the issue. I was just saying that I think that it is the Insurance cos. that have the power to block this issue.
I know a few heterosexual couples that have been living together out of wed lock for years and I recognize them as a married couple. Does God?? I would think so, with or without a piece of paper saying so but I don't know. It aint my job to judge.
Gay marriages sanctioned under God? I'm glad it aint my job to say. But if it was my job and I had to stand before God and have to answer for my decision I'd have to say no. If I was a Priest and a gay couple wanted me to perform the wedding? I'd have to say no.
If a gay couple lived next door? If they were likeable people, I'd like em.
I'm glad it aint my job to judge.That decision should not be forced on you. A marriage in a church should be left as a Christian or Jewish, or Muslim tradition. I for one, do not want to intrude on that traditional practice of people confirming their legal union in a place where they worship. I just want the Legal Union with the legal rights everyone else gets!
I gotta go in a little while ,, but first wanted to say that it id difficult for ; lets say any 100 people to agree upon anything. Especially where to draw the line.
I'm for eliminating discrimination of all kinds but that will never happen.
People that are born ugly don't get to be models.
Short fat people that dress funny, such as my self are discriminated against.
We just gotta do what we gotta do to survive and pursue happiness. We just do whatever we think works best for us in whatever situation that we put ourselves in. And then we live with that choice.It's funny that the zealots try to frame it as a debate about changing the fundamental definition of marriage before God, as if we mere mortals have any power over the Creator of the Universe.
If God recognizes your marriage, great. If He doesn't, that's gonna be a bummer in the afterlife. But nothing we do here is going to change what happens in the afterlife one way or the other, and as Jerami says, it's not our job to judge.
The US recognizes Hindu marriages and Sikh marriages and Buddhist marriages. If a church is willing to perform a homosexual marriage, then the US should recognize it, too, under the equal protection clause.Which again brings back to the point: precisely, exactly what rights are those choosing that sexual lifestyle denied -under the law?
I think more than Christians, straight men have a problem with Homosexuals. It's not a Christian thing.
Christians have a problem with Homosexuality cause it is so easy to judge someone as being more sinful than our selves. That is what we are looking fore. Somebody to make us feel better about our selves. Instead of looking for Christ to do it for us we would rather do it for ourselves.
TAG . YOu'r IT !I don't think ALL Christians have problems with homosexuals, just the more militant ones do!
PS, There's a whole body of gay Christians out there, ya know?
This is their logo:
If -and this is epistemologically speaking- one defines themselves under the new covenant as a follower of the teaching of Y`shua AND the name associated with (anointing, which means Christ), wouldn't that lifestyle contradict itself, the order it partakes of and cause unnecessary social issues? It is like saying you are a "Peaceful Jihadist" or "Honest Politician".
I am not judging here, because it really mean nothing to me either way. But it seems perhaps the two may be quite the same -simple self indulgences to satisfy a need far exceeding the image people perceive. I remember reading recently about Ba`al and how easy it has progressed over 6-7 millennium. How closely related their induction of Judaism into pagan worship was. To the point where Babylonian lawmakers and socialites made them a united religion. The same practices were occurring then, socially, economically, spiritually, etc. -JamesYea yea yea!!!
Someone explain to me, in plain english, this whole gay Christian thing. Explain the part about no longer being thought of as an abomination! Did you get rid of the whole book of Liviticus?
Dyin to hear this....What does Leviticus have to do with the issue. That book was written and close a loooooooooooooooooong time ago. People are still holding on to Judaism, which by all means is impressive. 5,000 years ago, the exact same issues came up. History seems to repeat itself, again. Back then, social order rested heavily on keeping the people of Israel in line with the law and becoming a modal, an example, of social harmony. Things done against the law -in truth almost all of them were Capital Crimes. No lethal injection back so they were stoned or worse. Case in point: after hundreds of years of slavery under a brutal hand of the most powerful nation at the time, as soon as they came in contact with ba`al worshipers, immediately built a golden calf and started boning each other and killing animals, tossing blood on the calf, etc.
I'm sorry, I was talking about the Gay Christian Church. How are gay people out there coping with being Gay and Christian. I don't get it. Help me understand.
What ever I was? Where ever I am? What ever I am doing? Do I need a Church to agree widit ?
Some might say ,,, "which church ya talking about" before they answer. ...
I don't think that God wants ya ta hafta go through a church to find out what he wants ya to do.
He wants ya ta listen and then you'd know.
You need to stop saying these things. Someone young or unlearned might believe it.
- Twenty One Daysposted 15 years ago0
Bacall,
It seems to be the fundamentalist 'Chrstian' groups are competing for space against the established RC Church. Various hard-core groups are accepting the lifestyle into their organizations, for fear of alienating them and causing further friction (that's fancy term for loosing ground against the Pope & politicians). Allowing alternative lifestyle ministers, pastors, unions, etc. Which actually goes against their teachings 100%. But, that is the nature of the sensational side (religion). This directly reflects my mention of the fusion of Ba`al with strict Judaic Law. Not only this but a huge acceptance of sorcery/magic and what is termed new age practices into some of the highest ranks of the organizations. Crazy stuff. I guess it used to be considered a sin of some sort, but now as people become more accepting it is more and more common due to impacts from media and the world such as same sex marriages. Under bible teachings you should treat others as you would like to be treated right? Since its more common and you would not like others to judge you on which gender you fall in love with, like I said same homosexuality is becoming more and more accepting among Christians.
Related Discussions
- 18
Christians, How does Homosexuality have anything to do with you..
by Peeples 10 years ago
Personally that is? Since NC voters have made it clear marriage is between a man and a woman all I hear about is god made a man and a woman, It's a sin, and so on. Even if that were all true how does it have anything to do with you? Why do you care who someone else wants to marry? I don't...
- 238
Homosexuality - Why it should not be slandered.
by L. Andrew Marr 15 years ago
I am sick of born again Christians on this site saying homosexuality is evil and wrong. I have a couple of good mates who are gay (not with each other) and they are far from evil. I am sick of people saying it is a 'wrong' moral choice when there is plenty of scientific evidence proving that it is...
- 54
Gay people in my family. Inherited? Choice? Victim of circumstances?
by WaffleCheese 15 years ago
I know this is a hot topic, but there are some people in my family (none blood related [that I know of]) That are gay. Some are open, some say they are 'recovering' and some might not have even come out yet.Without being too specific, one member has a child who has effeminate tendencies, and the...
- 14
Do you believe a person can be a Christian and continue willingly in a homosexua
by Thom Hunter 8 years ago
Do you believe a person can be a Christian and continue willingly in a homosexual lifestyle?Culture and some churches are embracing the concept of "gay-Christian." The Bible discusses homosexuality, yet some interpret it differently than others. I write about it regularly as a...
- 709
Can homosexuals live a christian lifestyle or is that hypocritical?
by David Stillwell 11 years ago
There seems to be such a focus in the forums between homosexuality and religion/god that I am now curious about whether or not gay people can be Christians in the same context as straight people can be Christians?
- 940
Will homosexuals go to heaven or hell when they die?
by cooldad 8 years ago
I'm an atheist, but I've always thought that the Bible adamantly condemns homosexuality. Do homosexuals have any chance of getting into heaven? This has always confused me. In God's eyes, is being homosexual any more different than being an adulterer or killing someone? Can homosexuals also be...