Today's Ruling

[Hetta]

Usually, governments don't pass laws these days that overtly require children to be poor or children to be abused. Governments have legalized murdering babies in the womb, an extreme form of child abuse, and I do see Christians respond with a great deal of passion over this child abuse issue. And this is a child abuse issue where there are protestors on the streets in favor of keeping the murderous abuse legal. So it's to same sex so-called 'marriage' in that regard, with people on the streets in favor of legalizing wickedness.

So because there is no law requiring kids to be poor or abused, it's not worth getting passionate about. Sure. That's fine. But then again, protect the ones in vitro, and when they're born, forget alllll about them, or complain that they're on welfare or they need more help than others, or maybe they'll benefit from affirmative action, and we know that's evil. Ugh. It's not "so called" it is called marriage.

 

[LinkH]

But to the point, this doesn't really call for a response simply because it is so ludicrous, but I do want to note that many, many young people, discovering that they are homosexual in families, communities, churches, and a broader culture that considers that "disgusting" and "perverted" commit suicide. This happens all the time. This is not theoretical or hypothetical. This is what a culture of hatred results in. It results in young people so disgusted by themselves that they take their own life.

The Bible does call these types of affections 'vile.' I'm sure all of us have heard, either on TV, a man who made unwanted sexual advances on a woman as being disgusting, a pervert, a creep, etc.

One thing we have to keep in mind is that a lot of older folks and conservative Christians in general have a bit different definition of 'gay' or 'homosexual' that LGBT folks or Gen Y folks who have been brainswashed by film and media to think homosexual behavior is okay.



The LGBT folks say 'gay' or 'homosexual' and refer to some kind of innate 'sexual orientation' that people are born with. A lot of evangelicals and older folks think of people who do homosexual acts when they hear those words. I've written little articles encouraging evangelicals not to say things like "Gays go to Hell." A Christian struggling with same-sex attraction may think of 'gay' as an orientation, and then think himself damned because of the temptation he struggles with, even if he does not give in to it. That's certainly not the right way to look with it.

A man who is attracted to beautiful women who could potentially be tempted to fall into fornication if he gave in to the lusts of his flesh isn't condemned to Hell. If he keeps his eyes, heart, and body pure, he can overcome the temptation. Homosexual lust must be a difficult thing to struggle with. But struggling against lust isn't sin.

I also think it is normal to find the idea of engaging in sexual relations with ones own sex to be disgusting. People who make those comments are sharing their own feelings, which display a natural aversion to such things. Homosexual desire is an abnormal thing. But oen of the problems with sin is that it can gradually lead to acceptance of perversion until it feels desirable or normal. This can happen on an individual level or over generations in a society. I see Romans 1 as a societal thing, since those idolators probably didn't leap into homosexual full throttle in the first generations.

I don't think the suicide thing is just because of a lack of acceptance. I've read that in some of the older psychological research, homosexuals tended to be the type that delighted in defying the mores of society and seemed to enjoy that. Higher suicide rates could be a consequence of the damage people cause to themselves in engaging in this type of sin. Paul says that they recieve in themselves the due penalty for their error.

I am not sure what Fat Wee Robin's point was about suicide, but I could see how societal acceptance of homosexuality could lead to more suicides. If engaging in homosexual sin leaves one more open to suicide and psychological problems, and promotion of homosexuality as normal by government and media leads more people whose sexual choices aren't all that polarized (open to choosing a homosexual path if raised in a society that accepts it, but wouldn't have had interest if society had opposed it), then there could be more suicides from all the experimentation in homosexuality.

Telling kids its 'okay to be gay' and encouraging them in that path can cause them a lot of pain and grief. I wouldn't want to be handcuffed to anyone on the day of judgment who'd done such a thing. The millstone passage comes to mind. Media spin makes it out that if you teach kids that this stuff is dangerous, you are supporting 'bullying.' It's really twisted, calling good evil and evil good.

So to anyone young people here reading your post, please know that "fat wee robin" is on the extreme fringe of any group, and this kind of thinking does not represented Christianity or Christian love.

I don't think it is appropriate to write such things and to judge as you have. He has valid concerns. I think he has very legitimate concerns that society is on a downward spiral in this nation unless it repents. I don't know that morality and society will crumble very quickly. Who knows how long those Canaanite tribes were engaging in homosexual activities before judgment came? I'm not sure if Amorites did that, or if they did it in the time of Abraham, but it took over 400 years for the cup of the Amorites to be full. It would seem God was waiting on that to happen before He would bring judgment on their society and let Israel have the land that they occupied. The Spartans existed for some period of time with homosexual practices, and the Athenians didn't die out immediately. Rome stayed powerful for a while when their society was engaged in such perversion. God will bring judgment. It may take more than a few years for a society to unravel. I don't expect the Us to be the top power for a whole generation, anyway.

 

[JustHisKid]

So because there is no law requiring kids to be poor or abused, it's not worth getting passionate about. Sure. That's fine. But then again, protect the ones in vitro, and when they're born, forget alllll about them, or complain that they're on welfare or they need more help than others, or maybe they'll benefit from affirmative action, and we know that's evil. Ugh. It's not "so called" it is called marriage.

Why do you think it is better to kill a baby than to care for it? If the parents can't care for a child they should not get pregnant in the first place.
A marriage in eyes of the God who created man and woman is between man & woman. He actually created man and woman for a purpose. A law that allows a civil union between people of the same gender may be legally called a marriage, but it is not a marriage in God's eyes. I think that's the point.

 

[LinkH]

So because there is no law requiring kids to be poor or abused, it's not worth getting passionate about. Sure. That's fine. But then again, protect the ones in vitro, and when they're born, forget alllll about them, or complain that they're on welfare or they need more help than others, or maybe they'll benefit from affirmative action, and we know that's evil. Ugh. It's not "so called" it is called marriage.

Hetta, your post is all over the place. What does affirmative action have to do with what we are discussing? Who says not to care about children? Your ranting against a straw man.

And a man 'marrying' a man or a woman 'marrying' a woman is not marriage as God has defined it. Marriage is also between a man and a woman according to the rules for discussion on this forum.

 

[Hetta]

Why do you think it is better to kill a baby than to care for it?

Perhaps you can point out to me where I said that.

If the parents can't care for a child they should not get pregnant in the first place.

Go tell that to Sarah Palin's daughter, who is on her second illegitimate child - by two different baby daddies.

A marriage in eyes of the God who created man and woman is between man & woman. He actually created man and woman for a purpose. A law that allows a civil union between people of the same gender may be legally called a marriage, but it is not a marriage in God's eyes. I think that's the point.

Who knows what God sees through his eyes? not me for sure.

 

[Hetta]

Hetta, your post is all over the place. What does affirmative action have to do with what we are discussing?

And a man 'marrying' a man or a woman 'marrying' a woman is not marriage as God has defined it. Marriage is also between a man and a woman according to the rules for discussion on this forum.

My post was all over the place because yours was too.

 

[LinkH]

I think you're missing the point.

By "passion expressed" over poverty; child abuse; sex trafficking/sex industry....I don't think that was brought up having anything to do with "passing laws". We *have* laws against all that---yet some people that have their behinds in pews each week (even some that are behind podiums) are actually contributing to these injustices instead of doing something to help those that are victims or changing broken systems.

Which people?

Since you brought up abortions....that reminds me of another point: why are the people that are so vocal against abortion usually the same ones that are also against government assistance (things that help the children that are already here on this earth)? If "every life is important"....then why aren't the hungry children just as important to them? To condemn a mother for making a choice like that without helping her wreaks of a lack of compassion to me. Instead....they cheer for food stamp programs being cut (and vote in favor of things that take away from innocent children--you know, the ones they didn't want aborted and weren't).

I recently read an article written by a black conservative. I can't find it, so I'll post this link http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

In 1950, 9% of black households in the US were headed by a single parent. Now, 73% of children in the black community are born out of wedlock. In the 1960's, the government started providing for mothers who had children out of wedlock. Some would argue that the monetary incentives have lead to the destruction of the family in the black community. Incentivizing having children out of wedlock is bad for society. Of course, it is not only blacks, but those figures illustrate the point. A lot of social conservatives see this and see it as a problem.

On the other hand, removing funds that kids are depending on to eat is a huge problem. I'm not against governments giving to the poor, myself. I see that as a possible way of handling things. But I do know that a lot of social conservatives, including Christians, who think that giving should come from private individuals and think that governments usually make a mess of things, as has happened with creating financial incentives for not marrying, and the lack of hard-working fatherly role models for the boys, which contributes to the cycle of poverty.

I was listening to the radio in my van one night and I heard an interview with a researcher from a university in Virginia. He had researched how much liberals and conservatives give. By far, conservatives outgave liberals. Church-going conservatives outgave them all. They gave much more money to causes for the poor, and surprisingly even gave more to environmental causes. I'm not sure what metric he was using, whether it was percentages or not.

But this is in keeping with their philosophy. Conservatives think individuals, charities, and churches should give to the poor. Liberals want the government to take care of it.

I also recall a video, kind of a documentary, in which some big name stars complained that the US gave such a small percentage of its income to certain poverty initiatives overseas when compared to European countries. But when you looked at giving from charities and individuals, the US out gave the other countries.

Btw, not everyone who thinks it should be illegal to murder babies in the womb cheers cutting food stamp programs.

 

[LinkH]

Not according to statistics supplied by creditable sources (FBI, American Psychological Association, among others). The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. There are different types of pedophiles as well.

If the men who fit this profile are having sex with small boys that is by definition, homosexual activity.

There is an arbitrary cut-off for pedophiles that they are attracted to children under age 14. Maybe that's the age where girls start to develop hips and other curves. Whatever the rationale behind it, if you ask homosexuals when they had their first homosexual experiences, some of them experienced it in their teenage years with grown men. Countries that have legalized falsely-so-called 'gay marriage' and same sex union in Europe, tend to have dropping ages of consent.

Whether the typical homosexual active in the LGBT movement molests children or not, the movement does corrupt the kids with perverted sex education curricula that it is promoting, encouraging kids in homosexuality and other perversion.

This is one of those hateful stereotypes that people use against minority groups they don't like. It's not different than the hateful stereotypes that Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices.

Killing Christian babies doesn't make one a Jew. But a man raping a little boy engages in a homosexual act.

Most pedophiles are into children - not same sex children. Majority of pedophiles are Caucasian, and married with children.

It has been years, but I think the stat was that about 20% or 25% of this sort of thing was homosexual, which is disproportation even considering Kinsey's over-inflated 10% homosexual population stat, based on snowball sampling without proper statistical methods.

 

[JustHisKid]

Perhaps you can point out to me where I said that.

Please don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. It makes you appear intellectually dishonest.

Go tell that to Sarah Palin's daughter, who is on her second illegitimate child - by two different baby daddies.
Who knows what God sees through his eyes? not me for sure.

Why would I care about this woman I do not know? Her life is her own.

 

[tall73]

So because there is no law requiring kids to be poor or abused, it's not worth getting passionate about. Sure. That's fine.

Your comment that started this portion of the discussion was regarding the passion surrounding this issue. And of course the immediate impetus of the present passion is the legal decision. To compare it to any other issue you think we should be upset about at this moment is to ignore the reason this is currently such a big issue.

It does not mean people do not get passionate about other issues as well. But it does mean that the issue recently involved in a sweeping ruling is more likely to be discussed in the immediate aftermath of that ruling. Your comparison to these other issues was a poor comparison because they did not recently have a ruling that forced them to the fore-front.

 

[HannahT]

Actually, a disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexual (or do homosexual stuff in homosexual acts with kids.)

Above was your comment, and I pointed out it has been proven false - numerous times by credible sources. Instead of admitting that falsehood you divert with the below comment.

If the men who fit this profile are having sex with small boys that is by definition, homosexual activity.

Yet, the greater number of victims is female. Still does nothing for the myth you bought into.

1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse. So it seems females are more prone to be attacked than boys.

Stating that you feel that if a man went after a boy is homosexual activity STILL doesn't prove your 'disproportionate number' you claim is there.

Admit it Link - Your wrong! There is no disproportionate number of pedophiles that are homosexual.

It was a lie that was spread to create fear and confusion.

There is an arbitrary cut-off for pedophiles that they are attracted to children under age 14. Maybe that's the age where girls start to develop hips and other curves. Whatever the rationale behind it, if you ask homosexuals when they had their first homosexual experiences, some of them experienced it in their teenage years with grown men. Countries that have legalized falsely-so-called 'gay marriage' and same sex union in Europe, tend to have dropping ages of consent.

Okay. So they have experiences as a young person with a older person - still doesn't prove your theory. Depending on the age of the person they had the experience with? They could be the victim - which doesn't do anything for your theory either.

Culture I think has more to do with dropping age - not homosexuality. Girls have been married off at young ages forever. Your theory has nothing to do with the subject at hand...so moving on.

Whether the typical homosexual active in the LGBT movement molests children or not, the movement does corrupt the kids with perverted sex education curricula that it is promoting, encouraging kids in homosexuality and other perversion.

I personally believe that you are born homosexual myself. Why would anyone wish to place themselves in the position of being a homosexual, and deal with the contempt people have against them on purpose? To me that makes no sense.

Children until recently have seen the promotion and encouragement of being frighten of homosexuals because they are pedophiles. The motive to spread this lie was to create fear and contempt for the homosexual's existence. You brought into the lie yourself.

Instead of using biblical humility to admit this sin we divert into other junk that is just as irrational, and will also be used to spread fear and contempt. Rinse and repeat I guess.

I would have see the literature you speak of to see if it 'encourages' homosexuality - or if it educates the children about the homosexual without the fabrications (or downright lies) that have been widely used so far. If I were guessing? Chances are the literature is put the fire out after all the lies that have been spread so far. They are setting the record straight in other words.

By educating children - and it seems adults as well - about homosexuality by no means 'endorses' it. It doesn't 'promote' it either. It just places the facts out there. Lack of education creates fear and bigotry. Education gives you the facts on any subject - good or evil.

People can still stand on their personal convictions with the proper facts, and the way people are acting? I think honestly people are so afraid that the facts can change that reality. Nonsense. People can stand on their convictions with the full and proper education that homosexuals are NOT the monsters that we were taught they are. They can be decent people or not - whether we agree with their personal desires or not. Whether we feel it is sin or not.

If you had been labeled the boogeyman all your life, and the culture changed to the point that people are finally willing to hear that MAYBE you aren't the boogeyman that comes out at night to hurt children? You would want to put out literature too. You don't have to accept their way of living, but you should listen and educate yourself too. You may not be so afraid of them - or their way of life, and realize they aren't out to convert people to their way of life. They just don't wish to be labeled the boogeyman anymore.

My definition of the boogeyman? A fabricated monster. That definition fits for me.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I found something interesting that I wonder what everyones view is. So as you know some christians were for gay marriage. Even on this forum. So if you support it do you realize your also supporting this? This is what they are now doing at their parades because of their victory:
http://www.youngcons.com/photo-of-g...us-has-christians-outraged-and-rightfully-so/

So my next question is would Jesus support them knowing this is how they mock christians? Bible says you can only serve one master. Oddly enough I see now some of the comments here are about abortion being ok too. You can tell Jesus is coming back when even christians go against the bible and vote for worldly things. This is why I stated earlier many will try to enter the kingdom of Heaven but many will be turned away because of God saying He does not know you because of the things you chose to ignore in the bible.

 

[LinkH]

Actually, a disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexual (or do homosexual stuff in homosexual acts with kids.)

Above was your comment, and I pointed out it has been proven false - numerous times by credible sources. Instead of admitting that falsehood you divert with the below comment.

I still believe my comment is accurate, since men having sex with boys is homosexual behavior. You'll notice you haven't produced any actual evidence for your assertion.

1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse. So it seems females are more prone to be attacked than boys.

You haven't cited a source, here. I have a source for higher numbers.

Here is a quote from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Here is another quote,

Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males

A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to "males of all ages." Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed "greater arousal" to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: "As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages."[38]

A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence noted that some of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males.[39]

Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."[40]

And

In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."[37]

Now that I've quoted that, are you going to show some Christian humility and admit that you are wrong, and all that stuff you said to me in your last post?

Stating that you feel that if a man went after a boy is homosexual activity

It obviously is by definition since they are the same sex.

STILL doesn't prove your 'disproportionate number' you claim is there.

And I don't see a source for your claims. I'm also open to the possibility that different sources can come up with different percentages both using reasonable research methods.

Okay. So they have experiences as a young person with a older person - still doesn't prove your theory. Depending on the age of the person they had the experience with? They could be the victim - which doesn't do anything for your theory either.

Sure it does. If homosexual men corrupt little boys by molesting them, that's a bad thing. If homosexual men corrupt 16 year olds by molesting them, which isn't technically pedophilia, that's a bad and dangerous thing too. It may be worse the younger the child is, but it's still bad. It's bad to entice a 20-year-old or 30 or 50 year old into sexual perversion as well.

Culture I think has more to do with dropping age - not homosexuality. Girls have been married off at young ages forever. Your theory has nothing to do with the subject at hand...so moving on.

A single man marrying a 16-year-old girl is not immoral. It may go against our cultural mores, but if done in an honorable way, it's not sinful. Fornicating with a 16-year-old girl to take her virginity is. Engaging in homosexual behavior with a 16-year-old is a sin.

I personally believe that you are born homosexual myself.

I certainly wasn't. Were you?

I know that plenty of men, apart from the grace of God, would go out and fornicate with any available female they found attractive. Plenty of them do it. There are girls these days who do the same way with guys. Were they born fornicators, or did they choose to give in to their lusts?

If a man's lusts lead him to sleep with lots of women, does the fact that he has lust that drives him to do so make it okay to indulge in the sin? Why would the lusts of those who experience homosexual desires justify their sin?

Why would anyone wish to place themselves in the position of being a homosexual, and deal with the contempt people have against them on purpose? To me that makes no sense.

It seems you consider being homosexual an undesirable thing.

I suspect that there are people who for genetic reasons, some sort of 'spiritual genetic' reasons, or because of life experiences may be inclined to be tempted with these types of lusts. Some people just won't be interested no matter what. Between those who experience strong lusts for this sort of thing early on and those who just won't ever be interested, are people who could go that way due to influences in society. For example, if they were born in the Victorian age, they would have just married and been okay with a normal relationship. But if they go to school being brainwashed by a perverted school curriculum in Kindergarten that you decided what your own gender is, that 'gay marriage' is okay, if they are shown pictures of the same gender kissing during a stage when they think the opposite gender has cooties, they could be recruited into this sort of thing. Then throw into the mix a single-parent home and a supportive gay role model encouraging a boy, for example, that it's okay to be gay, that could influence a boy who'd otherwise have married and been fine with it to consider homosexuality.

Then with all the inappropriate content, and boys in middle school watching videos of people having sex, and looking at male parts and female in sex acts on videos, and girls looking at the girls, that can warp their psyches as well.

Children until recently have seen the promotion and encouragement of being frighten of homosexuals because they are pedophiles. The motive to spread this lie was to create fear and contempt for the homosexual's existence. You brought into the lie yourself.

I don't believe it is a lie. I know it's not in all cases. I know of a man in a town I used to live in who did homosexual stuff with (young) adults and had molested a child, and another who had a reputation for both. Anecdotal evidence, but considering the actual number of homosexuals I've known, it's more than one would expect.

I would have see the literature you speak of to see if it 'encourages' homosexuality - or if it educates the children about the homosexual without the fabrications (or downright lies) that have been widely used so far. If I were guessing? Chances are the literature is put the fire out after all the lies that have been spread so far. They are setting the record straight in other words.

The curriculum taught kids, around 11 or 12 years old that the anus is genitalia, had the phrase 'anal, vaginal or oral sex' presented many times throughout the material including 'if you choose to engage in anal, vaginal or oral sex...' Examples of abusive relationships were all heterosexual, while all homosexual examples were presented in a positive light. There were no warnings about the health issues of anal sex. There were no warnings about sexual predators.

Presenting homosexual behavior as normal and acceptable is unacceptable and is potentially quite damaging to children.

By educating children - and it seems adults as well - about homosexuality by no means 'endorses' it. It doesn't 'promote' it either. It just places the facts out there. Lack of education creates fear and bigotry. Education gives you the facts on any subject - good or evil.

There is no need for school systems to teach children anything at all about homosexuality except as it relates to avoiding sexual predators.

If you had been labeled the boogeyman all your life, and the culture changed to the point that people are finally willing to hear that MAYBE you aren't the boogeyman that comes out at night to hurt children? You would want to put out literature too. You don't have to accept their way of living, but you should listen and educate yourself too. You may not be so afraid of them - or their way of life, and realize they aren't out to convert people to their way of life. They just don't wish to be labeled the boogeyman anymore.

And teach the kids that anal sex is normal, that the anus is 'genitalia' that there are three ways to have sex, and that homosexual couples are normal. That's garbage and indoctrination, not education.

My definition of the boogeyman? A fabricated monster.

The Bugis are a real people. I have met one woman that I know is half Bugis, and she wasn't scary at all. I may have known many more but didn't know they were Bugis. Some of them used to be pirates, which is where 'boogies' and 'boogie man' come from.

 

[LinkH]

http://www.thepcmdgazette.com/chris...deo-by-peaceful-tolerant-same-sex-supporters/

 

[Hetta]

Please don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. It makes you appear intellectually dishonest.

Actually, when you accuse me of saying something I didn't say, you're the one being dishonest.

Why would I care about this woman I do not know? Her life is her own.

She doesn't keep her life to herself. She spends her time judging others and then making millions for lecturing others about "abstinence" while having two babies by two different daddies - neither one of which is her husband. #hypocrisy in the extreme[/QUOTE]

 

[JustHisKid]

Actually, when you accuse me of saying something I didn't say, you're the one being dishonest.

You said, "So because there is no law requiring kids to be poor or abused, it's not worth getting passionate about. Sure. That's fine. But then again, protect the ones in vitro, and when they're born, forget alllll about them, or complain that they're on welfare or they need more help than others, or maybe they'll benefit from affirmative action, and we know that's evil. Ugh. It's not "so called" it is called marriage."

This sounds to me like you would prefer people kill their unborn children instead of give birth to them when they can't afford to take care of them. There is something called adoption that works rather well.

And yes, affirmative action is evil. There is nothing good about it.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Exactly. It won't stop here and the floodgates have now been opened for anyone with their own twisted definition of marriage to come forward and demand that they have equal rights.

I wouldn't say that it's a "twisted definition of marriage." Honestly, it's a pretty straightforward one.

Only a naive fool believes that this is the end of the battle. Churches and Christian businesses will now be the next targets and it's going to spiral very quickly, unless you happen to be one of the many who has sold out your faith and decided the praise of the world is more important than the eternal approval of your Father. These are sad and very dark days.

Well, I don't agree that churches will be a target. Churches can refuse marriage to whomever they want. The same church that refuses a gay couple's request to be married would also reject mine because I was divorced, or because I had a child before I got married. I think this assumption that the ruling means that now everybody can just be married by anybody anywhere shows a fundamental lack of understanding on what the judgement actually says.

As to the Christian business thing... I'm not buying that one. Anybody who refuses service to somebody for being gay is either homophobic and afraid to be around somebody who's not of the same sex, is trying to exert power by enforcing their beliefs on a captive audience, has a fundamental lack of understanding of their faith, or some combination thereof. The simple fact is they're refusing service because the customer gay, not because their faith compels them to do so. That's ridiculously wrong. Just like an Atheist business owner can't refuse to serve the Christian community because they disagree with their faith, a Christian business owner can't refuse to serve a gay couple because they're gay. If this was about not servicing people who sin against God, they'd also refuse to serve non-Christians, people who have children out of wedlock, people who have premarital sex, etc etc. But it's not. It's about trying to make the point that they're gay and you don't like it.

If me saying I support gay marriage means I've sold out my faith, so be it. I'm secure enough in my relationship with God to not need to marginalize an entire group of people so that I can feel I'm better off spiritually than they are.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

As I've stated in another related thread today, this is a travesty for all people.

More people gets to lose out on the individual scale (anyone who elects to get civilly married), and the People lose out also as a whole (it forments more infighting among various groups in the nations). There is no profit in peace, and the national government literally gets to grow in power over more people. A double win for the national government, and a double loss for the People.

I was married civilly. This in no way harms me or my marriage.

 

[Hetta]

You said, "So because there is no law requiring kids to be poor or abused, it's not worth getting passionate about. Sure. That's fine. But then again, protect the ones in vitro, and when they're born, forget alllll about them, or complain that they're on welfare or they need more help than others, or maybe they'll benefit from affirmative action, and we know that's evil. Ugh. It's not "so called" it is called marriage."

This sounds to me like you would prefer people kill their unborn children instead of give birth to them when they can't afford to take care of them. There is something called adoption that works rather well.

Your interpretation has nothing to do with my statement. It comes from your mind, not mine.

And yes, affirmative action is evil. There is nothing good about it.

Says the white man.

 

[JustHisKid]

Your interpretation has nothing to do with my statement. It comes from your mind, not mine.

Perhaps be more clear next time you are on a rant against Christians.

Says the white man.

I'm not white and I'm not a man. Nice display of bigotry.