-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Pope: Saving world from homosexuality like saving rainforests
- Thread starter Washington
- Start date
- Status
HighwayMan
Well-Known Member
- Aug 7, 2007
- 2,831
- 257
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Private
I wonder though, what about people who are technically heterosexual, but have no desire whatsoever to get married and/or have children. That is not a traditional role either.
So am I just as "bad" as homosexuals?
So am I just as "bad" as homosexuals?
Upvote
0
QuakerOats
— ♥ — Living in Love — ♥ —
One could ask the same thing of you, or of anyone, really. Is it too much to ask that heterosexuals keep their 'sexual status' out of the schools, and out of the government? Your argument doesn't work, especially since 'perversion' is pure opinion here, and likely based on religious convictions, which alone are not satisfactory reasons for declaring as such in the court of law, as per the First Amendment.
Upvote
0
HighwayMan
Well-Known Member
- Aug 7, 2007
- 2,831
- 257
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Private
Yeah, but since I do not participate and the traditional male/female roles either, aren't I also a "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound" ? Homosexuals are no more obstacles to traditional relationships in society than I am.
Upvote
0
By his current logic, that would be correct. However, I would argue that homosexuality (specifically between males) is a threat to patriarchy and therefore also the current structure of our society as a whole.
lol
Upvote
0
bsd13
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2008
- 706
- 29
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The issue isn't if they are obstacles or not (though they certainly are) the issue is that they forbidden by a higher law than even the law of the land. That is God's law. And yes that is the ruler by which the issue is measured. By human standards you are correct; sexual deviancy is not an issue. By God's standards it is.
Upvote
0
QuakerOats
— ♥ — Living in Love — ♥ —
No, I never said that there are no absolutes, only that your opinion in this case is just that-an opinion. I've seen no demonstrable evidence to suggest otherwise.
Upvote
0
bsd13
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2008
- 706
- 29
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The victim of a rapist might disagree with you.
There are indeed moral absolutes. There is a line that must be drawn. Your issue is that God has drawn the line far shorter than you would personally draw the line, but if He did not it would never get drawn. Because someone would always say that such and such isn't going to far.
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
Nonsense. We have governments and laws to draw the line. You don't need ancient laws and ancient books to legislate morality when you have modern laws that do it better and more concisely.
Upvote
0
SiderealExalt
Well-Known Member
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that's precious. But it still doesn't answer why I need to accept convoluted notions of perversion.
I live in America. America is a democratic republic. Ergo, who cares what you consider your God's law. I don't have to, nor does anyone else in any official capacity what so ever. The faster this reality sinks in on you the better for everyone. If you want a theocracy I suggest perhaps Iran, or find a desert island you can buy on the cheap and start a the nation of King of Kingsvania.
I don't trust as a rule, where Christians draw their lines of morality for everyone else. And I'm highly suspect of the claim that you are speaking for God on where that deity draws it's lines. Gods I find tend to draw lines of morality and law to benefit the people saying they are speaking for their deity. Funny how that work.
Upvote
0
bsd13
Well-Known Member
- Jan 31, 2008
- 706
- 29
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Romans 14:14 doesn't give one open license to commit sin. In fact taken in context it warns against doing that very thing.
Romans 14:14-15 - "14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died."
The entire meaning of 14:14 changes when taken in context with the next verse. And you're not in Christ (unless you're claim of being a deist is wrong) so why quote Biblical passages? Especially ones that don't back up the point you seem to be trying to make.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
