-
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.
An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom
- Thread starter CreedIsChrist
- Start date
- Status
lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Lesbians can reproduce though... with a little help from science.
Upvote
0
Psudopod
Godspeed, Spacebat
Do you have any of these studies?
No, some couples can reproduce unassisted, some couples can reproduce with assistance, some cannot altogether and some chose not to. No one is denied the right to marry based on their ability or desire to reproduce, so why are you applying this special criteria to same sex couples?
We’re trying to show you that reproductive ability is not a valid criteria for you to use. If it was, applying it would get the result you wanted – opposite sex valid, same sex invalid. But as demonstrated it does not.
Upvote
0
Tu Es Petrus
Well-Known Member
Uh huh. Well, you tell that to God when you stand before him at the end of the road. I doubt He'll buy it though.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Tu Es Petrus
Well-Known Member
No. I'm just amazed that some human (you) thinks that his mind is perfectly in sync with God.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
Nope, it needs sperm and egg, from the male and the female; lesbians is just a name for women who have same sex attraction.
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To Psudopod,
As we have seen before all that happens is we offer studies and reject the others. Can you show that two men can reproduce when in sexual union with each other. I know you cant.
Then you are wasting your time and misrepresenting my view which is not based on reproductive ability but on the sex combination.... but it happens that the same sex one as opposed to male/female cant reproduce.
Upvote
0
Not true. He in one instance did, however, distinguish between something he had from the Spirit and something he was offering up as a good idea from a man who had experience in dealing with matters related to the question.
Christians in general quite simply do not accept the line being drawn that anything in the Bible that is not in red letters is not really valid.
Upvote
0
This has already been done in history, and secularists are attempting to do it again. It is not a coincidence that they are behind the attack on marriage either.
Bring it on. Obviously you do not recognize any difference between civil rights and non civil rights issues. Given that, the Constitution is essentially null and void today. The sooner Christians realizing we a playing a game whose rules have been abandoned by the opposite side, the sooner we can move on with our lives.
We are at this very moment a nation without laws. We are essentially functioning out of force of habit, and the opposition rumbles and strains for an excuse at every occasion to destroy us and our faith.
I am called a "conspiracy theorist" by some on these forums for saying such things, but the simple fact is that civil rights are delineated in the Constitution. The right to religion is in there. The right to redefine marriage is not. In point of fact, the right to engage in alternative lifestyles is not. That's why homosexuality was illegal at the time, and no conflict was seen to exist.
I wish more of you would threaten freedom of religion, and do so on TV and on the radio. It would crystallize the issue for a good many Americans, though I still am not sure this country has enough decency left to take a stand on much of anything. At least I would be able to tell more surely how tenuous a position I am in currently.
Upvote
0
You left this part out of your post
Saying that God (who he does not believe to be real to begin with) would agree with him on one point =/= "Perfectly in sync".
Upvote
0
The fact that marriage law grew up around men and women is not at all addressed by the objection that infertile men and women have been married. This false assertion needs to be abandoned and replaced by something relevant to the issue. "You have been told" is not an argument. Explanations as to why people do not accept the assertion have been offered, and the debate bogs down as gay rights activists then simply refuse to discuss the issue further.
To repeat, for most of human history it was not possible to tell if someone was permanently infertile, therefore marriage laws did not arise concerning the issue. If gay activists demand that they either be allowed to marry, or all infertile couples be required to divorce, that is their point to make, not anyone else's.
Even when people like myself have proposed, or accepted the proposals of others regarding a separate kind of union for homosexuals, the idea has been shot down. This is because the goal of the movement really has nothing to do with homosexuals, homosexuality, or even freedom of sexual behavior. It has to do with overthrowing freedom of religion, and specifically attacking Christianity.
The fact is that marriage does not currently exist for gay couples and has not existed for them in all but a vanishing few examples worldwide and throughout time. That in its turn is because it describes a relationship that does not apply to same sex couples, and a part of that relationship is that they found families. All of family law deals with these sorts of issues. To argue that they don't really deal with these issues because infertile couples are married is to basically deflect the issue and avoid the larger, more obvious truth.
If there are any of you who actually care about the issue beyond simply making accusations over and over again, please try to read and understand these arguments, and stop repeating the same accusations over and over again. You should at the very least be able to progress to explain why individual portions of family law are not in fact what they look like -- attempts to regulate family relationships between fathers, mothers, and their children. None of this translates well directly over to gay relationships. The two different sorts of relationships simply are not the same, and family law is too important a thing to just disregard this fact.
To repeat, for most of human history it was not possible to tell if someone was permanently infertile, therefore marriage laws did not arise concerning the issue. If gay activists demand that they either be allowed to marry, or all infertile couples be required to divorce, that is their point to make, not anyone else's.
Even when people like myself have proposed, or accepted the proposals of others regarding a separate kind of union for homosexuals, the idea has been shot down. This is because the goal of the movement really has nothing to do with homosexuals, homosexuality, or even freedom of sexual behavior. It has to do with overthrowing freedom of religion, and specifically attacking Christianity.
The fact is that marriage does not currently exist for gay couples and has not existed for them in all but a vanishing few examples worldwide and throughout time. That in its turn is because it describes a relationship that does not apply to same sex couples, and a part of that relationship is that they found families. All of family law deals with these sorts of issues. To argue that they don't really deal with these issues because infertile couples are married is to basically deflect the issue and avoid the larger, more obvious truth.
If there are any of you who actually care about the issue beyond simply making accusations over and over again, please try to read and understand these arguments, and stop repeating the same accusations over and over again. You should at the very least be able to progress to explain why individual portions of family law are not in fact what they look like -- attempts to regulate family relationships between fathers, mothers, and their children. None of this translates well directly over to gay relationships. The two different sorts of relationships simply are not the same, and family law is too important a thing to just disregard this fact.
Upvote
0
- Status
