SilverBear
Well-Known Member
a lot of waffling there but no answer to a rather simple question
Upvote
0
Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions
- Thread starter Frankl
- Start date
- Status
coffee4u
Well-Known Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 5,005
- 2,817
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
hatred
noun: hatred; plural noun: hatreds
intense dislike; hate.
It is not hate and that is twisting around what I said.
No they shouldn't hide, they need to acknowledge their sin and confess it to God and turn away from it and live in celibacy. I am talking about Christians here. This is what we are called to do.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
It makes no difference if the act is homosexual or heterosexual.
Going by your own standard then that means I am hating all heterosexuals who are living together as well. The vast majority of adults have at some point in their lives committed some form of sexual sin. It doesn't matter what the sin is, the answer is the same.
I suppose you view God as hate too?
And still you didn't answer my question, is a heterosexual couple living together a sin?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I think you misunderstand the issue here. No one is saying gay and lesbian couples cannot be married and have the same rights as everyone else. They have that right under secular laws. I am talking about the right for Christians to uphold their beliefs about marriage, the traditional version that is held in church by a priest. Christians are saying that this view of marriage is between a man and women and should not be changed. Christians have the right to hold and express this view.
Not sure where you are getting that information from. How can it be unconstitutionals when the right to to hold beliefs and vote in opposition to same sex marriage is a legal right.
The First Amendment to our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.
Women’s Sports Are Facing a Crisis. These Brave Athletes Are Standing Firm.
Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage
EHRC guidelines make clear that people are free to express personal views on marriage in public and in the workplace. It is not illegal to speak out against same sex marriage (any more than it's illegal to condemn the ban on fox-hunting, or the provisions of the finance bill of 2014).
Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage, but not to act against it | David Edgar
Then it would logically follow that if the "no"vote won in the same sex marriage vote the logic would be the government and people had descriminated and denied same sex marriage. Yet the government allowed this situation to potentially happen. If people have the right to express their personal views on marriage and then vote 'no' this must be a right to vote away the rights of others.
The same logic should apply the opposite way. Because the "yes" vote won this logically follows that those who voted 'No' had their rights voted away because under the law they have a right to hold their views and vote on them.
I never said anyone was killed. I said there were death threats and other violent and hateful acts against anyone who voted no. You said those who voted no would have consequences. Considering they have a right to vote no do you think people have the right to make death threats and commit violence against anyone who voted no.
If like with same sex marriage people have the right to disagree with it and express that disagreement then so long as people don't insight violence or hate they have a right to also express their disagreement to transgenerism. Sying that a man cannot become a women by only identifying as one is not inciting violence or hate speech so this is not descrimination. If you want just like I did with the right to disagree with same sex marriage I can find evidence for this as well.
Ok then all these articles from women, experts and even transgender people are also talking bull. How do you explain these articles? Once again facts speak louder than silly claims.
Transgender athletes are DESTROYING women’s sports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJe82yniZQo&ab_channel=RT
Another Women’s Sport Is Letting Biological Males Compete by
Walt Heyer x transgender
Taken together, the evidence shows that male bodies, even with low testosterone levels, maintain male strength and their inherent, significant advantage over female bodies.
Women’s Rights and the Proposed Changes to the Gender Recognition Act
The current law does not declare that transgender persons are the opposite sex for all intents and purposes. The Equality Act 2010 permits service-providers to restrict services to women even if an individual has a gender recognition certificate stating that they are female, and provides a justification against any accusation of discrimination. Women’s spaces remain protected as having a special status and serving a special need, even where to do so conflicts with the rights of transgender persons.
Women’s Rights and the Proposed Changes to the Gender Recognition Act
No actually its fact. The findings are repeated again and again in all studies.
How many transgender kids grow up to stay trans?
There are 12 such studies in all, and they all came to the very same conclusion: The majority of kids cease to feel transgender when they get older.
How many transgender kids grow up to stay trans?
A system of gender self-identification would put women at risk
Studies show that 60-90% of children self-identifying as trans stop doing so after puberty
A system of gender self-identification would put women at risk
Gender dysphoria in adolescence: current perspectives
Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC (gender dysphoria), the GD (gender dysphoria) recedes with puberty.
Gender dysphoria in adolescence: current perspectives
Once again the evidence seems to refute your claims.
Political correctness is devouring itself and has destroyed free speech
The politicians, bureaucrats, chief police officers and corporate leaders of tomorrow are at universities which teach that free debate and persuasion by argument are ideas so dangerous they must be banned as a threat to health and safety. Unless we challenge them in the most robust manner imaginable, whatever kind of country they grow up to preside over is unlikely to be a free one.
Political correctness is devouring itself and has destroyed free speech
This is also found in the laws introducved by countries, local governments and big buisness that are forcing people to use certain language (pronouns). Also in how governments are forcing certain gender ideological policies onto institutions like public health care and schools. Policies that allow boys and men to share female toilets and force doctors to perform gender-reassignment therapies and surgeries even when doing so would go against their considered medical judgment, their consciences, or their religious beliefs.
“Redefining terms is a form of indoctrination, not education. Universities are being hijacked by activists who are not interested in facts, truth, evidence or scientific reality.”
Australian university academics reveal a new level of stupidity
First you are assuming that if someone speaks out against same sex marriage they are descriminating. As pointed out above it is legal to disagree and express views against same sex marriage. Second there is some science against same sex marriage based on marriage being the basis for procreation. Some non-religious arguments supporting marriage between opposite sex is based on this.
As mentioned if people have the right to express their views and belief on same sex marriage then they should not face any consequences at least the type that some have dished out.
But you have been denying people the right to express their views and belief on same sex marriage IE
Steve said
But as I said disagreeing with same sex marriage is not being hateful.
SilverBear said
it's just as hateful as disagreeing with interracial marriage.
Disagreeing with same sex marriage is expressing a view and you have been equating this as descrimination and hate speech throughout our debate. Now you are saying people have the right to express that view. Its a wonder people are complaining about the ideology of the left being hypocritical and contradictory.[/Quote][/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
SilverBear
Well-Known Member
and if they don't? Will they themselves facing discrimination.
are their families real?
Upvote
0
SilverBear
Well-Known Member
you can hate anyone you want to but you can't vote away their rights.
but you don't have the right to discriminate or vote away the rights of LGBT individuals
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Your are still misrepresenting what is happening here. No one is hating anyone. Christians expresing their view that they amy disagree with same sex marriage is not hate, its simply a belief or view which is allowed as a legal right.
Once again you continue to perpetuate a misrepresentation of what is happening. I agree that no one has the right to descriminate. But the fact that you keep pushing this narrative when that is not what is happening in what I am trying to point out and that you are not recognising that someone expressing a belief is not hate or descrimination one can only conclude that you are yourself promoting exclusion.
I just want to be clear on my position here. I am not against the rights of LGBTI people from marrying and having all the same rights as anyone else under a secular society. Just pointing out that the same secular society also supports the rights of religious belief and the right to free speech.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,625
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
It's "hate" speech when it intentionally includes false and derogatory notions, that homosexuality is nothing but a wicked lifestyle choice, for example, or that it tends toward pederasty, that transsexuality is not clinically real but merely an excuse for men to sneak into little girls' locker rooms, stuff like that. None of that kind of thing is "expressing a belief," merely spewing slander.
Upvote
0
Sure it's a good analogy. The same types of Biblical interpretation are being used by the same Christian groups. There was most certainly a Christian belief in the inferiority of certain races. Then later, in the appropriateness of keeping people of different races separate. Both of these were supported by Biblical arguments of the same kind that are now being used, by the same Christian communities.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So you are confident that 203 cardinals choose a heretic to head the church.
Is there any logic to that train of thought? Have you considered the loss of
leadership with 203 crazy cardinals electing a heretic to the position of leadership?
It's usually at least two weeks of voting four times a day six days a week (with one day a week for prayer) but the record length is three years.
I'm not a fan of the RCC but even if I was an atheist, I'd have to admit that 203 people who spend 2 weeks of voting and prayer will result in "God's Will" even if I didn't believe in God. I'd have to agree it is the will of the church organization.
People who vote in political elections often don't recognize the names on that ballot when they vote. And we call that a legitimate election.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
Yes I agree. But what I am talking about is different. A person can express their belief against same sex marriage and that is not hateful, its their belief which they have a right to express. They also have the right to deny same sex mariages in their church. Otherwise you are forcing people to go against their conscience and the constitution and human rights give people the right to have these beliefs.
Transgenderism is clinically real but self identification has no scientific basis. Its a subjective feeling. The feeling is real to the individual and that is not denied and recognised as part of the criteria for transgenderism in the DSM5. But primarily it is gender dysmorphia which is the feeling someone is in the opposite sex body to what their self identity is telling them.
But this cannot be then used alone as the basis for what a male or female is. Biology plays a part because sex and gender are intertwined. The fact that the diagnosis is that a person feels they are in the wrong body tells us that sex plays a big part.
The problems begin what the self identity is used as the only measure of male and female. That is when we see the conflicts because basically a male is posing as a female with a male body and then entering female spaces. This is a natural reaction and not hate or descrimination.
A person will feel the most at ease when their mindset is aligned with their bodies. But the big question facing society today is whether the mind or body should be changed to align this. At the moment some governments and activists are pushing for the medical intervention to be transitioning whenever someone expresses an identity with the opposite sex.
But many people including medical experts dont think this should automatcially be the case especially for children and adolescents who are still grappling pubrty and hormonal changes.'AS mentioned around 85% of young people who do express transgender feelings grow out of it. But what is happening is some are being pushed down the road of transitioning. Anyone who dares even mentions even the person themselves that perhaps they need help to align their minds to their bodies is condemned.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SilverBear
Well-Known Member
voting to deny others the same right syou enjoy is discrimination.
Free speech has consequences If you are a tennis legend and speak in support of the bullying of minority children...if you deny that members of a minority feel and express love...if you lie and claim that a minority is sexually abusing children then people are going to question why someone who spreads hate is being honored with having a sports arena named after you. And saying things like the tennis has and continues to say is not disagreeing it's hate period.
Upvote
0
SilverBear
Well-Known Member
can people express their belief in the inferiority of dark skinned people and have it NOT be hateful? I don't think so.
just like racists have the right to express their beliefs...but they can't vote away the rights of black people.
just like churches can refuse membership to African Americans and refuse to marry black or interracial couples. all of these are perfectly legal by the way. No one can compel a church or a minister to perform a wedding ceremony for anyone.
actually Transgender: Evidence on the biological nature of gender identity
Being trangender isn't a mental disorder. the DSM lists gender dyspohoria as a condition but in order to have this you need to be a transgender AND had significant anxiety about it AND some form of social dysfunction BECAUSE of being transgender not societies or familial response to being transgender
wrong on both counts.
support this claim
no one is saying ANY response should be automatic
as mentioned this is junk science. The author, the head of a recognized hate group, looked at individuals who as children were treated with puberty blockers. 85% of these children were on puberty blockers for early onset puberty not for anything to do with being transgender so it is not surprising to find that find that years later children who were not transgender in the first place turned into adults who were not transgender
you mean push them down the road to not transitioning.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This often disturbs people, but how things are run on earth is God's will for man.
Exodus 22:28
“You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
Acts 23:5
And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest,
for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
stevevw
inquisitive
Actually I disagree. There are no Bible verses that actually support the inferiority of other races and it is actually an affront to what the Bible says that all ( thats everyone regardless of race) were created in Gods image. Yes people in the past have tried to twist and distort the bible to fit their personal views but its not Bible and can easily be shown not to be. As this article mentions the most abused verse is Genesis 9:18-27 to justify slavery and treating blacks less equal.
In regard to the history of racial prejudice in America no other passage in Scripture has been as abused, distorted and twisted as has Genesis 9:18-27.
https://obu.edu/stories/blog/2020/06/what-does-the-bible-say-about-race.ph
This is about Hams curse but it doesnt mention blacks being curse and thus it was justified to enslave them. But most Scholars are in agreemnet that this has nothing to do with this and it is a gross distortion on the verses meaning. It is easy to see this curse only applied to Canaan (and the Canaanites). When we read how Hams line into Abraham and Moses for which the Isrealites and Jesus would come were a mixed race including black people and including the fact that Moses married a black women for which God approved of. So we can see that rather than black people or people of any other race being regarded as inferior and excluded rather it is composed of mixed races and ethnicities making them all acceptable to God and equal.
Thus at the dawning of the Israelite nation, the descendants of Abraham are a mix of Western Mesopotamian (Aramean and/or Amorite), Canaanite, and Egyptian elements
Later in his life, however, while Moses is faithfully leading Israel and serving God, he marries a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1). The Cushites are well-known in the OT and there is nothing ambiguous about their identity or their ethnicity. Moses marries a Black African woman; there is no doubt about this.[4]
https://obu.edu/stories/blog/2020/06/what-does-the-bible-say-about-race.ph
Other verses used to try and make out God supported excluding other races is also unjustifed and a twist of the Bible verses. The main arguemnet used is that God forbid marrying into other ethnicities. But this was not the case. It clearly states that God was forbidding marrying against the Isrealites faith rather than race.
In the Pentateuch the prohibition against inter-marrying with other groups always specifically refers to the pagan inhabitants of Canaan (Deut. 7:1-4). The reason for this prohibition is theological. If they intermarry with these pagan peoples, God warns, “they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods” (Deut. 7:4; see also Exod. 34:15-16).
Underscoring this distinction is Deuteronomy 21:10-14, which describes the procedure for how the Israelites are to marry foreign women, a practice that was allowed if the women are from cities that are outside that land; that is, not Canaanite.
https://obu.edu/stories/blog/2020/06/what-does-the-bible-say-about-race.ph
So as you can see the Isrealites did marry foreigners but they were only forbiden to marry Canaanites that were outside their faith due to a theological reason and not a race or ethnic one.
This is fully in line with the New Testament which is the fullfillment of Gods covenant where it clearly states that all people including Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, male or female. Paul restates this and makes it clearer that all races are equal under God in Colossians 3:11.
“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.”
So when we actually look at what the Bible says it is clear that people have twisted the Bible to apply to sitautions that suited their personal motives. None of the Bible verses say what people claim. The fact that people distort the Bible and claim to be Christian doesnt mean they are.
This is in contrast to where the Bible plainly and simply states without any need to twist and distort things that marriage is between a man and women. It is stated in Genesis and fullfilled in the new testament where even Christ reinforces this. This is the most relevant as Christianity is about following Christs teachings and not some distorted old testament Bible verse.
Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus brought together two passages from Genesis, reinforcing the basic position on marriage found in Jewish scripture. Thus, he implicitly emphasized that it is God-made ("God has joined together"), "male and female,"[Genesis 1:27] lifelong ("let no one separate"), and monogamous ("a man…his wife").[23]
Christian views on marriage - Wikipedia).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
