Anything Positive???

[Zecryphon]

I'm not saying they are deliberately oppressing people, but that is what happens.

So the moral is life isn't fair and I should just deal with being second class?

Who has said you're second class? I never said the moral life isn't fair, I said life isn't fair. Why are you adding to my statement?

 

[KCKID]

Dear KCKID,

great, that means your argument is baseless.

Both he and I see same-sex practice condemned.
Sodom. Its true. Of course it is you aren’t trying to claim people who have same-sex sex aren’t homosexual s are you? The verses have been given to you many times before, they are true, yoy just don’t believe them.
we can talk about your disbelief continually if you wish but we don’t want to, alas you have no Biblical evidence to support same-sex sex so your only basis is denial of the evidence we put forward.

your argument is baseless, this forum is to discuss issues, if you have no evidence your continual criticism of the Biblical evidence we put forward must stop.
In short same-sex unions are condemned in the Bible as far as we are concerned and nowhere countenanced as far as we are all concerned.

The is no debate, same-sex unions are detestable to God who created man and woman to be united. All human justification is rebellion and disobedience to God.

Yet again we are being compelled (or else!) to accept that a book written by those who were no less human and no less sinners than we are is the word of God. These days it's more a case of 'The Bible is the word of God because WE tell you that the Bible is the word of God ...BELIEVE IT or it's to your peril!"

Why would God entrust His word with mere mortals as opposed to writing the Bible Himself? Surely He would have known that people would naturally question these writings? ...particularly since they WERE authored by human beings? Why would God prefer that the Phinehas' or the DMagohs' fight His battles for Him while He hides behind a cloud? Can't He speak for Himself so that His word can be authenticated?

What is it about human beings - from the most primitive tribes to those in modern society - that has them clinging so fervently to beliefs or fables that oftentimes defy logic? How can one human being possibly use words from a book to condemn another when words from the same book can be used just as well to condemn them? The arguments that are batted back and forth over the issue of same-sex attraction are SO illogical. That one can tell another who to be and who not to be attracted to is lunacy. Some people need to get a life!

 

[Zecryphon]

Many of those who defended the South's "peculiar institution" (A phrase used by the pro-slavery side!) did so for economic reasons that had nothing to do with racism and oppression. That did not change the fact that racism and oppression are inseparable from the type of slavery practiced in the early United States.

Even though their motives were "purer," these defenders of slavery still knew about its flaws, or they were "willfully ignorant" choosing to make sure that they remained innocent of the knowledge. Either way, reminding them of the seamy side of slavery, and calling them to task for their support of it was not only a legitimate tactic, but necessary to convince them.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

That's great Ollie. Now you wanna deal with the real issue here or do you want to divert into the slavery parallel yet again, and ignore the fact that Caylin is falsely projecting a motive upon people that she has never met, does not know and has no way to prove her projection. Actually, don't bother. She is doing just that and therefore there is really nothing to debate.

 

[Caylin]

Moral as in moral of the story. I basically am second class. Rights are denied me. People do their best to make it legal to fire me just for being queer. When I'm upset about rights being denied I'm told "life isn't fair" which is really easy to say coming from the group on the top of the pile.

 

[Zecryphon]

Yet again we are being compelled (or else!) to accept that a book written by those who were no less human and no less sinners than we are is the word of God. These days it's more a case of 'The Bible is the word of God because WE tell you that the Bible is the word of God ...BELIEVE IT or it's to your peril!"

Why would God entrust His word with mere mortals as opposed to writing the Bible Himself? Surely He would have known that people would naturally question these writings? ...particularly since they WERE authored by human beings? Why would God prefer that the Phinehas' or the DMagohs' fight His battles for Him while He hides behind a cloud? Can't He speak for Himself so that His word can be authenticated?

What is it about human beings - from the most primitive tribes to those in modern society - that has them clinging so fervently to beliefs or fables that oftentimes defy logic? How can one human being possibly use words from a book to condemn another when words from the same book can be used just as well to condemn them? The arguments that are batted back and forth over the issue of same-sex attraction are SO illogical. That one can tell another who to be and who not to be attracted to is lunacy. Some people need to get a life!

God used humans the way you use a computer keyboard to write a post. Did you write the post or did the keyboard? According to the way your logic works, the keyboard wrote the post, and therefore anything that comes from you can not be trusted. Therefore, I'm going to have to conclude that your posts are not really yours and their content can not be trusted as being what you really believe. There are plenty of books out there that prove why the Bible is the Word of God. I'm sure there are plenty of threads on this board debating this very issue. Go there and debate whether or not the Bible is the Word of God. This is not the appropriate thread to do so in.

 

[Zecryphon]

Moral as in moral of the story. I basically am second class. Rights are denied me. People do their best to make it legal to fire me just for being queer. When I'm upset about rights being denied I'm told "life isn't fair" which is really easy to say coming from the group on the top of the pile.

How does that use of the word "moral" fit into my post, since you've seen fit to add it in? Rights are denied to me too, but I don't consider myself second-class and neither should you. There are rights denied to heterosexuals too. What you're finding out is that you're not really in this special class of citizens and are being treated just like everybody else. You're being denied the ability to do something, just like everybody else is being denied the ability to do something. The rights are equal. You're problem is you want more rights than the average person and because you can't get those rights just handed to you, simply because you want them, you're feeling persecuted and like a second-class citizen.

 

[Caylin]

Except, there is no reason to deny the rights, and you refuse to address the fact that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire me for being gay.

I'm not going to be an english teach for you and explain what the term "moral of the story" means, if you don't know what it means, I question your grasp of the english language.

 

[catlover]

Except, there is no reason to deny the rights, and you refuse to address the fact that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire me for being gay.

I'm not going to be an english teach for you and explain what the term "moral of the story" means, if you don't know what it means, I question your grasp of the english language.

There was already a thread about people desiring to imprison gays for getting married in California..I don't think some folks want to stop at firing...

I saw evidence of that when people started endless threads about AIDS being the gay plague and saw absolutely nothing wrong with the content...sick world we live in..especially when people use God to justify such nonsense...

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Yet again we are being compelled (or else!) to accept that a book written by those who were no less human and no less sinners than we are is the word of God. These days it's more a case of 'The Bible is the word of God because WE tell you that the Bible is the word of God ...BELIEVE IT or it's to your peril!"

Certainly the Bible was written by men and sinners. Whether or not they were inspired by God is not so much relevant, as it is a testimony by those Christians as to what they witnessed. I ask in all sincerity, if we are to say we are Christians, should we not trust (and certainly verify) the testimony of other Christians? Just because they were sinners who wrote a collection of letters almost 2,000 years ago does not mean they were any less Christian.

Except, there is no reason to deny the rights, and you refuse to address the fact that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire me for being gay.

If there is not a higher order from which originates natural rights, are your rights not only arbitrary, but artificial? And if they are both arbitrary and artificial, on what basis can you suggest there exists injustice? With that said, I disagree that someone should be, or could be, fired from employment on the basis of homosexuality. If that is to be so, then it would be the right of the employer to dismiss any one for any kind of sin. That certainly makes "sin" as arbitrary as the employer's view of it. I disagree that sin, and by extension justice and natural rights, is arbitrary.

 

[catlover]

[/COLOR]Certainly the Bible was written by men and sinners. Whether or not they were inspired by God is not so much relevant, as it is a testimony by those Christians as to what they witnessed. I ask in all sincerity, if we are to say we are Christians, should we not trust (and certainly verify) the testimony of other Christians? Just because they were sinners who wrote a collection of letters almost 2,000 years ago does not mean they were any less Christian.



If there is not a higher order from which originates natural rights, are your rights not only arbitrary, but artificial? And if they are both arbitrary and artificial, on what basis can you suggest there exists injustice? With that said, I disagree that someone should be, or could be, fired from employment on the basis of homosexuality. If that is to be so, then it would be the right of the employer to dismiss any one for any kind of sin. That certainly makes "sin" as arbitrary as the employer's view of it. I disagree that sin, and by extension justice and natural rights, is arbitrary.

Ariticial or not- she deserves the same rights as any other person...

 

[Zecryphon]

Except, there is no reason to deny the rights, and you refuse to address the fact that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire me for being gay.

I'm not going to be an english teach for you and explain what the term "moral of the story" means, if you don't know what it means, I question your grasp of the english language.

First of all, it hasn't been proven that marriage is a right that should be granted by the state. Civil unions fall under the power of the state, not marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, not a legislative one. I'm not refusing to address the "fact" that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire you for being gay. You have not established this as a fact yet, all you've done is simply say there people who wish to do this, you haven't proven it. So, your assertion is an unfounded statement and not a fact and does not need to be addressed by me. It's also irrelevant to this conversation.

I can understand why you don't want to explain why you chose to add the word "moral" to my statement. I know what "moral of the story" means, what I wanted you to do, and what you are unable to do, is explain how that usage of the word moral, fits in with my post, since you've seen fit to add it to my post. So we have you adding words and meanings to my post for no good reason and when you're asked to explain your actions, you tell me how you're not going to be an english teacher to me. Face it, you added something to a post without good reason and now you're resorting to trying to flame me because you can't defend you're pathetic actions.

If this is how you behave in the real world I can think of a very good reason why people would want to fire you and it has nothing to do with the fact that you're gay, it has to do with the fact that you do whatever you want, whenever you feel like it and when called on it, you cop an attitude and hide behind your homosexuality. I wouldn't want to work with you either.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Ariticial or not- she deserves the same rights as any other person...

Why? "Deserve" provides a moral qualification that cannot possibly exist if rights are artificial and arbitrary. If rights are artificial and arbitrary, then one "deserves" them only to the extent that one has the power to take them. And if one has that power, they certainly have no moral obligation to ensure that others have those same rights. If rights are artificial and arbitrary, and she lacks the power to attain rights for herself, who has any obligation to give them to her? The entire basis of equality is an underlying assumption that there exists something greater than our individual selves and collective whole. If rights do not originate from a higher order (of any kind!) then "rights" are simply the privilege of those with power. One cannot suggest there is justice or injustice if one rejects the basis of that justice.

 

[OllieFranz]

That's great Ollie. Now you wanna deal with the real issue here or do you want to divert into the slavery parallel yet again, and ignore the fact that Caylin is falsely projecting a motive upon people that she has never met, does not know and has no way to prove her projection. Actually, don't bother. She is doing just that and therefore there is really nothing to debate.

The parallel I am making is not primarily between slavery and the current hate legislation, but between those who supported slavery despite its consequences, for "good" reasons and those who support the hate legislation despite its consequences, for "good" reasons. Neither Caylin nor I accused them (or you) of the motive of deliberately supporting hate. Just the supporting of actions you know or should know do support the hate.

Supporting an action you know to have evil consequences for the reason that the action itself is not demonstrably evil is not sufficient to sheild you from responsibility for the evil consequences.

 

[Zecryphon]

The parallel I am making is not primarily between slavery and the current hate legislation, but between those who supported slavery despite its consequences, for "good" reasons and those who support the hate legislation despite its consequences, for "good" reasons. Neither Caylin nor I accused them (or you) of the motive of deliberately supporting hate. Just the supporting of actions you know or should know do support the hate.

Supporting an action you know to have evil consequences for the reason that the action itself is not demonstrably evil is not sufficient to sheild you from responsibility for the evil consequences.

I don't know of any Christian who willingly supports hate legislation. People will vote on an issue that is put before them, in this case it seems to be whether or not gay people will have the right to marry. If people vote no on that measure, for whatever reason, that does not automatically translate into supporting hate legislation. As for Caylin not directly accusing me of supporting hate, you're right she never did that. She asked a question based upon my post here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47921070&postcount=18

Her question was: So you are saying that voting to oppress the rights of a minority is something people shouldn't feel guilty about?

This is a false projection from her, because I never said anything about voting to oppress the rights of a minority. You will never find that language in my post. That came from her and no one else.

 

[OllieFranz]

First of all, it hasn't been proven that marriage is a right that should be granted by the state.

Marriage can't be "granted" by the state. It is a matter between the persons covenanting between themselves. A State or a church can choose to recognize or not recognize a marriage, but they do not "grant" married status to the couple.

Civil unions fall under the power of the state, not marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, not a legislative one.

Again, a State or a church can choose to recognize a marriage, but neither controls the institution beyond such recognition. Whether you want to call a civilly recognized marriage a marriage or a union, its control is limited to those who recognize its authority. Likewise a church. A church cannot regulate marriages blessed by other religions except to aknowledge or try to deny its validity. Likewise a government. No one owns "Marriage" as an institution. And No one has ultimate say over any given marriage unless the couple grants it to them.

I'm not refusing to address the "fact" that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire you for being gay. You have not established this as a fact yet, all you've done is simply say there people who wish to do this, you haven't proven it. So, your assertion is an unfounded statement and not a fact and does not need to be addressed by me. It's also irrelevant to this conversation.

"I refuse to believe that there is hate legislation being propagated out in the government bodies around this country, even though I admit that one of the criteria I insist on in a candidate is that he supports the bills in question."

This seems to sum up your position as stated on this thread. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

 

[Zecryphon]

Marriage can't be "granted" by the state. It is a matter between the persons covenanting between themselves. A State or a church can choose to recognize or not recognize a marriage, but they do not "grant" married status to the couple.

Ah, then gay marriage isn't really an issue. Good to know.

Civil unions fall under the power of the state, not marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, not a legislative one.
​

Again, a State or a church can choose to recognize a marriage, but neither controls the institution beyond such recognition. Whether you want to call a civilly recognized marriage a marriage or a union, its control is limited to those who recognize its authority. Likewise a church. A church cannot regulate marriages blessed by other religions except to aknowledge or try to deny its validity. Likewise a government. No one owns "Marriage" as an institution. And No one has ultimate say over any given marriage unless the couple grants it to them.

Ah, so all the homosexuals have to do is grant the government the right to recognize their marriage and this whole thing goes away? Good to hear.

I'm not refusing to address the "fact" that there are many people who wish it to be legal to fire you for being gay. You have not established this as a fact yet, all you've done is simply say there people who wish to do this, you haven't proven it. So, your assertion is an unfounded statement and not a fact and does not need to be addressed by me. It's also irrelevant to this conversation.

​

"I refuse to believe that there is hate legislation being propagated out in the government bodies around this country, even though I admit that one of the criteria I insist on in a candidate is that he supports the bills in question."

This seems to sum up your position as stated on this thread. Talk about cognitive dissonance!

If that's what you need to tell yourself, fine. I have never stated such a position, so this is a projection from you about me. Gotta love it, people here obviously can't deal with what I do write and have to project statements onto me that I've never made, just to be able to talk with me. That's sad. When you can deal honestly with what I've written, perhaps I'll talk with you again. Since you can't, don't post to me again. You have nothing of value to say.

 

[DMagoh]

we get rejected by our families, we get beaten in the streets by neonazis, and religious talk about us like we are not humans....

do you call that equal?

And you think laws will change that? No law can make your father speak to you again.

 

[DMagoh]

Whether or not their motive is to oppress a minority, they are still doing it and they know they are.

Nope. You apparently failed Mind Reading 101.

 

[catlover]

Why? "Deserve" provides a moral qualification that cannot possibly exist if rights are artificial and arbitrary. If rights are artificial and arbitrary, then one "deserves" them only to the extent that one has the power to take them. And if one has that power, they certainly have no moral obligation to ensure that others have those same rights. If rights are artificial and arbitrary, and she lacks the power to attain rights for herself, who has any obligation to give them to her? The entire basis of equality is an underlying assumption that there exists something greater than our individual selves and collective whole. If rights do not originate from a higher order (of any kind!) then "rights" are simply the privilege of those with power. One cannot suggest there is justice or injustice if one rejects the basis of that justice.

Was it artificial when the courts intervened and found segregation wrong??

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Was it artificial when the courts intervened and found segregation wrong??

If we assert that there is no higher order from which justice originates, then the answer is yes.