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.
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?
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 arent trying to claim people who have same-sex sex arent homosexual s are you? The verses have been given to you many times before, they are true, yoy just dont believe them.
we can talk about your disbelief continually if you wish but we dont 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.
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)
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!
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.
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.
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!"
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.
[/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.
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.
Ariticial or not- she deserves the same rights as any other person...
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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!
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?
Whether or not their motive is to oppress a minority, they are still doing it and they know they are.
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??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?