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.
But they are in God's opinion. For all have sinned and no one is perfect. And, in God's eyes, all sins are equal.jmverville said:they are not moral equals in my opinion
But they are in God's opinion. For all have sinned and no one is perfect. And, in God's eyes, all sins are equal.
[/size][/font]
I think the school shouldn't tell anybody how to think about anybody else. It is our right to think whatever we want. I do not want to be taught to hate or to love but I want to come to my own conclusions with my own mind, not be conditioned to be praised for some sort of liberal or conservative agenda.
I do not think the law should discriminate against any law abiding tax payer.
They should be treated better than fellow Christians. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and non-Christians deserve the best of treatment from us in all ways as I think Christians understand each other better and because Christians are not necessarily trying to represent the body of Christ when they speak with each other.
I go out of my way when I express myself to non-believers to try to be accommodating (in real life... Here I guess I just like to attack).
You are right, it was not banned but rather boycotted and then different advocacy groups worked to censor the program because they disagreed with the statements.
So there is no freedom of speech in your country -- ridiculous.
Remind me not to speak my mind in Canada.
Homosexuality is deviant behavior, it is dysfunctional behavior, it is an error, and I will stand by that point in any way shape or form, whether Canada wants me to or not.
Will Canada censor this for you?
"Homosexuality is a deviant behavior and a biological error."
Laws which would require them to condone homosexuality as foster parents.
What kind of a law is that?
Does that qualify as forcing an opinion down someone's throat?
So we should stop do gooders who do not ideologically agree with us? This would be like me banning homosexuals from adopting kids -- do you want that?
The BBC is govenrment funded and liberal. Isn't that forcing liberal views down someones throat?
I have none.
I do not support slavery or segregation so you're out of luck on this inflammatory remark, equating conservatism with something it isn't associated with.
The National Socialist German Workers Party in every way but social issues was fundamentally leftist. Can I call you a closet Nazi, now?
Yet, overwhelmingly, the trend in the western world for the last hundred years has been toward increasing liberalism and away from conservatism. And despite the above, that shows few signs of changing.We're going to triumph in the end.
You are also looking at 'next generation' in limited terms.
You are also looking at locations like America.
What about Switzerland, where the SPS has grown from a ragtag group in the early nineties to conrolling 50+ seats of 200?
What about the NPD in Germany being more and more elected in an anti-Islamic backlash?
Sarkozy was elected in France and Merkel in Germany. The Popular Orthodox Rally of Greece is gaining speed and the Right wing party of Serbia lead the 2008 elections.
Pak Geun-hye was nearly nominated, a true representative of far right wing Korean movement. Shinzo Abe was elected (but later resigned) and was renown for his conservatism.
On a global scale people are having stronger backlashes in more liberal countries and it shall come to pass in America as well.
We cannot be defeated because wherever moral anarchy and cultural decay rears its head the natural desire of the human heart to return to righteousness begins to appear.
Our victory is inevitable.
Some sins are held as those that would jeopardize your soul, other sins are viewed as ones that would not necessarily send you to hell but certainly would not help your spiritual health.
To kill, to steal, to commit adultery (any sex out of marriage), homosexuality and being an effeminate/masculine man or woman in such affairs definitely falls into that category.
A murderer and a Christian who has a bad temper and is sometimes abrasive are not equatable.
Secondary note: I did mention the NDP in the previous post; I want to add that I am not an NDP supporter by any means but they are indicative of a symptom in European society of pain and anguish over the super liberalism and cultural decay.
Romans 1:29-31 said:They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
When it comes down to it, conservatives are just liberals living a hundred years too late.
Some sins are held as those that would jeopardize your soul, other sins are viewed as ones that would not necessarily send you to hell but certainly would not help your spiritual health.
To kill, to steal, to commit adultery (any sex out of marriage), homosexuality and being an effeminate/masculine man or woman in such affairs definitely falls into that category.
A murderer and a Christian who has a bad temper and is sometimes abrasive are not equatable.
Secondary note: I did mention the NDP in the previous post; I want to add that I am not an NDP supporter by any means but they are indicative of a symptom in European society of pain and anguish over the super liberalism and cultural decay.
How is the school telling people to think about anybody else? They are merely stating that law-abiding citizens are all equal and that we should treat people with respect. From your words, that would appear to be something you agree with.
So why do you think homosexuals should be treated differently? Why do you appear to think that homosexuals do not deserve to be treated in the same manner you treat other sinners?
What was boycotted? I don't see any of this in the article. The school has a program for the incoming Freshman in the dorms to help them challenge their own prejudices and to attempt to help them understand how minorities sometimes feel. Contrary to the claims by Christian groups, this does not typically include sexual orientation. It is seen as so non-controversial that the only article I could find is from a local paper -- otherwise it is all based on the rumors put forth from various Christian anti-gay advocate groups. The facts are that the Christian groups are exaggerating/lying.
There is freedom of speech in my country -- you seem to be confused about where I am from. However, there are a number of Western Countries -- typically the ones that are officially Christian -- that do not have freedom of speech.
This is your unsupportable opinion, at least that seems to be the evidence from threads like this. But no one has said, or is saying, it is not your right to believe this -- even if you were from Canada. In fact, the law in Canada does not say that you can't talk about your opinion. Instead, they have laws, much like we do, that prohibit people from making statements that incite violence. The difference is that their standards for what might incite violence are much stricter than ours. So, if you give a speech in public about homosexuality being a sin, that is not a problem. If you talk about those evil, deviate, unnatural homosexuals (or Muslims, Christians, <insert race of choice>, etc.) they believe this is inciting violence.
Since I don't live in Canada and am not Canadian, though I did visit there once, I can't see them caring what I might say. If you simply say it in Canada, to the best of my knowledge they would not care. If you use it in a speech that talks about "those evil homosexuals", then they start to care.
A good one, from what I can tell. Are you going to tell me that gay marriage is not legal in Britain and equal under the law with heterosexual marriages? Then why should a couple not tell children that? And they might have to take a child that is gay to a gay support group if the child would like, is that so terrible? And if you believe it is, then does an atheist couple have the right to refuse to allow a Christian child to go to a Christian youth group because they disagree with what the youth group teaches?
They weren't told they could not adopt, their own children were not take away -- nor is that the law. In this case, they are merely foster parents and are not allowed to force their beliefs on the children that the government temporarily places with them -- just as atheist parents are not allowed to force their beliefs on a Christian child.
No, this is comparable to those cartoons that I posted earlier. No one is saying this could has to change their beliefs, just that if they don't agree to abide by government regulations then they may not be employed in that government job. Or do you think we should force employers to change their requirements to fit the beliefs of the person wanting the job?
Sorry, no, again this couple was not barred from adopting but merely being foster parents. And there are states which do ban homosexual couples from adopting and/or being foster parents.
To go back to one of my examples which are more applicable, however, I do think a homosexual (and/or atheist) that refuses to take a Christian child to a fundamentalist church because the couple disagrees with the views of the church makes them not qualified to be foster parents.
I don't watch the BBC so I couldn't tell you how liberal or conservative they are. However, I typically don't take a single individuals viewpoint (in this case a newspaper editorial) as evidence of how liberal a network may or may not be.
I would submit, however, that if the British public don't like the views of the BBC that they should get the government to change it.
Yet you were the one that claimed that "We'll always win because our views are inherent to mankind as it is never normal or natural for people...." This is the exact same rhetoric used when slavery was being debated and when segregation was ended. I actually head people while civil rights laws and miscegenation was being debated how it isn't right for the races to mix, etc.
Actually, Nazis and fascists are actually fundamentally conservative. In fact, looking in a thesaurus I found that fascist is actually an antonym of liberalism. Of course, this presumes that I actually am a liberal -- I'm actually independent being liberal in some areas and conservative in others. But I will agree that the idea that everyone should be treated equally and with respect seems to be a very liberal idea.
Yet, overwhelmingly, the trend in the western world for the last hundred years has been toward increasing liberalism and away from conservatism. And despite the above, that shows few signs of changing.
I need hardly point out that the above could easily have been written by a conservative of 50 years ago who was upset about 'coloureds' getting equal rights, or 100 years ago who was upset about women getting the vote, or 200 years ago who was upset about slavery being abolished.
Conservatives of every age are the same...condemning what's (relatively) new while embracing what conservatives of a hundred years ago abhorred.
When it comes down to it, conservatives are just liberals living a hundred years too late.
It would probably be humorous to see you try and support this. I'm guessing that you would use Romans 1 and how homosexuality is listed with murder. The problem is that someone who has a bad temper and is abrasive is also mentioned
That sounds like an abrasive person with a bad temper to me.
No, I meant what I said - a habit of mine.If by increased liberalism (e.g. the liberal nature of laws, more individual freedom) you mean 'a million other things besides liberalism, though sometimes liberalism.'
You can say that if you like. I'll stick to what I said, thanks.Perhaps you should say, 'the trend in the Western world for the last 19 years.'
Umm...okay. However, that doesn't alter anything I said.The west has become more liberal to minimal extents, while other nations like Poland went from officially atheist to largely Catholic; Hungary went from a Communist state to a modern one.
In the early 1990s ethnic cleansing was launched against Muslims and Croats by the Serbs.
If you don't know what 'liberalism' means, consult a dictionary. Although for someone who doesn't know what I mean, you're sure arguing hard against it.I do not even really knwo what you mean by 'liberalism' though, and I do not really know what you are even trying to say because even pretending that there has been some sort of solid, politically coherent idea for the last 100 years is wrong.
Which, again, alters nothing I said.Interestingly enough, you are really wrong.
Things like pacifism in the sense of never believing to ever fight war was at its strongest in America in the 1900s-1930s; libertarian ideas were in full swing from the 1840s until the 1930s. We even allowed communes to exist where children were exposed to essentially hippy-esque free love (I forget the name of the group); we even allowed polygamy to exist in praxis largely until 1953 during the Short Creek Raid.
Communism existed in its most viable forms and views until the 1980s.
The political ideologies have come and gone and resurfaced; the ideas of 'isolationism' and 'libertarianism' are coming back from 70-80 years ago; the idea of granting people the right to be ignored and pursue whatever ends they want is also a throw back to older days.
Umm...and?We can also look to simply other periods of history where homosexuality and prostitution were viewed as the ways that people were supposed to live. The most "liberal" anyone has ever been was the period between the 1780s and the 1820s when the Catholic Church was even outlawed in revolutionary France they put a prostitute on the pulpit at Notre Dame de Paris.
Good thing nobody's doing that, then.Pretending like history is in this giant, comprehensive evolution is entirely a lie.
jmerville said:We're going to triumph in the end.
You are also looking at 'next generation' in limited terms.
You are also looking at locations like America.
What about Switzerland, where the SPS has grown from a ragtag group in the early nineties to conrolling 50+ seats of 200?
What about the NPD in Germany being more and more elected in an anti-Islamic backlash?
Sarkozy was elected in France and Merkel in Germany. The Popular Orthodox Rally of Greece is gaining speed and the Right wing party of Serbia lead the 2008 elections.
Pak Geun-hye was nearly nominated, a true representative of far right wing Korean movement. Shinzo Abe was elected (but later resigned) and was renown for his conservatism.
On a global scale people are having stronger backlashes in more liberal countries and it shall come to pass in America as well.
We cannot be defeated because wherever moral anarchy and cultural decay rears its head the natural desire of the human heart to return to righteousness begins to appear.
Our victory is inevitable.
In Britain long time foster parents were no longer allowed to have kids because they refused to worship homosexuals with the rest of the liberals.
And also the BBC even confessed to being way too pro-gay.
The media and government of some nations certainly would have it that Christian views were not proposed on their airwaves.
We'll always win because our views are inherent to mankind as it is never normal or natural for people to act like homosexuals
Yeah, but then they go as far as to say 'do not use mom and dad' as words in school and introduce kids to the idea of gays having kids and having normal families, like somehow it is suddenly normal for two men or women to be raising a family together.
Just look at this.
They should be treated with love because everyone is entitled to that.
However, saying that they are normal or saying that they lead an acceptable lifestyle is an entirely different thing.
Look, just google it.
I said you were right, and then I googled for alternative articles about it and only found a plethora of articles of liberal groups calling for boycotts and censuring of Dr. Laura.
The internet is a fun place -- go look for yourself. I wasn't about to post the half dozen links I viewed because they are generally irrelevant.
No, you do not give freedom of speech. As you even said, it is not allowed to be "offensive."
So it incites violence if I dislike homosexuality and say it that way?
OK, then I will try to not incite violence in Canada.
I will go to that thread and post some later but that ws one of three very active threads about homosexuality at the time and a split off of a thread where I stated my views and was never confrontedb y Faith.
They aren't evil, just terrible sinners. No one is really even that evil.
Why should a teacher teach some ridiculous politics in the classroom, especially to 4 year old kids as the article above mentions?
Atheists don't have to send their kids to youth groups.
I shouldn't have to send my kid to a school where htey tell them that gays are just normal folks, being indoctrinated into liberal philosophy.
But it is OK to force one particular, subscribed version of the truth by the Government?
Then simply we can note that gays do not meet the requirements for marriage, and if they'd like to be married, they just have to change their ways.
We bend over for one group of people to change the law but do not for another? That is the definition of favoritism.
Why do we bend over for gays and not for regular Christians, then? Why shoul dwe change policy for them, but not for us?
Yes.
I wasn't there when slavery was being debated. I wasn't there when segregation was being debated.
However, there are a lot of compelling arguments that ethnically homogeneous nations really do well for themselves and that immigration can result in increased crime rates as well as just a swamp of lowering living standards. I have zero issues with countries like Japan, South Korea, Serbia and Austria that are doing their best to maintain their ethnic heritage and avoid the influx of immigrants, etc.
I'd love to talk about that one with you.
Liberalism in the sense of a government that is classically liberal and insures freedom of the people.
National Socialism is exctly what it is: nationalistic and socialist.
Hitler abolished private schools and established a strict meritocracy; he imposed gigantic health taxes on cigarettes and alcohol; he appointed an economist to run the economy in concordance with certain needs; he established more and more state level institutions to manage the country, ranging from labor boards to new police enforcement groups.
He was a liberal's liberal.
Having an extremely awesome, intelligent, caring, immortal main character like Captain Jack Harkness and some members of his team be bisexual. That makes it sooooooooooo hard for me to be straight.Now, what exactly is 'way too pro-gay'?
After many dirty pictures flashed through my head (yes, my mind is always in the gutter), I thought it might just be best to ask exactly what you believe is "shoving immorality" on you? Like, could you give a couple examples, please?Here's a deal. I won't shove my morality down your throat, if you don't shove your immorality down my throat. Even?
After many dirty pictures flashed through my head (yes, my mind is always in the gutter), I thought it might just be best to ask exactly what you believe is "shoving immorality" on you? Like, could you give a couple examples, please?
Having an extremely awesome, intelligent, caring, immortal main character like Captain Jack Harkness and some members of his team be bisexual. That makes it sooooooooooo hard for me to be straight.
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?