Forcing belief down another's throat.

[spaceddivstud]

MERCY@GRACE Here's a deal. I won't shove my morality down your throat, if you don't shove your immorality down my throat. Even?

i understand the feeling of having immorality forced on you by society because, as one example, there are a lot of sexual images around which make it very hard for some to keep clean thoughts maybe.....

but the best response to that is to try to ignore it and set a better example. Setting a good example isn't forcing anything on anyone, its just showing people in your own actions (rather than empty words) what you think is a moral course of action.

I see it as pretty arrogant to assume that 'your morality' is completely right and faultless - show what's right by demonstrating it and, if you are right, people will notice. No one likes a know-it-all.

Immorality is never FORCED on anyone, it can just be a temptation. If you are being physically forced into immorality then it isn't immorality - but i assume that's not what you meant.....

 

[Beanieboy]

Here's a deal. I won't shove my morality down your throat, if you don't shove your immorality down my throat. Even?

I'm going to take that to mean: We will agree to disagree, but there is a undertone to what you said, so I want to see if I understand this.

Let's say that I am Jewish. I deny that Jesus is the son of God, an "immoraility" of Christianity. I can understand that I may be shoving it down your throat if I walk behind you, yelling, "You are worshipping a false God! Jesus is not the son of God! Stop worshipping Gods other that Yahweh!"

However, me wearing a Yamekah, or a star of David, or saying, "A funny thing happened on the way to Synagogue" isn't "shoving it down your throat", but rather, simply expressing my belief, and not demanding, expecting, nor caring whether you agree.

Would you agree? Or is that "shoving it down your throat"?

 

[Beanieboy]

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.

I'm calling POE. I thought your last post was being sarcastic, but this one?
Some sins jepardize your spiritual health, but others do not?
You point out that killing, stealing, and a guy acting effeminate, or a woman acting masculine are the same? In particular, according to whose criteria? I teach ESL, and most of the Korean men come off as effeminate by US standards, yet most are heterosexual. You are referring to a verse that does not translate as "effeminate" but as "soft", which may be interpretted as a soft character (as opposed to a strong character that does not easily give in to sin.)

Further, you are exhalting yourself, as the Pharisee did in the temple, in comparing yourself to other sinners, as he did to the tax collector, in the parable: The Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

I believe that you are being a characature for those who have stated these ridiculous things, are pushing people's buttons out of boredom, or are just trying to undermine Christianity itself, which I think a certain brand of Christians is doing all by themselves.

I call POE because you are far too unbelievable to take seriously.

 

[Beanieboy]

I would like to offer a "shoving it in my face" anecdote.

I was doing some work while talking with co-workers. One woman was talking about how she and her husband were trying to have a baby, how they were watching her cycles, etc. I asked if she wanted a boy or a girl, the usual stuff. Someone mentioned that they went to Titanic with her boyfriend sometime later, and it was a beautiful movie. I said, "You did? I though that it would never end." She asked me why, and I said, "You have a woman that is promised to be married to another guy, cheating on him with another guy, simply because they are in love, and that's beautiful? Not only that, it's full of so many tired cliches: The poor people all happy and dancing together (Dirty Dancing had this scene, etc), Jack was in the water for a long time, yet still alive. My boyfriend was like, "just die already. I have things to do..."

One co-worker said, "You know, what you do in your bedroom is your business, but I don't want it shoved in my face."

I said, "I wasn't in my bedroom, I was in a movie theater, and as I recall, not having sex in it."

They seemed fine "shoving in my face" that they had boyfriends, husbands or wives. They flaunted their sexuality by putting photos of their loved spouses on their desk for all to see. And, they even seemed comfortable letting everyone know that they are regularly having sex to try to have children with details about cycles, methods, etc (way more than i need or want to know.)

That's because to heterosexuals, they think that it's about the hetero, but with homosexuality, it's about the sexuality.

One cannot have a Daily Heterosexual Parade, then get upset when Gays do it once a year in celebration of equality under the law.

One cannot wear a wedding ring, talk about their wife, their boyfriend/girlfriend, etc, and then demand that homosexuals never speak of theirs.

 

[Verv]

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.

You know if we consulted a dictionary we could still get a million different definitions. It is not as if ther eis one default definition. Most dictionaries have multiple entries for multiple words.

There is no way that you could define liberalism and everybody would be happy.

Let's break this down, shall we? Foster parents in the UK are required to sign a document which contains all sorts of clauses, including, no doubt, a clause which says that they must tell their charges that black people are not inferior to white people, that women are not inferior to men, &c. Additionally, they are required to tell their charges that homosexual relationships are just as acceptable as heterosexual ones.

It is a simple fact that the government must regulate who can foster children and who cannot. Would you want someone to be a foster parent if they refused to tell their charges that racism is unacceptable? What if they refused to on the grounds that their religion requires it? No one, as you well know, is demanding that anyone 'worship the homosexuals'. The government is concerned that homosexual teens with foster carers should not feel that they are unable to be honest about their sexuality, or that they should fear their own sexual development.

In this country, as part of our anti-discrimination laws, it is illegal to deny goods or services to anyone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. There is therefore a corresponding requirement for foster parents. You may or may not agree with the discrimination laws; but we have an elected Labour government who are honest about their anti-discrimination stance.

To say that homosexuals are in some quality the same as blacks or other races is pretty ridiculous; the behavior involves obvious moral ramifications in every single society.

Blacks and gays are entirely different and equating them righ tnow shows how weak your argument is: you are resorting to painting this as racial discrimination because you know that the comparison, as it stands, does not hold water.

Religion has been an inherent part of all societies barring few, and even in the atheist societies such as the People's Republic of China, they have regarded homosexuality as dishonorable and immoral. It is an action that brings shame upon the family and brings severe questions up to the individual and their sexual desires and preferences, so all across the globe it has been regarded as such a problem and people are encouraged to control this and become normal parts of society.

Race has nothing to do with it and you know it doesn't.

Er, no. A single employee of the BBC claims that the organisation is too liberal and that its views do not reflect that of the electorate.

Now, this may be true. It is certainly true that the BBC has a left-wing slant, which frankly goes with the territory; it is a government-funded, publicly-owned organisation, the very epitome of a nationalised service. But viewing figures are important to the BBC, just as they are to other broadcasting companies; if people weren't interested in their output, they'd change it. And they have changed it, on occasion, or admitted their errors, as for example when they agreed that promoting the Make Poverty History campaign in an episode of The Vicar of Dibley was an overstepping of the impartiality boundary.

Theoretically then we could justify any media group doing anything that remotely reflects populism; an anti-homosexual backlash would be in line in some senses, then, to be representative of the larger conservative electorate of rural areas.

But I imagine you'd complain then, as I complain now, which goes to prove nothing for either of us.

Now, what exactly is 'way too pro-gay'? (There was nothing about pro-gay attitudes in the link you provided.) Is it pro-gay to screen a drama in which there is a pleasant, popular gay person, for example? What are you talking about? What does 'pro-gay' even mean? That you think gay people should be able to get on with their lives? That's hardly 'pro'. I mean, I think Christians should be able to get on with it, but I wouldn't list myself as 'pro-Christian'.

If you need me to provide instances of pro-gay news articles, pro-gay legislation, pro-gay media blitzes then I think you're just biding time or something.

Do you deny that it exists?

Well, certainly not here. Songs of Praise, a Christian hymn programme, is broadcast every Sunday on BBC1; every morning there is a slot called 'Thought for the Day' on BBC Radio 4 which is about some spiritual or moral issue, and Christian ministers and representatives are frequently asked to offer their opinions.

And that is great. However, I doubt that they would accept somebody coming in to commentate on the homosexual issues or real, true Christian issues.

BBC1 is probably forced to make such minor concessions when available.

Again, this is another article by Christians that is not based in the truth and is nothing more than fear mongering. Here is a link to the actual bill and the law it is amending, I find nothing in the bill that says anything about mother or father or the promotion of homosexuality. Rather, the bill says that people will not be discriminated against, provide them equal rights and opportunities; including in the activities planned and the school books purchased.

Again, this is a group of radical Christians trying to create fear because the California government is simply codifying that in schools discrimination is not legal. It does not call for the promotion of homosexuality in any way.

I do not think that bill has anything to do with it, but what do you think of the announcement by Ed Balls and the UK groups advocating as much>?

I will drop all of the California point because I am uninformed of it.

Why? First of all, you are requiring an unsupportable generalization to even make the claim, that of "homosexual lifestyle". That term is as non-nonsensical as claiming that both you and the guy that spends every weekend trolling for women in singles bars are both part of the "heterosexual lifestyle". By homosexual lifestyle are we talking about someone like WorldFriction who is raising a daughter, Christian, and lesbian? And what does her lifestyle have in common with the homosexual that goes to bars looking to pick up guys?

In fact, in every objective measurement, homosexuals are normal. The only evidence contrary is from your religious beliefs.

No, they are not normal. And there is evidence far beyond that.

If they are not normal because of my religoius beliefs, or even other people's religious beliefs, how do you feel about 90% atheist countries like China and other nations whcih are majority atheist like Korea, Japan, Vietnam, who still discriminate and regard homosexuality as unnatural and dishonorable?

It is inherent to mankind to dislike the notion of homosexuality as it is an urge that we feel is fundamentally backwards.

And yet I've still not seen a thread where a truly non-religious reason was given to explain what makes homosexuality immoral. In that thread you try to argue that sex not for procreation is evil (or something along that general line) but that also depends on a religious argument.

I've stated it enough in other threads. I'll state it again some other time, too, be prepared. It won't be here, though.

So why are you wanting to use words that imply the sinner is evil like deviate and not normal. By using these you imply that they are evil, that they are evil, and not that they are just sinners.

I do not believe in 'evil' the same way that you do. Sin is somehting that people become helpless too and it devours them; they are victims of their own sin. Evil really doesn't play such a huge role here.

Since you appear to be talking about SB 777 again, that law says nothing about teaching 4 year olds anything -- despite what the article claims. Rather, it merely says that you cannot discriminate. It doesn't say that you can't talk about mom and dad but it does imply you can't say a four year olds parents are deviant for having two mommies or two daddies. I don't see why that is terrible, why do we have a need to teach four year olds that the parents of another child are "sinners".

They should not teach that it is normal because that would simply be a lie; they also cannot teach that it is healthy because it would not be a lie. I propose that they teach nothing.

Why, why shouldn't they be taught that all law abiding citizens are equal under the law and deserve respect? It is your job as a parent to teach religious beliefs, along with your church, and not the schools.

Equal under the law, yes, but deserving of respect is an opinion.

You also seem to have this split in what you believe. On one hand you want to argue that homosexuals are not normal, yet on the other you want to claim they aren't evil but merely sinners. Yet, strangely, you don't want to claim that Jews or Buddhists aren't equal or normal, you don't appear to have a problem with teaching that in schools. So why do you have a bias about homosexuals as compared to other sinners, why aren't they deserving of equal treatment by law?

Judaism and Buddhism are religious and cultural groups which are not inherently immoral or wrong as they are not committing some sin. They do not believe in the same religion as me, and they are wrong on their religious views naturally. However, they are respectable and decent people and lead good lifestyles.

Furthermore, everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. Its fact.

Per your religious beliefs. Per the constitution the law is not allowed to discriminate and marriage laws do just that on the basis of gender.

Marriage is and has always been an institution of a man marrying a woman in both Western and Eastern society, sometimes though a man marrying multiple women (I support the idea of polygamy more than the idea of homosexual marriage, by the way, though I regard this as backwards as well at least it has some sort of historic and definitional basis).

How are we changing policy for gays and not for Christians? And why should policy be made based on your religious beliefs?

We're changing the definition of marriage and family.

I'm calling POE. I thought your last post was being sarcastic, but this one?
Some sins jepardize your spiritual health, but others do not?
You point out that killing, stealing, and a guy acting effeminate, or a woman acting masculine are the same? In particular, according to whose criteria? I teach ESL, and most of the Korean men come off as effeminate by US standards, yet most are heterosexual. You are referring to a verse that does not translate as "effeminate" but as "soft", which may be interpretted as a soft character (as opposed to a strong character that does not easily give in to sin.)

Further, you are exhalting yourself, as the Pharisee did in the temple, in comparing yourself to other sinners, as he did to the tax collector, in the parable: The Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

I believe that you are being a characature for those who have stated these ridiculous things, are pushing people's buttons out of boredom, or are just trying to undermine Christianity itself, which I think a certain brand of Christians is doing all by themselves.

I call POE because you are far too unbelievable to take seriously.

I do not know what POE is.

It is a shame that conservative Christian beliefs are now not able to be taken seriously.

Homosexuality is directly condemned and it fits into the sins that jeopardize the eternal soul.

Some sins are wose than others.

How could you say that a man having impure thoughts is as bad as a man killing someone?

 

[Aeris]

To say that homosexuals are in some quality the same as blacks or other races is pretty ridiculous; the behavior involves obvious moral ramifications in every single society.

Blacks and gays are entirely different and equating them righ tnow shows how weak your argument is: you are resorting to painting this as racial discrimination because you know that the comparison, as it stands, does not hold water.

No, obviously its not racial discrimination, however it is still discrimination

It is an action that brings shame upon the family and brings severe questions up to the individual and their sexual desires and preferences, so all across the globe it has been regarded as such a problem and people are encouraged to control this and become normal parts of society.

Im not sure how accurate this is, but let assume your right for arguments sake, why should it be encouraged to be controlled? what business is it of yours (or anyone elses) who someone has a relationship with? two men, or two women in a relationship dont even affect you (who cares if you or anyone else thinks its "normal" or not just because its different doesnt mean it is bad, religion aside) so why should you discriminate against them? its not right to discriminate against people, they arent hurting anyone so just leave them alone

They should not teach that it is normal because that would simply be a lie; they also cannot teach that it is healthy because it would not be a lie. I propose that they teach nothing.

Yes they should teach not to discriminate they are not telling them to go out and become homosexuals they are teaching tolerance, which believe it or not is a good thing

Equal under the law, yes, but deserving of respect is an opinion.

Equal under the law includes freedom from discrimination, you dont have to agree with their actions but again im not sure how this even affects you

[qoute=jmverville;43278355]
However, they are respectable and decent people and lead good lifestyles.
[/quote]
Homosexuals are respectable, decent people too. Do you even know any? Yes there are probably some that arent decent or respectable but there are heteros that arent decent or respectable too

It is a shame that conservative Christian beliefs are now not able to be taken seriously.

Actually its not, many of your so called "conservative christian" believes seem to be very discriminating

Homosexuality is directly condemned and it fits into the sins that jeopardize the eternal soul.

Thats fine if you believe that then dont do it! but its gods job to judge people not yours (assuming he actually exists)

 

[Maren]

I do not think that bill has anything to do with it, but what do you think of the announcement by Ed Balls and the UK groups advocating as much>?

I will drop all of the California point because I am uninformed of it.

You've dropped out of all the points you've made so far: the Maryland dorms, Dr. Laura in Canada, and California now. Now, I'd be really interested in hearing about this UK thing but the only sources I'm finding are WND and Focus on the Family. The articles talk about some "guidelines" but nowhere do they even name what these supposed guidelines are. In fact, what I've found is that the guidelines have nothing to do with teaching sexual orientation in the schools but rather are about bullying.

You can try looking but I see nothing that can be interpreted as not using mom and dad or any of the rest of what you are trying to claim. But I'm willing to listen if you can find better information. So far, however, WND and other anti-gay organizations have not told the truth about these types of things, so I suspect you'll find pretty much the same information I have.

No, they are not normal. And there is evidence far beyond that.

So you claim, yet you appear to have been unable to support that claim.

If they are not normal because of my religoius beliefs, or even other people's religious beliefs, how do you feel about 90% atheist countries like China and other nations whcih are majority atheist like Korea, Japan, Vietnam, who still discriminate and regard homosexuality as unnatural and dishonorable?

Sorry, two problems here. First, this is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Second, most of these cultures have only adopted positions against homosexuality recently, strangely about the same time as they became exposed to Christianity. Homosexuality was common in ancient China, it is believed nearly every emperor during the Han dynasty had one (if not several) male lovers. It was also common in ancient Japan.

It is inherent to mankind to dislike the notion of homosexuality as it is an urge that we feel is fundamentally backwards.

I personally don't see a lot of evidence of that. Actually looking at evidence, it appears to be a trait that is learned. I also think this is one of the main reasons Christians are so afraid of accepting gays -- not that people will become gay but that kids won't develop the aversion to people who are homosexual.

I've stated it enough in other threads. I'll state it again some other time, too, be prepared. It won't be here, though.

You seem to like to do this, claim you have evidence of something but then not provide evidence because it would take the thread off topic or other lame reason. If you want us to accept you have evidence, please present it. And don't ask me to start a new thread to discuss it because it will take this one off-topic. You are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to prove it.

I do not believe in 'evil' the same way that you do.

You sure seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I believe, it would be nice if you actually had a clue about what I actually believe.

Sin is somehting that people become helpless too and it devours them; they are victims of their own sin. Evil really doesn't play such a huge role here.

Yet this again is a personal opinion. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be supported in reality. It does seem to happen to a minority of people but not to most. For example, we know most people have premarital sex, yet most people don't let sex devour their life. Yet, for some reason you claim that because someone is homosexual that sex will devour their life. Unfortunately for you, reality does not support that anymore than heterosexuals have their life devoured by sex -- in both cases there are some who do but most don't.

They should not teach that it is normal because that would simply be a lie; they also cannot teach that it is healthy because it would not be a lie. I propose that they teach nothing.

But again, the facts do not support you, at least not in the way you want them to. There is risk in pretty much any form of sex -- especially if done wrong/forced. Yet for some reason professional medical organizations such as the AMA and WHO support gay rights and do not claim that homosexual sex is not healthy.

As for the word normal, that is pretty much meaningless because it can mean so many different things. Blond hair is not normal (only 2% of the world's population, likely less than are homosexual) but I don't think we should force people to darken their hair.

Equal under the law, yes, but deserving of respect is an opinion.

I think you are trying to proof text what I said. Much of the problem is that "respect" (much like "normal") has become a rather loaded word. A better way to say it is that all people should treat others as equals -- much like what Christ taught in the Golden Rule. You, however, appear to think you should be able to treat homosexuals as something less than equal and not as Christ commanded of his followers. Nowhere is there a caveat of "unless they are sinners" in the command to treat others they way you want them to treat you. In fact Christ, in talking of how to deal with the Romans (who were not only sinners but the oppressors of the Jews), said to go the extra mile.

Judaism and Buddhism are religious and cultural groups which are not inherently immoral or wrong as they are not committing some sin.

But that is just the point, in the Christian belief system they are sinning. The are breaking the first and great commandment, to Love the Lord. Not to mention a few of the Ten Commandments.

They do not believe in the same religion as me, and they are wrong on their religious views naturally. However, they are respectable and decent people and lead good lifestyles.

So, you are saying that homosexuals cannot be respectable and decent people? That it doesn't matter what religion they might be or what type of lives they lead? That simply being attracted to someone of the same sex keeps one from being decent or respectable? You seem to have a double standard here.

Furthermore, everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. Its fact.

And yet you've stated on this thread (and in the post I'm responding to) that gays do not deserve equal treatment.

Marriage is and has always been an institution of a man marrying a woman in both Western and Eastern society, sometimes though a man marrying multiple women (I support the idea of polygamy more than the idea of homosexual marriage, by the way, though I regard this as backwards as well at least it has some sort of historic and definitional basis).

Except, again, this is a rewriting of history that has been done by the anti-gay groups. The fact is there is evidence of homosexual marriages in history -- one historian claims to have found evidence of them even in medieval Europe. Whether or not you believe him, there is evidence of same sex marriages in history around the globe.

We're changing the definition of marriage and family.

Society has been doing that for thousands of years. In Biblical times, the woman was considered to become the property of the husband. To a degree, marriage laws in the United States reflected this one hundred years ago and we have now changed the definition of marriage. Fifty years ago miscegenation was illegal, yet another way marriage has changed.

Further, the whole idea that we can't change the definition is another logical fallacy, an appeal from tradition. If we accept the logic that tradition is evidence, then obviously we should still have slaves and women should become the property of their husband.

In fact, the history of the United States is built on the idea of breaking from traditions; the idea of religious freedom, the idea that all people are equal, that all people should be able to participate in government, etc. This is yet another case where all people should be treated equally under the law.

 

[PsychMJC]

Haha!

Aw, yeah. Look at Gwen, too, with her lovely soulful eyes. How on earth could a lady of taste remain heterosexual with her around?

They couldn't even try! Hence why it's so evil.. Like the froooiuts of the deveeeeeal.
I mean, when positive homosexual/bisexual characters are introduced into television shows, its a sure sign of the end of times..

Not just a social moral voice for equaliy amongst the masses..

And no matter what happens..

I am a straight male, and Captain Jack is one of my heroes.

 

[Verv]

You've dropped out of all the points you've made so far: the Maryland dorms, Dr. Laura in Canada, and California now. Now, I'd be really interested in hearing about this UK thing but the only sources I'm finding are WND and Focus on the Family. The articles talk about some "guidelines" but nowhere do they even name what these supposed guidelines are. In fact, what I've found is that the guidelines have nothing to do with teaching sexual orientation in the schools but rather are about bullying.

No, I didn't drop the Maryland dorms... If by Maryland you mean Delaware.

I never made a point for California, it was more about Britain.

Dr. Laura in Canada turned out to be slightly different.

You can try looking but I see nothing that can be interpreted as not using mom and dad or any of the rest of what you are trying to claim. But I'm willing to listen if you can find better information. So far, however, WND and other anti-gay organizations have not told the truth about these types of things, so I suspect you'll find pretty much the same information I have.

SB 777 does have this:

Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they? In October, California Senate Bill 777 was signed into law. Senate Bill 777 eliminates Education Code 212, which currently defines "sex" as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being." And worse yet, SB 777 redefines the term "gender" for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which will read: "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.
​

NC Times

That is a bit off the wall.

Sorry, two problems here. First, this is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Second, most of these cultures have only adopted positions against homosexuality recently, strangely about the same time as they became exposed to Christianity. Homosexuality was common in ancient China, it is believed nearly every emperor during the Han dynasty had one (if not several) male lovers. It was also common in ancient Japan.

First, it is not a logical fallacy. Rather, it is more on the topic of the world having an inherent dislike of homosexuality, how it spreads across cultures.

Also, a decree was issued in 1740 outlawing homosexuality in China; this was before the 1800s when the Chinese were being opened up by the British.

The mere fact that it existed in China and Japan does not necessarily mean it was entirely approved of; in Confucianism a man has the duty of providing children and being married, as does a woman; the notion of a homosexual marriage doesn't exist here, either.

Most historic recordings are done by the intelligentsia and they are about the important figures of the time; I highly doubt average Chinese or Japanese had open minds about it but rather we are talking about the views of an extreme minority of the privileged.

I personally don't see a lot of evidence of that. Actually looking at evidence, it appears to be a trait that is learned. I also think this is one of the main reasons Christians are so afraid of accepting gays -- not that people will become gay but that kids won't develop the aversion to people who are homosexual.

There should be an aversion to homosexuality because it is a sinful and abnormal act.

You seem to like to do this, claim you have evidence of something but then not provide evidence because it would take the thread off topic or other lame reason. If you want us to accept you have evidence, please present it. And don't ask me to start a new thread to discuss it because it will take this one off-topic. You are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to prove it.[.quote]

Then I will. I spoke extensively in one of the threads a while back concerning proper passion and improper passion and human sxuality but no one seems to remember.

You sure seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I believe, it would be nice if you actually had a clue about what I actually believe.

You're like most liberals, I imagine: you do not have any real values or beliefs, just vague statements about love and acceptance. No standards.

I'd attack this but I find that generally there is nothing to attack because you believe in next to nothing.

You can correct me if I am wrong.

Yet this again is a personal opinion. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be supported in reality. It does seem to happen to a minority of people but not to most. For example, we know most people have premarital sex, yet most people don't let sex devour their life. Yet, for some reason you claim that because someone is homosexual that sex will devour their life. Unfortunately for you, reality does not support that anymore than heterosexuals have their life devoured by sex -- in both cases there are some who do but most don't.

I would bring up satistics concerning the abnormally high number of sex partners homosexuals tend to have but you would call it propaganda and then bring up propaganda statistics from a gay organization.

But more than that: all sex is a distraction, all passion for sex in any form is immoral.

But again, the facts do not support you, at least not in the way you want them to. There is risk in pretty much any form of sex -- especially if done wrong/forced. Yet for some reason professional medical organizations such as the AMA and WHO support gay rights and do not claim that homosexual sex is not healthy.

As for the word normal, that is pretty much meaningless because it can mean so many different things. Blond hair is not normal (only 2% of the world's population, likely less than are homosexual) but I don't think we should force people to darken their hair.

That is because those organizations do not make philosophical or moral commentary.

Blond is a particularly unique feature to whites; it is natural for a white person to have ligher colored hair or eyes, so in a sense, this is quite a normal and natural things for whites.

Races are different and exploiting the fact that whites are a minority to make that point seems wrong.

I think you are trying to proof text what I said. Much of the problem is that "respect" (much like "normal") has become a rather loaded word. A better way to say it is that all people should treat others as equals -- much like what Christ taught in the Golden Rule. You, however, appear to think you should be able to treat homosexuals as something less than equal and not as Christ commanded of his followers. Nowhere is there a caveat of "unless they are sinners" in the command to treat others they way you want them to treat you. In fact Christ, in talking of how to deal with the Romans (who were not only sinners but the oppressors of the Jews), said to go the extra mile.

Lots of supposition here.

It is my duty to love homosexuals as how I love myself. How wouldn't it be?

So, you are saying that homosexuals cannot be respectable and decent people? That it doesn't matter what religion they might be or what type of lives they lead? That simply being attracted to someone of the same sex keeps one from being decent or respectable? You seem to have a double standard here.

People of different religions have different belief systems than me, as you do, but it does not comment on their moral behavior.

Being a homosexual immediately is abnormal fetishism that goes against sexual morality, it is a pretty heavy thing that I do not look upon lightly.

Society has been doing that for thousands of years. In Biblical times, the woman was considered to become the property of the husband. To a degree, marriage laws in the United States reflected this one hundred years ago and we have now changed the definition of marriage. Fifty years ago miscegenation was illegal, yet another way marriage has changed.

Further, the whole idea that we can't change the definition is another logical fallacy, an appeal from tradition. If we accept the logic that tradition is evidence, then obviously we should still have slaves and women should become the property of their husband.

In fact, the history of the United States is built on the idea of breaking from traditions; the idea of religious freedom, the idea that all people are equal, that all people should be able to participate in government, etc. This is yet another case where all people should be treated equally under the law.

First, we look to the past and to different points to find definitions of what marriage is.

It becomes more clear that it has never been defined as acceptable to have same genders marrying each other.

Why should the definition be changed? Especially for a group that normally doesn't even practice monogamy and is morally wrong.

Interracial marriage and other past unjust laws have nothing to do with this; you are again clouding the debate with the race issue because your arguments do not stand without trying to equate them. Arguing for homosexuals being given special rights to violate the definition of marriage has nothing to do with race.

No, obviously its not racial discrimination, however it is still discrimination


Im not sure how accurate this is, but let assume your right for arguments sake, why should it be encouraged to be controlled? what business is it of yours (or anyone elses) who someone has a relationship with? two men, or two women in a relationship dont even affect you (who cares if you or anyone else thinks its "normal" or not just because its different doesnt mean it is bad, religion aside) so why should you discriminate against them? its not right to discriminate against people, they arent hurting anyone so just leave them alone

It is not really my business, but if we are in the habit of discussing ideas, I am just providing you with some.

Of course I leave them alone, but I do not think we should bend the law to allow them to marry as that it utterly absurd rape of the English language to allow same genders to marry and a very pointless affair.

I am also offended that you guys woul dshove your views down my throat.

How come we cannot shove our view down your throat concerning teaching our sense of morality in schools, while somehow you can teach yours?

That's fascism.

Yes they should teach not to discriminate they are not telling them to go out and become homosexuals they are teaching tolerance, which believe it or not is a good thing

But they do so not by stating that tolerance is good, but by stating that gays are good which is simply wrong. Taking a group and saying they are good, contrary to the moral views of much of the population, is being provocative and using public education to propagandize.

That isnt' teaching tolerance. Teaching tolerance is teaching tolerance, not teaching that groups you hold high opinions of we must all hold high opinions of.

Homosexuals are respectable, decent people too. Do you even know any? Yes there are probably some that arent decent or respectable but there are heteros that arent decent or respectable too

I have two friends that are homosexuals. Their sexual behavior is something I do not approve of at all. I do not view it as decent in the least.

Actually its not, many of your so called "conservative christian" believes seem to be very discriminating

I'm not sorry about it. I'm not sorry for keeping my standards.

 

[cantata]

To say that homosexuals are in some quality the same as blacks or other races is pretty ridiculous; the behavior involves obvious moral ramifications in every single society.

Blacks and gays are entirely different and equating them righ tnow shows how weak your argument is: you are resorting to painting this as racial discrimination because you know that the comparison, as it stands, does not hold water.

I am not comparing the groups. I am comparing the discrimination. Frankly, I believe that it is simply not okay for foster parents to impose any standard of morality on their charges beyond what is basic and agreed, which amounts essentially to 'don't harm others'. They do not have the right to tell children that homosexuality is not okay. What if a couple fostered a fourteen-year-old child who already identified as homosexual? Would it be okay for them to tell that child that their inclinations are wrong? I think not - because that is not the role of a foster parent. Foster parents are not adoptive parents. They do not own children. They are parenting on behalf of the state. And the state affirms that homosexual relationships are as valid as heterosexual ones.

Religion has been an inherent part of all societies barring few, and even in the atheist societies such as the People's Republic of China, they have regarded homosexuality as dishonorable and immoral. It is an action that brings shame upon the family and brings severe questions up to the individual and their sexual desires and preferences, so all across the globe it has been regarded as such a problem and people are encouraged to control this and become normal parts of society.

Race has nothing to do with it and you know it doesn't.

I'm not suggesting that it is racist to discriminate gay people. Do you not understand how an analogy works?

Theoretically then we could justify any media group doing anything that remotely reflects populism; an anti-homosexual backlash would be in line in some senses, then, to be representative of the larger conservative electorate of rural areas.

But I imagine you'd complain then, as I complain now, which goes to prove nothing for either of us.

The BBC, as you know, is publicly funded. But our commercial television stations, including ITV, Channel 4 and Five, hold pretty much the same position on gay issues as the BBC. If they didn't get the viewing figures, they would change their stance.

If you need me to provide instances of pro-gay news articles, pro-gay legislation, pro-gay media blitzes then I think you're just biding time or something.

Do you deny that it exists?

The thing is, in this country, it's just not such a big issue. I know it's hard to imagine, but the vast majority of people in this country have no particular opinion about gay people. There are pockets of people who are violently opposed to gay people having the right to marry, &c., but most people are relatively indifferent. It is not the huge, election-swaying issue that it is in the US. The BBC reflects this attitude, and in addition attempts to raise awareness and encourage people to think about their prejudices. The BBC's position would almost certainly not be reflective of the electorate's views in your country, but it's much closer to British people's opinions as a whole.

And that is great. However, I doubt that they would accept somebody coming in to commentate on the homosexual issues or real, true Christian issues.

BBC1 is probably forced to make such minor concessions when available.

No one is twisting the BBC's arm. What are 'the homosexual issues'? What are 'real, true Christian issues'? Religious and moral issues are discussed in great detail on the BBC. I do not know what you are looking for here. The BBC is not anti-religious by any stretch of the imagination. Frankly, with regard to the BBC, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

I have never heard anyone on the BBC, Christian or otherwise, sermonising on the subject of gay rights. The BBC is not a religious organisation; it does not pretend to expound the views of any church or denomination. No one comes on the BBC and says that gay people are sinners. Nor does anyone come on the BBC and say that they are not. They might depict a drama in which gay rights are discussed; they might report positively on gay events such as Pride marches. But the BBC is not a pulpit, and it does not let anyone charge around explicitly moralising without presenting some sort of counterargument.

 

[Verv]

To be brief:

(1) I do not support the idea of tax paying dollars ever being used to make propaganda to broadcast over air waves, opinion meant to bolster one part of the population and alienate another.

(2) I do not really discriminate. I cannot. I love everybody equally. I will be anybodys friend.

(3) Real Christian issues are in our personal fight to remain Holy and Pure and to pursue God and fulfill His Word in our personal lives.

Political issues are a personal hobby for me.

Beyond that, it is a Christian issue when the government aligns themselves against us by forbidding us to be foster parents or claiming that our doctrine is hateful.

 

[cantata]

To be brief:

(1) I do not support the idea of tax paying dollars ever being used to make propaganda to broadcast over air waves, opinion meant to bolster one part of the population and alienate another.

What about tax pounds?

Propaganda is not broadcast on the BBC. Informed opinion is. It'd be a pretty rubbish broadcasting house if no opinion was ever broadcast. Where would be the forum for debate?

(2) I do not really discriminate. I cannot. I love everybody equally. I will be anybodys friend.

I can but judge you by your fruits.

(3) Real Christian issues are in our personal fight to remain Holy and Pure and to pursue God and fulfill His Word in our personal lives.

*Real* Christians? You say you don't discriminate?

Beyond that, it is a Christian issue when the government aligns themselves against us by forbidding us to be foster parents or claiming that our doctrine is hateful.

Christians are not being forbidden to be foster parents.

What if your doctrine is hateful?

 

[Maren]

No, I didn't drop the Maryland dorms... If by Maryland you mean Delaware.

I never made a point for California, it was more about Britain.

Dr. Laura in Canada turned out to be slightly different.

So with Delaware, your only evidence is a press release from a Christian activist organization. The one real news article appears to prove that the press release is false and there are no mainstream news reports (i.e. non Christian activist news) that back up the Christians organization. Yet you still stand by it? Your biases are showing.

Not to mention Britain, where you have moved the goalposts -- it originally was all about California. Britain was brought up in response to how I showed your California information was false and, strangely despite the fact that there is no evidence you still are going to try and pretend you are right.

SB 777 does have this:

Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California's kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven't they? In October, California Senate Bill 777 was signed into law. Senate Bill 777 eliminates Education Code 212, which currently defines "sex" as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being." And worse yet, SB 777 redefines the term "gender" for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which will read: "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.
​

NC Times

That is a bit off the wall.

And yet it has nothing to do with the banning of "mom" and "dad" like you claimed, nor does it have anything to do with the promotion of homosexuality. I see you are moving the goalposts.

First, it is not a logical fallacy. Rather, it is more on the topic of the world having an inherent dislike of homosexuality, how it spreads across cultures.

Strange that you claim it isn't a logical fallacy, it fits the definition and you don't even try to explain how it doesn't fit. Real evidence would be nice to support your claims.

Also, a decree was issued in 1740 outlawing homosexuality in China; this was before the 1800s when the Chinese were being opened up by the British.

Yet I didn't mention the British. In fact, China had trade with Europe for hundreds of years prior to 1740.

The mere fact that it existed in China and Japan does not necessarily mean it was entirely approved of; in Confucianism a man has the duty of providing children and being married, as does a woman; the notion of a homosexual marriage doesn't exist here, either.

It might, if there weren't evidence of it being relatively common. And I don't think anything historically has been "entirely approved of"; Christianity today is not "entirely approved of" in any country in the world. Per your logic, I guess that we can say that Christianity is immoral because people all over the world have an aversion to it.

Most historic recordings are done by the intelligentsia and they are about the important figures of the time; I highly doubt average Chinese or Japanese had open minds about it but rather we are talking about the views of an extreme minority of the privileged.

This sounds like a very weak dodge of the fact that you have no evidence but refuse to give up your preconceived biases despite the evidence that continues to show you are wrong.

There should be an aversion to homosexuality because it is a sinful and abnormal act.

Which was taught to you by your religious beliefs.

You seem to like to do this, claim you have evidence of something but then not provide evidence because it would take the thread off topic or other lame reason. If you want us to accept you have evidence, please present it. And don't ask me to start a new thread to discuss it because it will take this one off-topic. You are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to prove it.

Then I will. I spoke extensively in one of the threads a while back concerning proper passion and improper passion and human sxuality but no one seems to remember.

No, I remember it but it doesn't apply because it is again merely your religious beliefs, and worse for you, not even one that all Christians appear to agree with. There is zero objective evidence of the claims you were trying to make, instead you had to go to the Bible to try and find evidence.

You're like most liberals, I imagine: you do not have any real values or beliefs, just vague statements about love and acceptance. No standards.

It is amazing how wrong you are. I'm not even a liberal (at least other than in the minds of some extreme conservatives here).

I'd attack this but I find that generally there is nothing to attack because you believe in next to nothing.

So, since you can't support your claims you feel you need to attack me personally?

You can correct me if I am wrong.

Consider yourself corrected.

I would bring up satistics concerning the abnormally high number of sex partners homosexuals tend to have but you would call it propaganda and then bring up propaganda statistics from a gay organization.

So, IOW, you can't support your claims. In fact, the evidence you have attempted to use has been shown to be much like Delaware or California -- twisting of the real data to make false claims. And, to keep from having to acknowledge that you are wrong you pretend that any contrary claims are merely "propaganda statistics from a gay organization".

Though this does raise an interesting questions: I've shown numerous examples (pretty much all of them you have used) where your "Christian 'news' sources" have lied or twisted information to create false claims against gays. If their claims had any truth, should they not be able to prove their claims without lies? And what does it say about anti-gay Christianity which uses false witness (against their own 10 Commandments)?

But more than that: all sex is a distraction, all passion for sex in any form is immoral.

And again, the majority of the world (including most Christians) disagree with you on this instance. And there is no objective evidence that you are correct. In fact, objective evidence appears to prove you wrong. Sex, when used safely and in moderation, appears to be an important part of a healthy lifestyle.

That is because those organizations do not make philosophical or moral commentary.

Yet you weren't making a philosophical or moral point. You said that homosexual sex is unsafe. So, I would say that since the two most prominent medical organizations in the world, who you concede do not make philosophical or moral commentary, do not condemn gay sex that you are proven wrong.

Blond is a particularly unique feature to whites; it is natural for a white person to have ligher colored hair or eyes, so in a sense, this is quite a normal and natural things for whites.

Races are different and exploiting the fact that whites are a minority to make that point seems wrong.

Yet it is still not "normal" in whites. I don't have the exact statistics for whites but only 5% are blond in the US (which is majority white). And the fact that it doesn't show up in other races could actually be used as evidence as to how abnormal being blond is. By contrast, we find gay people in similar percentages across all cultures, races, etc.

Lots of supposition here.

It is my duty to love homosexuals as how I love myself. How wouldn't it be?

Yet you apparently don't, per the Golden Rule.

People of different religions have different belief systems than me, as you do, but it does not comment on their moral behavior.

Nor does the fact that a person is attracted to the same sex comment on their moral behavior.

Being a homosexual immediately is abnormal fetishism that goes against sexual morality, it is a pretty heavy thing that I do not look upon lightly.

Except the evidence is against you here. This is merely your personal opinion based off of your religious beliefs.

First, we look to the past and to different points to find definitions of what marriage is.

It becomes more clear that it has never been defined as acceptable to have same genders marrying each other.

Except that is false, as I mentioned in my previous post. Your vague assertions are not proof.

Why should the definition be changed? Especially for a group that normally doesn't even practice monogamy and is morally wrong.

Wow, using an unsupported assertion that has nothing to do with marriage. Heterosexuals don't normally (if you look at the statistics) practice monogamy yet you believe they should be married. The fact is that a large percentage of heterosexuals (from what I recall, in the 90% range) have multiple sex partners. Studies claim that over 50% of people cheat on their spouse. So, why are you holding homosexuals to a higher standard than heterosexuals?

Interracial marriage and other past unjust laws have nothing to do with this; you are again clouding the debate with the race issue because your arguments do not stand without trying to equate them. Arguing for homosexuals being given special rights to violate the definition of marriage has nothing to do with race.

They have everything to do with this, even if you refuse to see it. In fact, it is remarkable if you look at how all the arguments made against interracial marriage exactly mirror the arguments made against gay marriage.

The only "definition of marriage" being changed is yours. As I stated previously, this country has constantly redefined the way words have been defined. There is no reason (outside of your religious ones, which have no place in a secular government) to not change a definition.

Not to mention, the only special rights right now are the ones Christians currently enjoy (such as hate crime protection, civil rights protections, and marriage) but want to deny to homosexuals.

 

[BigBadWlf]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Maren again.