Gays!!!

[No Swansong]

One doesn't have to. One just has that 'gut feeling' that I spoke of.

My comment was a jest which I thought was obvious but surely you cannot tell me that you believe your "gut feeling" to be a reliable indicator as to anothers faith?

If that were true then would you not be passing the same judgment that you just condemned others for making?

 

[Beanieboy]

Did they really use the term Holy hate? I haven't heard that for 30 years and then it referred not to people but an ideology.

Look at this essay, called:
Nicer than God? http://www.ericsons.net/379/nicer-than-god
Enyart, a Christian shock jock talk show host, has this thesis: Christians today are being too nice. They should be more judging as is their job, more mocking as Christ mocked, more name calling, as Jesus name called, and more being rude for Jesus.

Do you think: Gee, I wish the world was just a little bit ruder???

 

[Wyzaard]

Abortion has always been motivated by convienience, greed, and selfishness. THeres nothing loving about a mother executing her own child, nothing.

If you cannot afford the financial, emotional, and/or physical costs of having a child, to have one under such conditions is patently cruel... for you, your significant other, your child, your family, your community, your world.

When my ex-gf and I chose abortion, it was not only the best decision, it was the RIGHT one. A hard, but merciful choice for everyone.

So kindly shove off.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Someone 'judging' someone else is implying that they are a lesser sinner than the other. Working out matters and problems within the Church need not amount to judging another. It would be more often than not the Church responding to an issue and making an appropriate 'Christian' decision as to how to deal with it

And what do you think that is? When the church gives counsel to things such as marriage, morals, law, dogma, and theology??

You just answered your own question. Again once the log is taken out of ones eye then they can judge matters in church. We are told to take our matters before the church, not the secular authorities, so the church must form some type of judgement in order to answer questions on morals and dogma.

Telling people to "not judge" is a self defeating question because it itself is a judgement. Just like people who claim there is no such thing as truth, yet are trying to make a statement that is true in they're eyes.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

If you cannot afford the financial, emotional, and/or physical costs of having a child, to have one under such conditions is patently cruel... for you, your significant other, your child, your family, your community, your world.

When my ex-gf and I chose abortion, it was not only the best decision, it was the RIGHT one. A hard, but merciful choice for everyone.

So kindly shove off.

If you think abortion is the only way, then you are ignorant or just in denial.

You see, there is a thing called adoption. Where the child can be adopted to a loving couple who are willing to take care of it. THere are services that help pregnant women in financial problems(of course they have no problem paying for an abortion however, which ranges around 300-600$ each time). If the mother is unwilling to go through 9 months to give the child a chance and to a loving family then she is beyond selfish and has no respect for human life. She will also know the fact that she will be a murderer the rest of her life which will have a great effect on her mental state till the day she dies.

 

[GMRELIC]

Telling people to "not judge" is a self defeating question because it itself is a judgement. Just like people who claim there is no such thing as truth, yet are trying to make a statement that is true in they're eyes.

I think it all depends on how the situation is handled. No one likes to have someone with a self rightous attitude to tell them anything, myself included,
holier than tho attitudes turn more people away from Christ, than ever win them over to Christ.

 

[Belk]

well I can tell you one thing, the gay community sure is not....They have an extremely low rate of success with even they're regular relationships(much shorter duration and higher rate of partners than the regular average heterosexual), what makes them competant as far as deciding the things of marriage?

Well just as a guess it's because they have the same rights as every other human being on this planet.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Well just as a guess it's because they have the same rights as every other human being on this planet.

Marriage is a special right and is only possible under certain circumstances. Marriage came from religion(in Genesis), and thus you cannot severe its religious ties to it, otherwise it ceases to be marriage. Thats why Civil Unions are much better suited, because they have a broader definition. But as far as marriage the gay community has no buisness in it because marriage will always be what it is and it should, in no way, have to conform to a licentious lifestyle that has a zero rate of procreation and robs the offspring of motherhood or fatherhood. This has nothing to do with "equal rights", considering any gay man could get married to a woman if he wanted. If they are not willing to make the sacrifice then that is THEY'RE problem, not the community or marriage.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Marriage is a special right and is only possible under certain circumstances. Marriage came from religion(in Genesis), and thus you cannot severe its religious ties to it, otherwise it ceases to be marriage. Thats why Civil Unions are much better suited, because they have a broader definition. But as far as marriage the gay community has no buisness in it because marriage will always be what it is and it should, in no way, have to conform to a licentious lifestyle that has a zero rate of procreation and robs the offspring of motherhood or fatherhood. This has nothing to do with "equal rights", considering any gay man could get married to a woman if he wanted. If they are not willing to make the sacrifice then that is THEY'RE problem, not the community or marriage.

Marriage was hijacked by religion when in fact it preexisted the bible or Christianity.

And guess what marriage is NOT a religious institution any more than it is a secular one so you do not get to decide upon the civil rights of others.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Marriage was hijacked by religion when in fact it preexisted the bible or Christianity.

And guess what marriage is NOT a religious institution any more than it is a secular one so you do not get to decide upon the civil rights of others.

Yes marriage IS a religious institution because the idea of a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman is a religious one. For a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and the 2 shall become one flesh. Also marriage was intended for the procreation of a family and the continuing of the blood of the tribe and the family. ANd it wasn't till long after that the government deemed it right to get their hands on it and dispense it under their control. But no matter how much you try to secularize marriage, you can't, because it was a religious idea in the first place. Marriage is only for people who are willing to make the sacrifices and changes that it requires, if they can't, then that is their problem.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yes marriage IS a religious institution because the idea of a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman is a religious one. For a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife, and the 2 shall become one flesh. Also marriage was intended for the procreation of a family and the continuing of the blood of the tribe and the family. ANd it wasn't till long after that the government deemed it right to get their hands on it and dispense it under their control. But no matter how much you try to secularize marriage, you can't, because it was a religious idea in the first place. Marriage is only for people who are willing to make the sacrifices and changes that it requires, if they can't, then that is their problem.

Wrong again, marriage has never been just one man and one woman as it has always been fluid across cultures and it existed BEFORE your religion ever did so you can keep hoping otherwise but the truth is not what you want it to be. And guess what, history, psychology and science will continue to help eradicate the bigotry brought by religious doctrine.

And gay marriage will be a reality in the near future nationwide so I suspect many people will not be happy and I could not care less.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Marriage is a special right and is only possible under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you

Marriage came from religion(in Genesis), and thus you cannot severe its religious ties to it, otherwise it ceases to be marriage. Thats why Civil Unions are much better suited, because they have a broader definition. But as far as marriage the gay community has no buisness in it because marriage will always be what it is and it should, in no way, have to conform to a licentious lifestyle that has a zero rate of procreation and robs the offspring of motherhood or fatherhood.

So naturally you are opposed to allowing infertile heterosexuals to get married…or are you wanting to apply the ability to reproduce only to members of minorities?

This has nothing to do with "equal rights", considering any gay man could get married to a woman if he wanted. If they are not willing to make the sacrifice then that is THEY'RE problem, not the community or marriage.

Richard and Mildred loving could have chosen to get married to people of the correct skin color yet they chose to defy the laws of the state of Virginia and to defy the word of God and marry each other.
Since they were free to marry people of the correct skin color obviously they were not being discriminated against.

Blacks could drink out of the correctly labeled drinking fountains so obviously they weren’t being discriminated against

Blacks could ride in the back of the bus…no discrimination there

African American children had their own schools. How could anyone call that discrimination?

 

[Wyzaard]

If you think abortion is the only way, then you are ignorant or just in denial.

If you think that's what I was claiming, then you are making a straw-man.

You see, there is a thing called adoption. Where the child can be adopted to a loving couple who are willing to take care of it.

There are more than enough needy children in the world who need adopting already, and my ex is not a brood mare for other people's baby-consumption.

THere are services that help pregnant women in financial problems(of course they have no problem paying for an abortion however, which ranges around 300-600$ each time).

Such programs were either inadequate or non-existent where we lived; we were in a better position to judge our financial futures, and your optimism simply doesn't hold.

If the mother is unwilling to go through 9 months to give the child a chance and to a loving family then she is beyond selfish and has no respect for human life. She will also know the fact that she will be a murderer the rest of her life which will have a great effect on her mental state till the day she dies.

Pregnancy is a potentially lethal medical condition that is far from easy or inexpensive, you have not shown any such 'murder' took place, and honest studies of post-abortion mental health have shown that your 'great effect' is more positive than negative. Indeed, my ex was a wreck before the abortion, but felt empowered and relieved afterward, and continues to be a well-adjusted person.

Thanks for letting me see you fail again... it's always funny.

 

[stekaya]

Not so fast. I have written many, many times that I could not care any less than I do about GLBT's and their sexual proclivities. "I" am not one of the Evangelicals standing against the homosexual lifestyle for homosexuals. It's when they demand that we celebrate their perversions that I stand my ground.

well that's quite understandable. as a homosexual, i'd really just rather you leave me alone. the thing is, limiting my civil rights based on which sex i'm attracted to isn't really leaving me alone.



The evidence speaks against your assertion. A Gay Christianity is not the Church of the Apostles. It is not the Gospel either. It is something foreign and wrong.[/quote]

i'm sure there's lots of drunks, re-married spouses and gluttons that would like to argue this point with you.



It's not "just" Christians that oppose gays and their desires for society. It's just that Christians are in the sights of secularists driving the media.[/quote]

well...duh, of course christians are in the sights of secularists. christianity and its doctrines are a massive influence on US law and policy. nevermind the whole separation of church and state thing, that only applies to OTHER religions like them damn arabs and their terrist izlamm


Wrong. It is the open-minded Christian that show that gay sex and gay culture is antithetical to Christian truth ,that has the GLBT's all up in arms. "Fundamental beliefs" is not an epithet or sign of ignorance, but a sign of truth and honesty.[/quote]

anti-homosexuality is certainly a tenet of christianity (according to leviticus, i should be dead. heh.) one might argue, however, how wide you stretch the definition of christian 'truth'; i believe there's one passage (1 Kings 12?) in which a prophet calls out 2 female bears to slaughter over a dozen children. for throwing rocks at her. i think there's a tiny bit of room for re-interpretation in a text that features stories like that.


Find me one scripture that promotes OR celebrates gay culture. Go to www.biblegateway.com and use any number of different versoins of the Bible and get back to me. You seem a bright fellow.[/quote]

well of course you're not going to find one. you couldn't have gays in a society of wanderers in the sinai peninsula, they needed to keep the birth rate up just so they didn't die out. so of course, the book of laws composed for these tribes (leviticus) outlaws it.



No way. With gay activism comes gay sex acts being pamphleted in our schools and celebrated to OUR children BY homosexual activists. I have psoted the actual happenings.
That one is off the table J. You referee gay activism out of the schools, no rainbow clubs and no pink triangles and no gay "clubs," and that's the place to start the negotiations. If you want the same thing for Christian clubs, I'll have the treaty signed by morning. If you want debauchery, find it off school grounds. God is big enough to play by the same rules.

Care a go at that? [/quote]

why the hell would you want to ban christian clubs at schools? why would you try to suppress one of the largest religions in the world (has islam overtaken us yet )? christian clubs and pro-gay clubs should both be allowed to exist, and both be allowed to campaign. if christians want to argue homosexuality is immoral....well, ok, they're certainly entitled to the same freedom of speech everyone else has. while i'd certainly object to passing out pamphlets with GAY SEX ACTS, i don't see why a passage couldn't be passed around to the effect of 'gay people don't deserve discrimination' shouldn't be allowed to be passed around. where's the harm in trying to curb hate in children?




Wrong again, Evangelicals ALL come from the peoples and places they now oppose, or do not support any longer. If anyone knows the debauchery growing in our society, it is those that used to eat it.[/quote]
blanket statement.



It is seen as immorality sickening OUR children. There are planty of facts to prove the Evangelicals absoluetly and fundamentally correct. [/quote]

so, uh, not wanting to beat the [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] out of the gay kid is scientifically proven to make your kids healthier? i'm sure there's some acceptable middle ground between 'IM GOING TO SLIT THAT [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]'S THROAT WHEN HE'S NOT LOOKING' and 'man i wish i had some [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to suck!' there's a difference between accepting homosexuality (if not necesarily approving of it) and BEING homosexual.[/quote]



Taxes and injustice towards hard working families and their children.

See why so many Evangelicals are conservatives and vote GOP?

I'm all ears for your next treatment of what Christians believe.[/quote]

what king george was doing to the puritans was absolutely unacceptable. persecution for religious beliefs is undeniably extremely bigoted. on the same token, however, homosexuals are being persecuted for their sexuality; what was it, like, 15 years ago 'buggery' laws were rescinded in texas? two men can be just as capable parents, if not more so, than a man and a woman. if this is true, than why shouldn't they be allowed to marry (UNDER THE LAW, NOT the christian definition of marriage; it would be infringing upon the rights of christians to force them to change THEIR definition of marriage) and raise a family? it's not like gay parents are going to raise gay kids any more than straight parents will...hell, there's a whole lot of straight parents raising gay kids, that's for sure.



i appologize for my inability to do the quote disection correclty >.<

 

[Polycarp1]

If you think abortion is the only way, then you are ignorant or just in denial.

You see, there is a thing called adoption. Where the child can be adopted to a loving couple who are willing to take care of it. THere are services that help pregnant women in financial problems(of course they have no problem paying for an abortion however, which ranges around 300-600$ each time).

All this is true. We had a strongly pro-life friend who was a volunteer with Birthright, one such organization. The sad truth of the matter is that by and large, people would much rather give to, and voluinteer for, activist groups that protest against or for legal abortions, than to put forth the effort needed for programs like Birthright.

Maybe that's something the various sides in the abortion debate can come together on -- for those girls who choose to carry a child to term -- and I've known two well enough to know the burden that decision placed on them -- we should provide such help, a non-condemnatory support program for them as they live out their decision, etc.

If the mother is unwilling to go through 9 months to give the child a chance and to a loving family then she is beyond selfish and has no respect for human life. She will also know the fact that she will be a murderer the rest of her life which will have a great effect on her mental state till the day she dies.

 

[Polycarp1]

Marriage is a special right and is only possible under certain circumstances. Marriage came from religion(in Genesis), and thus you cannot severe its religious ties to it, otherwise it ceases to be marriage. Thats why Civil Unions are much better suited, because they have a broader definition. But as far as marriage the gay community has no buisness in it because marriage will always be what it is and it should, in no way, have to conform to a licentious lifestyle that has a zero rate of procreation and robs the offspring of motherhood or fatherhood. This has nothing to do with "equal rights", considering any gay man could get married to a woman if he wanted. If they are not willing to make the sacrifice then that is THEY'RE problem, not the community or marriage.

Horse patoot! You are playing bait and switch here: 1. God ordained marriage. 2. Therefore marriage is religious. 3. Therefore civil marriage should be only what MY church believes to be a proper marriage. You switch definitions several times.

By the law of the land, Adam and Eve were not married. They never got a marriage license, they never went before the community and publicly plighted their troth to each other, they never chose a commitment to each other forsaking all others. By "one man and one woman" Jacob sinned in taking Rachel to wife, Joseph and Benjamin are legal bastards in the eyes of God, etc. Jesus is not heir to David, since he is not descended from David's first (and childless) wife, his only legal wife, and therefore could not be heir to David.

In our society (US, Canada, western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), marriage is three distinct things:
1. The commitment of two people to live together as spouses faithfully.
2. The legal recognition of that commitment by the state, perhaps signified by its licensing them to make such a commitment publicly.
3. The religious institution whereby each church decides what it will expect of those wishing to make a public commitment of their marriage within it.

It is possible to have marriages that meet any one of the above definitions but not the other two, any two but not the third, or all three. And we have it scripturally spelled out that it is not the perquuisite of the church to judge those who are not a part of it.

Further, when anyone removes legal recognition from same-sex marriages, one often works injuries on children who consider the couple their parents, wither the biological offspring of one parent or adoptees. In claiming to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" and "uphold family values," the church is destroying or damaging real marriages, real families, that do not match its blind limitation on what it will consider a valid marriage.

And it will be held to account for its sins against them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1

Horse patoot! You are playing bait and switch here: 1. God ordained marriage. 2. Therefore marriage is religious. 3. Therefore civil marriage should be only what MY church believes to be a proper marriage. You switch definitions several times.

How come?
We see God ordained marriage Gen 2, Matt 19 etc. I don&#8217;t see how you can disagree with that.

By the law of the land, Adam and Eve were not married.

It seems that basically what they were even if it doesn&#8217;t say that.

Further, when anyone removes legal recognition from same-sex marriages, one often works injuries on children who consider the couple their parents, wither the biological offspring of one parent or adoptees.

I think this is why the whole same sex partnerships is so damaging.
First of all same sex partnerships aren&#8217;t always accepted as marriage even though you use it. I would say you shouldn&#8217;t use it as its outside God&#8217;s purposes. According to Genesis 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 5-7, Romans 1 etc. So I don&#8217;t see how you can propose that.
However the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.

 

[b&wpac4]

To Polycarp1
However the child is a product of male and female so if a child believes a same sex couple is their parents, the child has already been injured with dysfunctional and inaccurate indoctrination.

I see this claim constantly without much backup. How has the child been injured? I wish for a real claim, not something vague.

 

[Polycarp1]

BMS: So two teenagers who fall in love and commit to each other are married by your standards, without license or church ceremony? Is that what you are implying?

My point was that while Adam and Eve were married in the eyes of each other and of God, they had not -- could not -- undergo the trimmings that constitute a real legal and Christian marriage in the eyes of society today. It was given to emphasize the fact that there are three distinct concepts to which the term 'marriage' refers, and it's fatally easy to shift from one to another without realizing one is doing so.

Second, BMS, I too would like concrete evidence of the grounds for your statement which B&WPC4 asks about in post #337. Pronouncing that you adjudge that harm has been done is not proof that it has been done; show evidence or logic that demonstrates that such harm has in fact been done.

Finally, I'd like to make clear that my last comment to CreedIsChrist in my post #334 is not intended as a direct attack on him, but rather as holding him to the same Biblical standard as he would hold others, and for the same reason -- concern for his immortal soul, and concern that he has seemingly broken a commandment of God.

 

[lawtonfogle]

BMS: So two teenagers who fall in love and commit to each other are married by your standards, without license or church ceremony? Is that what you are implying?

Almost. You see, this I agree with this being marriage, except for the question of why haven't you actually had the ceremony? Depending upon their reasons, then I have no problem with them saying they are married. Maybe they are two poor to afford the religious marriage ceremony and they come from an area where unless they perform a ceremony of X size, they can't get married. Also, if I suggest they go have a private ceremony, and they set up to have one, and they are just waiting for the date, I once again see no problem if they have already made their commitments to each other. On the other hand, if they said they didn't want to, I would become a bit skeptical.