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.
Originally Posted by Shane Roach
I also note that by and large, it is the gay activists and their supporters here who tend to try to make this personal, such as using charged words and phrases like, "discriminate against and persecute," rather than acknowledging the fact that they are the ones pushing a very controversial agenda.
If you can think of a better word for deliberately instituting measures that make a specified group of people unable to access the same rights and services as others, while either actively or tacitly encouraging the perception that the group is somehow deficient or aberrant, and not to be accepted fully into society... I'd like to hear it. Personally, it sounds like discrimination or persecution to me.
[/indent]
Actually, I don't see that most here do that but rather just a couple of people. Personally, I think they toss the terms around far too freely.
But I find it ironic you keep claiming this as you are one that keeps trying to make this personal -- you are the one who seems to think the whole gay rights movement is a giant conspiracy to promote socialism and to destroy Christianity (like you claim below). In fact, you seem to argue that you are the one being persecuted.
In fact, you've accused me of attacking you personally on more than one occasion. Yet, when I've asked you to point it out you've never responded. Though I'm sure you will view this post of mine as a personal attack, even though it is merely an observation about your arguments.
Sorry, this just flat out isn't true. First, many of those supporting gay rights are Christian. Second, being for gay rights does not make a person a liberal. One example is the Log Cabin Republicans, who are all for, "limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty." So, no, not "all the beneficiaries of this push are liberal in their agendas" (maybe not even most). And the simplest fact of all is that many of us arguing here for gay marriage (and other gay rights) well never see any benefit from it at all (other than happiness at seeing gays treated equally).
But calling it what it is(discrimination and persecution) would require those citizens who perpetuate it to be confronted with the ugliness and civil evils of their own actions and perceptions, and we can't have that now can we?
That which is done openly hardly qualifies as a conspiracy. It is well documented that communists from their inception have placed little value on marriage and have argued that it was a harmful institution as it exists.
Many isn't most. The Log Cabin Republicans are a gay group. Libertarianism is not "conservative" per se, and I have even seen people running around referring to 'Libertarian Socialism'.
Log Cabin Republicans are in fact libertarian, and many libertarian minded people are pushing the Republican party to separate from Christians. This, again, is being done quite openly. This is not a "conspiracy theory". You don't get to refer to it that way if it is happening in broad daylight.
Well, not and maintain any credibility.
That which is done openly hardly qualifies as a conspiracy. It is well documented that communists from their inception have placed little value on marriage and have argued that it was a harmful institution as it exists.
Except I thought the whole point here is that you are one of the few that see it.
No, the Log Cabin Republicans are not libertarian. Not to mention the fact, most libertarians are not liberal (though I can see how some should be considered liberal). While some may be I don't believe most are. Regardless, you are attempting to shift the goal posts here. Previously you stated: "All the beneficiaries of this push are liberal in their agendas." Most is not all -- not that you have shown that most are liberal. While it may be, I've not seen any studies that show the political leanings of gays. What I do know is that gays as a whole are not communist.
But as long as we are going for "correlation equals causation", communist governments were very strict against homosexuality, since procreation was very important to them. Therefore, if correlation is "proof", you are the one that must be a Communist.
Thought this should be noted: the support of same-sex marriage does not equate with communism in the least.
Someone can, and many do, support same-sex marriage and in no way, shape, or form support communism.
I've already clarified my position on the sole issue you have stated had anything to do with correlation equaling causation. If you don't care to address that directly, I can't imagine why you would find it effective to toss in here.
The whole libertarian, Log Cabin Republicans, socialist angle is based on me saying all liberal in their agenda? The portion of the Log Cabin Republicans party platform that is liberal is supported. They wouldn't be "Log Cabin Republicans" if they didn't have a bone to pick with the general platform.
The portion of the libertarian party platform that is benefited is liberal. Inasmuch as Libertarians think they can get portions of the Democratic party support, those are the ones they are looking for. From the Republicans, they believe they have a shot at the fiscal conservatives. This is why no one votes for them. They draw from the minority fringe of both major parties -- greedy people on the one side and people who are openly and actively antagonistic to past and current social values on the other.
What I am saying is that I am able to disprove concretely a lot of what is being claimed about homosexuality, and I am also able to make my own case to a level that is superior to yours.
Many of the people supporting them really don't want much of anything except to see Christianity further marginalized.
In neither case is there a superior, concrete, obvious solution, but I feel mine is demonstrably the better case.
In your opinion. And certainly nothing substantial enough to warrant the persecution of an entire class of people, a bar that is EXTREMELY high.
Please stop trying to play it off that there is not a large and powerful group of people attacking Christianity daily in this country. It's just plain not going to fly any longer, ok?
Why can't you just be honest and say you were wrong? You are merely waffling and attempting to move the goal posts to claim that they have liberal parts in their agenda because they support gay marriage (regardless of how conservative the rest of the agenda is), where the clear implication before was they all were liberal and most wanted to destroy Christianity. But you said nothing about portions of agenda or the agenda of those who support gay marriage, rather you claimed, "All the beneficiaries of this push are liberal in their agendas."
At most, it can only be 20% of the population, unless Christians have decided to start attacking themselves. If Christians are attacking other Christians, I'm afraid I can't really feel sorry for that.
20% of the population of this country, in concert with anti-religious and anti-Christian organizations from all over the world.
As I said, persecuted even in the last country on earth where we were free. Indeed, despite supposedly being the majority.
It's not a class of people, it is a behavior. As I have explained, I now have seen psychiatric studies referencing it as exactly that, and in any event the argument was always semantic to begin with.
Seen or heard of the movie "Religulous"?
Please stop trying to play it off that there is not a large and powerful group of people attacking Christianity daily in this country.
Your psych reports are shoddy, taken out of context, and/or irrelevant. Homosexuality is not a behavior, but an inclination of desire; empirical data dismisses your semantic distractions.
Bill Maher is not the leader of some atheist cabal; the only conspiracies at work in this country regarding religious belief come from vitriolic believers.
Shane_Roach said:I rest my case.
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?