Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[LightHorseman]

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.
​

 

[SiderealExalt]

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]

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?

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

[Shane Roach]

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?

It might, if there were ever any arguments made in support of the accusation. There are very rarely any, and the handful I have seen have rested on false assertions about what the current laws and what the Constitution mean.

The vast, vast majority of such posts merely add the accusation as an insult, such as the previous several back and forth statements. There is no supporting argument even considered in either the post by Lighthorseman or the response. The assumption is that they are right without having to provide any evidence, and that anyone disagreeing is a bigot.

Maren says she thinks the accusations are tossed around too frequently, but I have never seen any self policing of liberals on this topic, no matter how obvious and improper the accusations have become, nor have I seen anyone calling on BigBadWlf to retract his statements regarding studies he posted that demonstrably do not support his assertions regarding them.

It's exceedingly obvious that part of the plan here is to simply flood the market with accusations and emotional appeals without recourse to actual discussion of the case for gay marriage on its merits.

 

[Maren]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

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.

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.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

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.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

The only organization with the muscle to make it into the issue it has become is the are the socialists. I never said (as far as I can remember) that the issue was unique to socialists only, I said socialists are using it to their advantage, it plays right into their world view concerning the obsolescence of the family, and the beneficiaries of the tactic are leftist.

 

[Maren]

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.

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."

 

[Wyzaard]

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.

In neither case is there a superior, concrete, obvious solution, but I feel mine is demonstrably the better case.[/quote]

In your opinion. And certainly nothing substantial enough to warrant the persecution of an entire class of people, a bar that is EXTREMELY high.

 

[Wyzaard]

Many of the people supporting them really don't want much of anything except to see Christianity further marginalized.

Pure paranoia.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

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. It's just plain not going to fly any longer, ok?

 

[b&wpac4]

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?

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.

 

[Shane Roach]

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."

What goal posts? This is not a debate. This is not tv news. I don't have goal posts. You are the one who has an agenda here and you're trying to deny being a part of a larger one.

I'll give you the same reply I gave Wyzaard. Seen or heard of the movie "Religulous"?

This stuff is a constant drain on the last nerve of every person who holds Christ dear, and it never takes a rest any more. It's constant pressure, constant bother, people accusing you of things over and over, and you think it's not a clear and open attack? You're sitting here nagging me over the use of the world "always" instead of "usually"?

"Mostly"?

Yes, the groups you raise have liberal portions to their agenda. I am well aware they are not all "liberal" as I am one who has said right here on these forums that most issues do not fall neatly into Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, but by and large, as a general rule, it is people with a socialist bent who are benefiting currently from this push.

Parse it to death, ok? I said what I said, I said what I meant... It's not a mystery to anyone anymore that we are hated in the last country on earth left that we could be truly free in now, so lecturing me about hate when I most assuredly do not hate homosexuals is simply not convincing. It's just not.

You've raised a sexually perverse practice of a small minority to the level of a civil right just for the opportunity to demonize Christianity. That's how far the hate goes. There's no other explanation for it.

We had tolerance. That was a done deal. Gay marriage might or might not have evolved over time, given some respectful dialogue, but no. Tolerance isn't what you want anymore. You want Christians gone.

It's hard enough to find a place to be a Christian in peace even on this web site. How's that for intolerance?

I am utterly exhausted with the constant accusations. And you expect me to believe you with stuff like Bill Maher's movie out there...? No... No I do not buy that I am the one disconnected from reality here.

 

[Shane Roach]

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.

 

[b&wpac4]

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.

I always find the persecution claims a little suspect, no offense. They aren't killing you, or separating you from your family, or finding new and creative ways to torture you. You are subject to criticism for your beliefs. I could probably trace much of the criticism of Christianity back to the Enlightenment, where many seeds of rejection started to grow.

Don't forget that Christianity had free run of Europe for centuries. People of other religious beliefs were run out of town, forced to convert, or killed. That you have to suffer a comedian making a mocking movie, or criticism by writers hardly compares.

 

[Wyzaard]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

The only two psychological articles that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been misrepresented here on these forums were posted by BigBadWlf, and I note none of the gay marriage proponents will even so much as acknowledge that and denounce it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

You certainly have done nothing to prove your case about the term "homosexual behavior" beyond simple repeated denial.

 

[roflcopter101]

I rest my case.

Why?
Wyzaard's post states that arguing verbally is acceptable in terms of expression of views, but restricting gay marriage would be an infringement of human rights. Thus, his argument states that regardless a person's views toward restricting or allowing gay marriage, it must be legalized to satisfy a human right.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I remember ready recently about an American politician who has given up on opposing gay marriage. What made him stop? Apparently he had a conversation with a niece if memory serves when she basically plainly said, he's already lost the fight, because her generation just doesn't care about stopping gays from marrying, and pretty much are going to make it happen.

The Christian-Platonic ideal is slowly fading away, even from a country like America.