Homosexuals: I'm calling you out!!! Prove to me...

[Beanieboy]

What bothers me is that the agency, who claims that they shut their doors because they couldn't allow married gay people to adopt, had no problem sending the child to a nonChristian home, although that is also a violation of their religion.

Is the possibility that the child will be raised by nonChristians, possibly raised to believe in the same "false" religion, only to spend eternity in hell, not something that they worry about, and only worry about gay couples raising a child?

Priorities?

The excuse that "it's against my religious beliefs" is very, very selective.

 

[Big Empty Circle]

IMO (which nobody else is required by me to share - until such time as I am named Emporess Flibbertigibbet), herein lies the problem with the gay rights agenda -expect the Christian persons running the agency to violate their deeply-held beliefs, yet at the same time get up-in-arms if asked to do the same.

You can't base your platform on equality to all, while not allowing Christians to hold to the ideals they hold dear. That's simply not equality.

(I'm not addressing any particular "you" on this board, btw. Just a figure of speech for reading ease.)

I've never asked anyone to violate their deeply-held beliefs (unless those deeply-held beliefs involve punching me in the face or something.) You asked if it was a sad situation, and I told you why I thought that, yes, it was, but for maybe a different reason than the one you were suggesting. I didn't say that the adoption agency shouldn't have been allowed to adhere to whatever belief they chose. I just thought it was an ill-informed choice that's seemingly going to hurt more people in more substantive ways than just staying open and letting gay couples adopt would have. I'm entitled to think that, same as you're entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong but that doesn't extend to making me change my life just to suit your personal values.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I don't know who wrote what I am about to quote - I copied it out of another post on this page, and I am too lazy to go look back through this LONG thread to find it.



One of the arguments against same-sex marriage, which has been raised even by those who do not oppose homosexual relationships, is the effect that gay marriage will have upon adoption. There was already, in Massachusetts, a Catholic-run adoption agency (I believe it was the largest adoption source in the State) that was ordered by the State to allow married homosexuals to adopt. The agency was forced to choose between violating their own deeply-held religious beliefs, or close the doors. They chose to close the agency, which has had a tremendous negative impact in the State and has greatly reduced the number of children placed for adoption.

Regardless of your position on homosexual couples adopting children, can you really stand up and cheer for this kind of result?

The state of Massachusetts has passed laws that will not allow them to deal with agencies that blatantly discriminate. The state acted just as if this agency were refusing to adopt to black parents or Jewish parents or any other minority. Sadly Catholic Human Services had the opportunity to act in the best interests of the children and reject discrimination but did not. I have to wonder if you would be siding with the Catholic Human Services if their contract with that state had been terminated because they chose to not deal with black children

 

[BigBadWlf]

IMO (which nobody else is required by me to share - until such time as I am named Emporess Flibbertigibbet), herein lies the problem with the gay rights agenda -expect the Christian persons running the agency to violate their deeply-held beliefs, yet at the same time get up-in-arms if asked to do the same.

You can't base your platform on equality to all, while not allowing Christians to hold to the ideals they hold dear. That's simply not equality.

(I'm not addressing any particular "you" on this board, btw. Just a figure of speech for reading ease.)

What you have posted works just as well as an argument for racism to wit: ‘obviously blacks are not and cannot be in favor of equality at all they do not want to allow Christians to hold dear their views misogyny’

No one is infringing on your right to hate. You are and will remain free to hate homosexuals, blacks, the handicapped, Muslims, Atheists, Hispanics, Jews and any other minority you wish.

However your right to hate does not trump the rights of gays and lesbians (or any other minority) to have equal protection under the law and equal access under the law. Your right to hate ends when it denies equality to others.

 

[Exhausted]

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, and all that.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

What you have posted works just as well as an argument for racism to wit: ‘obviously blacks are not and cannot be in favor of equality at all they do not want to allow Christians to hold dear their views misogyny’

No one is infringing on your right to hate. You are and will remain free to hate homosexuals, blacks, the handicapped, Muslims, Atheists, Hispanics, Jews and any other minority you wish.

However your right to hate does not trump the rights of gays and lesbians (or any other minority) to have equal protection under the law and equal access under the law. Your right to hate ends when it denies equality to others.

,
We'll take your "hate list" one by one. I'm female and not misogynistic. I don't hate homosexuals (among whose number I have friends), blacks (also among whose number I have friends), the handicapped (among whose number I have a child and many, many friends as I used to be the regional director for wheelchair billiards), Muslims (I'm in the South and frankly don't know very many Muslims, but the one family I do know I am friends with), atheists (among whose number I belonged until last year and among whom I also have friends), Hispanics (also among whose number I have a many friends), Jews (also among whose number I have friends).

If you have actually read my posts, I am perplexed as to why you are spewing invective. Who's the hater?

Nowhere in the Bible have I read anything that I felt condoned hatred or discrimination against anyone. Perhaps we've read a different Bible, or perhaps you just haven't read it. The Apostle Paul states in the New Testament that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, nor male nor female. All are equal. I personally don't think that includes lifestyle choices, but it certainly includes every person, yourself and every other person on this Earth.

If bigoted people have managed to twist scripture in such a manner as to attempt to justify racism or hatred of any person or group of persons, they are certainly not representative of my beliefs.


The Bible, in which I believe, but you do not have to (nor do I wish to "force" anyone to do so), says that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, yes I believe that it is wrong in the eyes of God. I'm not God and it's not my place to judge anyone else's life. I have had, and still do have, many things in my life that are also wrong in God's eyes so my focus is really not on telling anyone else how to live.

My opinion of your life doesn't count for much, and vice versa. I do feel that you are painting Christians with an awfully broad brushstroke and engaging in your own brand of "ism".


I'm engaging in discussion, not hate-mongering. Your attack is unwarranted and unprovoked.

_______________________________________________

For those Christians who have posted earlier in the thread regarding translations of scripture that do not mention a prohibition against homosexuality - would you please provide me with the name(s) of those translations. I'll add them to my reading list.

_________________________________________

Big Empty Circle: I'm not trying to change you - it's not in my job description. Thus far, I like you just the way you are.

_____________________
Beanieboy (and does that have something to do with hats, or limas, or some supercool thing I'm too old to be aware of?): I don't know that the Catholic agency was adopting children out to non-Christian families, so I can't say either way. For all I know, they could have only been adopting out to Catholic families and nixing everyone else, but I don't have any more information than what I gave. I certainly agree that if indeed they were facilitating adoptions to non-Christians it would seem odd to draw a line anywhere else based upon religious beliefs. Now I'm curious and will have to research and find out.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

What you have posted works just as well as an argument for racism to wit: ‘obviously blacks are not and cannot be in favor of equality at all they do not want to allow Christians to hold dear their views misogyny’

No one is infringing on your right to hate. You are and will remain free to hate homosexuals, blacks, the handicapped, Muslims, Atheists, Hispanics, Jews and any other minority you wish.

However your right to hate does not trump the rights of gays and lesbians (or any other minority) to have equal protection under the law and equal access under the law. Your right to hate ends when it denies equality to others.

In plain english: Your children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality BY homosexuals even though sex acts are not a defining aspect of a minority person, and there is nothing you can do about it. ANYTHING you say or do will have you accused and charged with being a hate monger. Now, shutup and take it. And Sodom and Gomorrah are myth.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Discipuli nostri bardissimi sunt... don't you love Latin phrases?

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Nothing profound about pompous and typical atheism. It's rote beyond boredom. As wow as flatulence. When do we get the awe-inspring cognitive dissonance of "why are babies born blind if there's a God that cares" clobber statement to silence Christian tongues?

First things first, we cannot know if Napoleon Bonaparte truly existed. As someone once said: "What is the truth of history, but a fable agreed upon?"
Secondly, there is a difference between Jesus as a historical figure and Jesus as a Biblical figure. Jesus might have existed, being nothing more than a man. He also might have not existed at all.
Thirdly, when one does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, he does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God period. Stop falling into the unfortunate Christian stereotype of being incredibly dull, close-minded and brainwashed.

As opposed to a person believing that 0 x 0 equals the seen and unseen universe? And believing that the palate and waste elimination organs are "really" for sexual intercourse? Why is it, when you really start investigating who is stupid and typical, the Christians do not fit either category.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Perhaps it would be interesting to ask why the adoption agency placed its devotion to an erroneous Biblical interpretation over its mission to help children find homes with families that would love and care for them?

Maybe these Christians in the Catholic Charities feel the words of Jesus are important:


"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

Is Jesus going to be charged with a hate crime in Massachusetts for his stance above?

And we already know that Jesus taught that marriage "is" a man and a woman. He'll have a warrant out for His arrest if he comes back (His second coming that is) to Boston.

We also know that every homosexual taking in a child will teach them that the sin of same-gender sex is OK to engage in.

It is the Gay Agenda that took these children out of good homes.

 

[David Brider]

In plain english: Your children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality BY homosexuals...

I'm trying to work out if you're being serious or not.

If you are: you're wrong. ('Cos, y'know, you can't actually make someone become gay. They either are or they aren't.)

David.

 

[cantata]

In plain english: Your children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality BY homosexuals even though sex acts are not a defining aspect of a minority person, and there is nothing you can do about it. ANYTHING you say or do will have you accused and charged with being a hate monger. Now, shutup and take it. And Sodom and Gomorrah are myth.

Why would homosexuals want to do this?

 

[ReverendDG]

In plain english: Your children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality BY homosexuals even though sex acts are not a defining aspect of a minority person, and there is nothing you can do about it.

thats the sound of someone who believes knowing about gay people turns children gay.
good job you fit right in there with the rest of the homophobes, only someone who has an illogical view of reality would believe knowledge about something will lead to people doing it.

ANYTHING you say or do will have you accused and charged with being a hate monger. Now, shutup and take it. And Sodom and Gomorrah are myth.

i'm sorry? telling people around you that you shouldn't allow gay people near your children, because they will turn gay, is not the sign of a good tolerant person.

you are a hate monger if you hate someone for no reason other than imaginary ones

 

[IzzyPop]

I've never asked anyone to violate their deeply-held beliefs (unless those deeply-held beliefs involve punching me in the face or something.) You asked if it was a sad situation, and I told you why I thought that, yes, it was, but for maybe a different reason than the one you were suggesting. I didn't say that the adoption agency shouldn't have been allowed to adhere to whatever belief they chose. I just thought it was an ill-informed choice that's seemingly going to hurt more people in more substantive ways than just staying open and letting gay couples adopt would have. I'm entitled to think that, same as you're entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong but that doesn't extend to making me change my life just to suit your personal values.

They are entitled to live their lives and run their business however they see fit. The problem is that they were taking state money to run said business. Once they did that, they have to be held to the standard that the state requires. They could have turned wholly private and run off of fees and donations if they had wanted to. But it was more important to them to keep the children away from homosexual parents than it was to find homes for these children. And that is sad.

 

[IzzyPop]

In plain english: Your children are going to be indoctrinated into homosexuality BY homosexuals even though sex acts are not a defining aspect of a minority person, and there is nothing you can do about it. ANYTHING you say or do will have you accused and charged with being a hate monger. Now, shutup and take it. And Sodom and Gomorrah are myth.

Until you can show the harm that homosexuality causes others, any promotion making them less than others will be considered hate. Look, I don't care if someone is into S&M. Personally, I find it distasteful, but I don't go around trying to say that they are wrong, bad people, or they can't get married. So even if homosexuality is not biologically based and it is a choice, so what? It is either a fetish, and then it is of so little concern that I could care less, or it is a part of who they are. And in that case, we are lessing ourselves to deny them equal rights and protections. If you have a problem with homosexuality, then don't be attracted to someone of the same sex. But why should those that are attracted to the same sex be forced to live by your standards?

 

[TheManeki]

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!"

Interesting you bring up this passage. Those who insist that Christians must follow Biblical interpretations that have no basis in reality ("homosexuality is sinful," "evolution is a lie from the devil," etc.) are doing an excellent job driving people away from Christianity. It seems to me that they risk falling afoul of the very passage you quote.

And we already know that Jesus taught that marriage "is" a man and a woman.

Riiiight. If Jesus said a marriage is between a man or a woman, show us the passage.

We also know that every homosexual taking in a child will teach them that the sin of same-gender sex is OK to engage in.

First, you have to prove that same-gender sex -- especially in the bounds of a loving, monogamous, permanent relationship -- is a sin. Something you've constantly failed to do.

 

[David Brider]

For those Christians who have posted earlier in the thread regarding translations of scripture that do not mention a prohibition against homosexuality - would you please provide me with the name(s) of those translations. I'll add them to my reading list.

That depends on exactly what you mean by "homosexuality". If you mean the likelihood to be attracted to people of the same gender as oneself, then no, you're not going to find it mentioned in any translation of Scripture.

(Except in 1 Corinthians 6, where some recent translations use the word "homosexuals" - or "homosexual offenders", in the case of the NIV - as a tranlsation of the Greek arsenokoites. However, homosexual in the sense of attraction is highly unlikely to be a good translation of the word.)

If by "homosexuality" you mean engaging in homosexual sex, then there are, yes, a very few words that appear to address the issue, but most of them are less clear than some people would have us believe. The Sodom and Gomorrah account, for example, depicts people attempting the gang rape of two people they believe to be men, which isn't behaviour I've ever seen anybody of my acquaintance, homosexual or otherwise, attempt.

Leviticus 18:22 and its parallel in Deuteronomy 20 are widely supposed to condemn male-male sex, but in fact neither mention sex specifically, both using the somewhat clunky "do not lie with a man as with a woman." Given that in just about every translation I've come across, the previous half dozen or so verses all without fail begin "do not have sex with" (rendered in some translations as "do not uncover the nakedness of"), it seems to me that the writer is addressing something different at this point.

Romans 1:26 - 27 is sometimes seen as condemning homosexual behaviour, but in fact what we see in these passages is the [ii]result[/i] of people engaging in unGodly actions - from v23 it appears that the people in question were taking part in some sort of pagan worship. Therefore, it's not something that applies in every situation. Certainly, I don't know of any homosexual people who have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles." Indeed, many homosexual men and women - including some who post on these forums - are very committed Christians.

Finally, back to 1 Corinthians 6:9 and "arsenokoites" and whether it can legitimately be understood to refer to any form of homosexual sex. I'm not convinced - it seems to me that it's most likely to refer to some sort of promiscuous behaviour, either by males or with males - possibly, but by no means necessarily, both by and with males, but even if that is the correct meaning, not all homosexual sex is promiscuous, so it doesn't have universal application.

Hope that helps.

David.

 

[lawtonfogle]

thats the sound of someone who believes knowing about gay people turns children gay.
good job you fit right in there with the rest of the homophobes, only someone who has an illogical view of reality would believe knowledge about something will lead to people doing it.


i'm sorry? telling people around you that you shouldn't allow gay people near your children, because they will turn gay, is not the sign of a good tolerant person.

you are a hate monger if you hate someone for no reason other than imaginary ones

Maybe I am using a different English, but nothing in that post said anything about turning children gay. His use of 'indoctrinating' means, at least to my reading of it, making them think it is ok, not that they should do it.

 

[David Brider]

Maybe I am using a different English, but nothing in that post said anything about turning children gay. His use of 'indoctrinating' means, at least to my reading of it, making them think it is ok, not that they should do it.

Well, he did say "indoctrinating into homosexuality," which to me kind of suggests he meant something more than just making them think it's OK.

But I could be wrong.

David.

 

[Ohioprof]

I don't know who wrote what I am about to quote - I copied it out of another post on this page, and I am too lazy to go look back through this LONG thread to find it.



One of the arguments against same-sex marriage, which has been raised even by those who do not oppose homosexual relationships, is the effect that gay marriage will have upon adoption. There was already, in Massachusetts, a Catholic-run adoption agency (I believe it was the largest adoption source in the State) that was ordered by the State to allow married homosexuals to adopt. The agency was forced to choose between violating their own deeply-held religious beliefs, or close the doors. They chose to close the agency, which has had a tremendous negative impact in the State and has greatly reduced the number of children placed for adoption.

Regardless of your position on homosexual couples adopting children, can you really stand up and cheer for this kind of result?

The Catholic Church brought this result on themselves, by refusing to abide by the state law. If you want to play in the public arena, you have to abide by the state's laws governing the public arena. The Catholic Church likes to blame the state here, but this result is their own fault.

Prior to same-sex marriage being legalized in Massachusetts, the Catholic adoption agencies there simply allowed gay people to adopt and didn't raise a fuss about it. Social workers know that some adoptive parents are gay, and social workers in Catholic agencies have long simply gone forward with gay people adopting children, without making a big deal out of it. What changed was the legalization of marriage in Massachusetts, which angered Catholic leaders and led to them taking an explicit position against adoptions by same-sex couples. It was the Catholic Church that changed its position, in angry response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Prior to this, Catholic adoption agencies simply let adoptions by gay people go through without a fuss.

 

[Ohioprof]

IMO (which nobody else is required by me to share - until such time as I am named Emporess Flibbertigibbet), herein lies the problem with the gay rights agenda -expect the Christian persons running the agency to violate their deeply-held beliefs, yet at the same time get up-in-arms if asked to do the same.

You can't base your platform on equality to all, while not allowing Christians to hold to the ideals they hold dear. That's simply not equality.

(I'm not addressing any particular "you" on this board, btw. Just a figure of speech for reading ease.)

Dear Empress,

Your highness, let me point out that the issue here is the fact that the Catholic Church was acting on behalf of the state, not as a private entity. If a church or its agency acts in the private sector, then of course the state cannot and should not place requirements on the church that violate the church members' beliefs. But if a church agency is going to act in the public arena, providing services with public funds, the church agency must follow the policies and laws of the state.

Your most loyal subject.