Obama and homsexuals: Revolution at hand.

[Gremlins]

There is an epidemic of youths that I have met who actually feel strange about their sexuality, so to speak, because they are normal.

There are many youths who simply think they are gay when they are not. They are confused because the new society is telling them that they are not special, not interesting, not worthy of respect and admiration if they are part of that majority of white heterosexuals.

This is ridiculous. Young people have always been sexually messed up. It's, like... one of the defining features of adolescence. The only difference between the past and now is that you're allowed to experiment without being beaten to a pulp. The last sentence is just a flat-out lie.

 

[wanderingone]

Dude. I run my posts thru a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, reading statistic all the time and it usually comes out as being around 30-35 or so...
...About consistent with an article in the Harvard Business Review...

Don't hate me because I'm a genius!

Is pride Christ like behavior?

 

[Verv]

Non-sequitur. Christ commanded US to help the poor, not the rich. Jesus was a liberal. Neocons don't have the monopoly on Christianity. And if Jesus had no possessions, why did He have a treasurer (Judas)? Don't blatantly lie.

Well, Christ encouraged people to sell everything that they own in this world. I assume He had done something similar s He had no place to live.

Mark 10:21: Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Judas was the treasurer for the group and not for Christ according to Bible.org.

I have not lied but it looks like you are willfully misconstruing the Bible to benefit your liberal idea of coercing others into giving people money.

There is nothing that can be said of Christ's message that we ought to force onto others politically.

Do you think we should have a Theocratic government?

This is ridiculous. Young people have always been sexually messed up. It's, like... one of the defining features of adolescence. The only difference between the past and now is that you're allowed to experiment without being beaten to a pulp. The last sentence is just a flat-out lie.

I'm sorry...

I was never sexually confused; there was never a time when I questioned by heterosexuality and I am generally unaware of a lot of people who ever had the need to question their sexuality.

That doesn't sound accurate.

 

[Beanieboy]

How about this blue-print: The two same sex couple gather with friends, and before them, profess their love for one another, make a promise to stay together in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, as long as the two shall live. They can then exchange rings, have a party afterward to celebrate their new life together.

To me, that sounds like a wedding, like a marriage. As I've said before, I've met couples, tired of having to defend their partnership of 10 or more years as being just as real as married couples, sometimes not wanting to be married so that they can be considered legitimate by straight people (who will still view their marriage as inferior.) I also work with a woman that had a traditional wedding to her wife. The opinion is all over the board. Personally, the one that I saw at a Quaker meeting, with nothing ornate, no fancy dress worn once, a meeting that was filled with silence until the Spirit moves someone to speak. It focused on the union, not the colors the Bride choose, not her dress, not the flowers. People gave their blessing, some sang a song, some gave words of encouragement. It was elegant in its simplicity.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I have said before it will take commendable leadership ability on the part of the homosexual to accomplish this daunting task, not the least of which would be in tearing down the wall of self-contemt that has enveloped the homosexual since antiquity.

One assumes this opinion of yours is based on personal experience.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Dude. I run my posts thru a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, reading statistic all the time and it usually comes out as being around 30-35 or so...
...About consistent with an article in the Harvard Business Review...

Don't hate me because I'm a genius!

And modest, too!

 

[Beanieboy]

One of the things that I think upsets people who think from a hetero-normative view is when, like I have on occassion when asked if I was going to marry my partner, said, "I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not." The idea that you may never marry seems to challenge their idea that everyone eventually marries. I think this is often true in heterosexual relationships, mostly because it is legal, because some women romanticize weddings and play fairy princess for a day, because they have role models, because it's expected (which is probably why the divorce rate is so high), because some women seem to be more in love with the idea of marriage than the guy, or because the two just really love each other, and want to make their relationship permanent.

When a gay couple shrugs, and says, "Maybe. Maybe not," I think it suddenly threatens the heterosexual model (even if marriage may mean going from Wife 1 to Wife 2 to Wife 3.) My sister-in-law insisted that marriage makes the couple closer, deepens the bond, and I'll take her word for it, but I don't see how it does necessarily. Yes, you don't have an easy out to simply get up and leave, nor do I, since we bought a house together. I could marry, or we could be happy staying domestic partners. I like having the choice, and I like the idea that we stay together, not because we are legally bound, but because we simply choose to, and since Canada's dom. partner policy is so similar to married couples, it does just come down to that - a choice.

What I think takes some straight people aback is when we have that option, and say, "no, thanks." But even straight couples sometimes live together, and take that option, too. As one comedian said, "I think gay people should be allowed to marry, and be as miserable as all of the rest of us."

I often think that we are making our own blueprint. It often just confuses straight people, that think that we should follow theirs, and at the same time, try to block us from it.

 

[Funny Fundie]

How about this blue-print: The two same sex couple gather with friends, and before them, profess their love for one another, make a promise to stay together in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, as long as the two shall live. They can then exchange rings, have a party afterward to celebrate their new life together.

To me, that sounds like a wedding, like a marriage.

What you describe sounds like a wedding from my standpoint, too; but there's one thing missing: the rationale behind "The two same sex couple gather with friends, and before them, profess their love for one another, make a promise to stay together in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, as long as the two shall live." If it was just love that bonded them, then the rationale seems a little weak. After all, many couples fall 'out of love' with one-another, yet they will still have a very comppelling reason to remain married. Care to guess what that compelling reason may be? Hint: sleep two hours, then wake up and cry. sleep two hours, then wake up and cry. sleep two hours, then wake up and cry.

Then As I've said before, I've met couples, tired of having to defend their partnership of 10 or more years as being just as real as married couples, sometimes not wanting to be married so that they can be considered legitimate by straight people (who will still view their marriage as inferior.)

Do you have any idea why a straight people will regard such a marriage as 'inferior'? I'm just asking; I don't know what would make you think straight people would fancy the marriage as 'inferior'.

At this point, I don't know if God called you to start the revolution. If you still resent the passing of Proposition 8, certainly not; the work that's appointed by an almighty God is reserved for the person with real vision.

 

[Funny Fundie]

I often think that we are making our own blueprint. It often just confuses straight people, that think that we should follow theirs, and at the same time, try to block us from it.

You see, sometimes I think you're on the right track and chosen to do the work...

 

[Beanieboy]

What you describe sounds like a wedding from my standpoint, too; but there's one thing missing: the rationale behind "The two same sex couple gather with friends, and before them, profess their love for one another, make a promise to stay together in good times and bad, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, as long as the two shall live." If it was just love that bonded them, then the rationale seems a little weak. After all, many couples fall 'out of love' with one-another, yet they will still have a very comppelling reason to remain married. Care to guess what that compelling reason may be? Hint: sleep two hours, then wake up and cry. sleep two hours, then wake up and cry. sleep two hours, then wake up and cry.

Some do, but most men don't say, "Jane, will you have my babies?" They say, "Will you marry me?" They decide whether or not they want to have children later, and when, if at all.

Very few couples want to marry solely because of children. If so, then once the kids were grown and gone, the marriage would be done.
Most people have kids because they love one another, and want to bring a child into the world to give that love to.
However, it's not a requirement, and certainly not the main reason. The main reason is that they love one another. Having kids after you fall out of love is just irresponsible.

Do you have any idea why a straight people will regard such a marriage as 'inferior'? I'm just asking; I don't know what would make you think straight people would fancy the marriage as 'inferior'.

I don't know why you play dumb so often.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7308539
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7306357
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7307950

Your ignorance is dishonest, unless you choose to stick your head in the sand on purpose, and ignore such things.

At this point, I don't know if God called you to start the revolution. If you still resent the passing of Proposition 8, certainly not; the work that's appointed by an almighty God is reserved for the person with real vision.

I don't feel called by God to start that kind of revolution. I do, however, believe that God has called me to question Modern day Pharisee, of claiming to love your neighbor, but not acting in love, of those who dare to use Christ's name while their fruit is bitter. I feel called to act in love. I feel called to reclaim the image of God, one of mercy, love, hope, nurturing, and grace, and not one of fear, dread, condemnation, revenge fantasy, violence, or hatred. And this I do by speaking what I feel prompted to say, and by simply living love, rather than preaching it to other people.

 

[Funny Fundie]

Your ignorance is dishonest, unless you choose to stick your head in the sand on purpose, and ignore such things.

Can you please be specific? The links had like hundreds of posts and replies on them.

I don't feel called by God to start that kind of revolution. I do, however, believe that God has called me to question Modern day Pharisee, of claiming to love your neighbor, but not acting in love, of those who dare to use Christ's name while their fruit is bitter. I feel called to act in love. I feel called to reclaim the image of God, one of mercy, love, hope, nurturing, and grace, and not one of fear, dread, condemnation, revenge fantasy, violence, or hatred. And this I do by speaking what I feel prompted to say, and by simply living love, rather than preaching it to other people.

You're kind of mixing the message of Fred Phelps in with the main Body of Christ. Violence on homosexuals? Hatred of homosexuals? Isn't all this the property of Fred Phelps and the rednecks a few years back who killed that one gay boy?
If you presume the posters on this message board are rational, then you should expect said posters to respond to you in a rational way. Presume and blacklist us as Fred Phelp's cohorts and you will face wrath at the false accusation.