Tired of being called a homophobe?

MissFirerose

will work for cookies
Sep 2, 2003
1,227
57
40
USA
Visit site
✟1,672.00
Faith
Non-Denom
drfeelgood said:
Now, it is up to you to prove that the dictionary is wrong, particularily since the dictionary cited the ancient Greek, the root of the word. That was my point in those quotes. How accurate is it? Well, I would say that the Greek would be incredibly accurate until sufficiently demonstrated otherwise, and no, taking a quote and saying "but you said" does not invalidate the point.

It looks to me that the jig is up. It was a quick and dirty way to show you that the platform of those sites is based on a fallacy. That's the problem when you don't do your own research, but merely copy other people's work (in particular sites with a clear agenda and bias).

Now, you cleverly switched the topic in here because the other thread was locked. As this is my thread, I feel I have the right to ask that we get back to the topic of flinging the label of homophobe around.

Thank you.

edit: Oh, and if you don't believe dictionary.com's Greek interpretation, perhaps you'll believe this paper instead.
Fine, since I don't feel like seeing another thread closed. One thing to add though, I looked and the only reference I saw from that paper was to Corinthians 6, and it wasn't even the word "paiderasste", so all that really is, is another interpretation, at best maybe of "malakos", since "paiderasste" doesn't even occur in the passage. On a side note, if it is the case, why wouldn't Paul have simply used the word to begin with, since it would align much better with the story about Nero that you posted then the two words that he use (if indeed it is the correct translation.) And also, any time you see a site that focuses on a topic of homosexuality it has an adenda. For pro homosexual sites, it's anti discrimination, for anti homosexual sites, it's the upholding of prejudices.

And to get back on topic, dictionary.com, the very site you used as a source, lists it as being legit.
 
Upvote 0

Corey

Veteran
Mar 7, 2002
2,874
156
49
Illinois
Visit site
✟18,987.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
burrow_owl said:
This comment arose out of a discussion Corey and I had been having re: the role of moral judgments in taking a given legal position. If I read him right (and correct me if I'm wrong), he claimed that relying on moral/religious grounds to come to one's conclusions was an illegitimate mode of reasoning. In response to that, I argued that any position one takes on the matter requires some kind of moral judgment, be it an explicit or a hidden premise.

I said unsupported moral/religious grounds. "God said so" is not a valid support. The "Bible says so" is not support. All arguments must have some sort of rational basis to be valid.

On a related topic:
The real question here is 'why shouldn't one's personal views dictate....' Since morality is a constitutionally ok basis for legislation, the burden of persuasion would seem to rest with those that oppose the use of morality in legislating.

Because the morality being used is religious in nature and that is not constitutional.
 
Upvote 0

itsok

New Member
Mar 8, 2004
2
2
✟132.00
Faith
Catholic
I am so tired of these poor brainwashed so called christians preaching hate . They are everywhere on tv and they are begining to look like what they truly are . My Jesus would wrap his arms around any human with love in his heart .These preachers have veered so far from the real Jesus . These religeous leaders will answer to god one day . Godly people want truth and that has them running out of these so called churches in droves . Educate yourself , For instance :Marriage" and "family" are not very traditional at all. For instance, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, sharing a father. Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the first wife. Only the upper one-third of empire Romans had the legal right to marry; everyone else lived together outside the law. For its first five hundred to a thousand years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women did not have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each others' divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class. (submitted to Marriage Equality by author E.J. Graff)


Marriage is a powerful legal and social institution that protects and supports intimate family relationships by providing a unique set of rights, privileges and responsibilities.


Marriage is an important personal choice and a basic human right. The decision to marry should belong to the couple in love, not the state.


Religious and Civil Marriage: What is the Difference?
Legally, Religious and Civil Marriage are two separate institutions. Though many faiths do perform same-sex commitment ceremonies now, they have no legal recognition as civil marriage. Religions that do not approve of same-sex marriage would not be forced to perform them if they are recognized civilly.


The state does not dictate which marriage any religion must perform or recognize, just as religions should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state.


"Traditional" definitions of marriage are not good reasons for laws that discriminate against lesbians and gay men -- just as laws no longer ban marriages between people of different races or define wives as the property of their husbands. Likewise, divorce laws have changed, and now all states recognize divorce without forcing couples to "go to Reno" to legally end their marriages.


Committed lesbian and gay relationships are a reality. Allowing our relationships to share in civil marriage would not threaten or detract from non-gay marriages. Since much damage has already been done to the institution (and that was allowing heterosexual people to marry), that argument does not hold. Either does the morality argument. In fact, what could be "moral" than allowing committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections their families need? Many would agree that Marriage promotes healthier and happier lives for couples and families and fulfills an important role in supporting and stabilizing the communities around us.


Marriage brings not only legal rights, but also sets up RESPONSIBILITIES for the spouses to each other, and to the larger society. Examples of the legal responsibilities, which accompany civil marriage, are:

Commitment to Remain Married: Once two people marry in a civil ceremony, they cannot undo their marriage without first obtaining the permission of the state. The commitment to remain married, and the stability and continuity that provides for families and society, is why civil society provides married couples with extensive legal, social and economic protections.


Disqualification from Government Benefits Available to Single People: In some cases, an individual who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid or student loan may become ineligible because his or her spouse¹s income is counted as his or her own income.


Spousal Support: In some states, people are responsible for the necessary debts of their spouses, including medical bills, and for debts of the spouse.


Support Following Divorce: In many cases, courts require people to help support their spouses even after the marriage breaks up.


Child Support/Parental Responsibilities: In many situations, the spouse of a mother who gives birth is automatically responsible for child support.
 
Upvote 0

MissFirerose

will work for cookies
Sep 2, 2003
1,227
57
40
USA
Visit site
✟1,672.00
Faith
Non-Denom
itsok said:
I am so tired of these poor brainwashed so called christians preaching hate . They are everywhere on tv and they are begining to look like what they truly are . My Jesus would wrap his arms around any human with love in his heart .These preachers have veered so far from the real Jesus . These religeous leaders will answer to god one day . Godly people want truth and that has them running out of these so called churches in droves . Educate yourself , For instance :Marriage" and "family" are not very traditional at all. For instance, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, sharing a father. Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the first wife. Only the upper one-third of empire Romans had the legal right to marry; everyone else lived together outside the law. For its first five hundred to a thousand years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women did not have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each others' divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class. (submitted to Marriage Equality by author E.J. Graff)


Marriage is a powerful legal and social institution that protects and supports intimate family relationships by providing a unique set of rights, privileges and responsibilities.


Marriage is an important personal choice and a basic human right. The decision to marry should belong to the couple in love, not the state.


Religious and Civil Marriage: What is the Difference?
Legally, Religious and Civil Marriage are two separate institutions. Though many faiths do perform same-sex commitment ceremonies now, they have no legal recognition as civil marriage. Religions that do not approve of same-sex marriage would not be forced to perform them if they are recognized civilly.


The state does not dictate which marriage any religion must perform or recognize, just as religions should not dictate who gets a civil marriage license from the state.


"Traditional" definitions of marriage are not good reasons for laws that discriminate against lesbians and gay men -- just as laws no longer ban marriages between people of different races or define wives as the property of their husbands. Likewise, divorce laws have changed, and now all states recognize divorce without forcing couples to "go to Reno" to legally end their marriages.


Committed lesbian and gay relationships are a reality. Allowing our relationships to share in civil marriage would not threaten or detract from non-gay marriages. Since much damage has already been done to the institution (and that was allowing heterosexual people to marry), that argument does not hold. Either does the morality argument. In fact, what could be "moral" than allowing committed couples to share in the responsibilities and protections their families need? Many would agree that Marriage promotes healthier and happier lives for couples and families and fulfills an important role in supporting and stabilizing the communities around us.


Marriage brings not only legal rights, but also sets up RESPONSIBILITIES for the spouses to each other, and to the larger society. Examples of the legal responsibilities, which accompany civil marriage, are:

Commitment to Remain Married: Once two people marry in a civil ceremony, they cannot undo their marriage without first obtaining the permission of the state. The commitment to remain married, and the stability and continuity that provides for families and society, is why civil society provides married couples with extensive legal, social and economic protections.


Disqualification from Government Benefits Available to Single People: In some cases, an individual who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid or student loan may become ineligible because his or her spouse¹s income is counted as his or her own income.


Spousal Support: In some states, people are responsible for the necessary debts of their spouses, including medical bills, and for debts of the spouse.


Support Following Divorce: In many cases, courts require people to help support their spouses even after the marriage breaks up.


Child Support/Parental Responsibilities: In many situations, the spouse of a mother who gives birth is automatically responsible for child support.

Amen!! :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Upvote 0

MissFirerose

will work for cookies
Sep 2, 2003
1,227
57
40
USA
Visit site
✟1,672.00
Faith
Non-Denom
NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit said:
Volos: define discrimination.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination

Dictionary.com defines it as several things, the most applicable being:

Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chalice_thunder

Senior Veteran
Jan 13, 2004
4,840
418
64
Seattle
Visit site
✟7,202.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
sweetkitty said:
itsok, I'm curious, other than homosexual rhetoric do you have anything else to offer?
So, when somebody makes a cogent, articulate point that is against your views, it's dismissed as rhetoric?
:scratch:

BRAVA, Miss Firerose! :clap:
 
Upvote 0

Yitzchak

יצחק
Jun 25, 2003
11,250
1,386
58
Visit site
✟26,333.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I see some really cogent arguements in some of these threads. I am grateful for them. However, I still am of the strong opinion that name calling is wrong. It is ironic to me that the discrediting of someone's views is based on labels rather than weighing their arguements based on merit. Ironic considering the definition of discrimination given in this thread contains the concept of merit versus catagorizing rights based on what group a person is a part of.

I am still hoping for the day when the focus will be upon the merits or lack thereof of a person's posts and not upon which group (fill in whatever label) they belong to. I do enjoy learning from the posts in these threads and hope that those posts which resort to name calling will not spoil it for the rest of us who want honest discussion. It reminds me of The Mcarthy type "witchhunts" targeted at communists in the 50's. Once you have the label, your post is now suspect.

I cannot honestly say that I am tired of being called a homophope since no one has presumed to level that charge at me personally. But it bothers me when that name is leveled at others whose views I sometimes agree with.
 
Upvote 0