Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Being Tolerant Oppresses Christians


Chavez
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 471
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What if he tells me to strap a bomb to my chest, and blow up a school bus?  What if he tells me to drown all my children? What if he tells me to build an alter, and plung a knife in my childs heart?  How long do I wait for him to say "opps, just kidding"?

 

1415169[/snapback]

 

 

 

Don't question him! Just do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays are regulary denied the right to adobt children.  Despite the fact that they are frequently willing to adobt children, that God loving, hetrosexuals consider unadotable.  These same God loving hetrosexuals have no problem condeming a child from a childhood spent bouncing from one institution to the next, or one foster home that view having foster children as a "job" to the the next.  Yes that is find, as long as we keep them out of the home of those sinning homosexuals, who cares if they will love, honor and support the child for a life time.

 

I have absolutly no doubt that we are all just sinners in your eyes.  However, the fact of the matter is that there has always been people in power, and it seems tht there always will be people in power that use what they believe is more right and more wrong to adversly effect the lives of others.  And that happens, because we allow it to happen.

 

1415159[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

wow, since you can't spell "adopt", i thought you meant "abort." i'm like, what the hell are you saying, gays are denied the right to abort? :D

 

but seriously, i don't have a problem with two people of any sex coming together with the intention of parenting and serving as the joint guardians for a child. i'd prefer that child to be with his/her biological parents, but that isn't always the case.

 

if the people are deemed loving and have the best interests of the child first and foremost in their minds and hearts, i don't oppose this. and if they decide to do this, they should receive support from the legal system to help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot offered his virgin daughters to be sexually molested by a rioting crowd, in an attempt to keep them from siezing angels of the Lord.  The very angels that he believed had the power to destroy the entire city.  There is some logic for you, worthy to base your system of law on.

 

1415090[/snapback]

 

 

 

actually, the wanted to have sex with the male angels--so in this sense if you wanted to you could interpret it to mean that homosexual rape is worse than heterosexual rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if he tells me to strap a bomb to my chest, and blow up a school bus?  What if he tells me to drown all my children? What if he tells me to build an alter, and plung a knife in my childs heart?  How long do I wait for him to say "opps, just kidding"?

 

1415169[/snapback]

 

 

 

The recent day scenarios you present are a little farfetched for imagination. As far as your Abraham and Isaac illustration, I can pm you a response if you'd like.

 

e2a: let me clarify the first statement ... for NT christians there is no call from God asking for them to take other lives rather to give of their lives to others (help others with their talents and time).

Edited by junebugz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't see any human as less of a human.  i don't see any rights that gay people are being denied from having.  marriage isn't a right.  having laws that encourage and support families is a choice to help society as a whole.  this is for the children, not the adults.  the obsession is with ourselves and our need to have our lifestyles validated vs. the denial of rights.

 

the belief that homosexuality is a sin does not devalue anyone.  we are all sinners.  whether it is pride, vanity, lust, selfishness, greed, etc., we are all consumed with sin.  we are all in that big boat together.  now, we can debate what is a sin and what is not a sin, that's fine, but even if we determine homosexuality to not be a sin, there are many, many more to take its place.  all of us are in need of salvation, and the beautiful thing about Christ is that He offers it to all.  homos, heteros, and everyone in between.

 

1415113[/snapback]

 

 

 

I can accept this interpretation/belief of equality it in God's eyes, however, I think marriage and all that comes with it is a right. It is not just about the kids. I am still convinced that if true religious believers were all accepting, they would let homosexuals have their rights and "let God sort it out" in the afterlife. There is still judgement there and this feels like this is a safe way to express that judgement without seeming like an unjust, unloving individual. IMHO.

 

If people truly weren't judgemental, why would they feel the need to restrict or inact laws against others that they see as their equals-- that makes little sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good counterpoints.

 

i believe the marriage laws are on the books to support the traditional family structure ... mom, dad, kids.  men and women make kids.  usually, they love them from birth and want to raise them in the best possible way they can.  having laws that help is a wonderful thing.  supporting the two people who come together and decide to do this is what i support.  now, they may not end up having kids.  they may not want kids and then later may change their mind.  they may want kids but are unable to conceive.  these situations do not remove the societal support for the union.  many of the benefits, like a child deduction, only kick in if you have kids.  we should keep working to find the best, most efficient way to support our families.

 

to start extending this to any union of people who care about each other/feel deeply about each other/support each other/love each other/have sex with each other is inefficient and doesn't have anything to do with the family.  families deserve to survive, because our kids need them.

 

well for one thing, i don't see how allowing gay people to join in legal union endangers "the family" in any way whatsoever. i just don't see it logically. divorce does far more violence to the "traditional family" than gay marriage could ever even dream of, but we all think that should be legal (at least we do now, in the 21st century).

 

oh, another thing. you're not really talking about religion here, but i think there might be a subtext there about the role of the "traditional family" in christian morality, and i wanted to c&p a few thoughts on from this article...

 

Procreation and Family-Centeredness

 

A further principle often adduced in the discussion of homosexuality is that of natural law. As it applies to this context the argument goes: sexuality belongs to the law of nature, but it is ordered toward a particular purpose; namely, the procreation of children. Sexuality which does not have this end in view violates that order. Homosexuality is thus a perversion of the natural order and therefore of the law of God. This position, of major importance in Catholic moral theology, is also used in some Protestant discussions.

 

Obviously, all forms of human sexuality which do not have procreation as their goal fall equally under this principle: masturbation, contraception, nongenital sexuality between husband and wife, homosexuality. It is simply inconsistent to apply this principle to only one member of this set. Protestant sexual ethics in general have a more celebrative and less goal-oriented understanding of sexuality, and it is on this basis that contraception is not proscribed by Protestant theology. On what basis, then, can we revive this understanding of natural law to condemn homosexuality?

 

In the American situation the ghost of this natural-law principle lives on in the “sanctity of the home and family.” Christianity in American Protestantism has been linked closely with the preservation of the life of the family, and on this basis homosexuality is understood as a clear violation of the ideal of family life.

 

Now as a theologian I am inclined to ask whether the “family-centeredness” of American Christianity can be justified theologically, and here (against many of my own instincts) I must answer No. We have only to remind ourselves of how suspicious of family ties both Jesus and Paul were to see what an anomaly the identification of Christian life with family life is. But if this identification is an anomaly, then we certainly cannot argue that because homosexuality (as a permanent and exclusive sexual pattern) precludes marriage and family, it must be ruled out a priori as unchristian.

 

 

back to your post...

believe that the entire issue is not about rights and benefits.  it is about RECOGNITION.  homosexuals want their lifestyle recognized as valid and OK as any traditional marriage.  it is actually the homosexual community that has the obsession with going to the government for validation, not christians.  they can have whatever private ceremonies they like and are free to live together for life, so i'm not sure why gay marriage even has to become a legal issue.

 

1415086[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

well, a couple things. gays understandably want their "partners" to carry all the legal rights and responsibilities of married hetero couples...from taxes, and power of attorney issues, inheritance issues, health benefits, and so on. and i've never really seen a compelling argument why they should be deprived of these legal rights. more importantly, though, i think, is that they WANT to feel accepted by mainstream society. now i know this notion gets people all fired up about the homos trying to turn all our kids gay, soon they'll be promoting butthumping in public schools, blah blah blah.

 

but think about it for a second. a group of people who have traditionally been pushed aside my mainstream society...marginalized individuals who, simply because they weren't attracted to the opposite sex, were pushed out into a deviant gay subculture as the only place they could find acceptance and belonging. and now many of them are saying "we don't want the deviance and promiscuity of underground 'gay culture', we want to partake in the great currents of american life -- we want committment, monogamy, love, acceptance within the church". by saying they want gay marriage, they're saying, "we don't want to force deviance and promiscuity upon american life, we just want to participate in the american dream". and yet, the people who claim to be such viscious defenders of the institutions of family and marriage and church feel the need to do everything in their power to keep gay people OUT of family, marriage, church; and therefore to insure that they stay a marginalized, deviant "other". i really don't get it. i mean, if you believe so strongly in marriage, family, and church, you should want to strengthen them by bringing people in. you should rejoice that so many gay people want to leave behind the countercultural alienation past societies have forced upon them to partake in the great traditional institutions of american life.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for one thing, i don't see how allowing gay people to join in legal union endangers "the family" in any way whatsoever.  i just don't see it logically.  divorce does far more violence to the "traditional family" than gay marriage could ever even dream of, but we all think that should be legal (at least we do now, in the 21st century). 

 

oh, another thing.  you're not really talking about religion here, but i think there might be a subtext there about the role of the "traditional family" in christian morality, and i wanted to c&p a few thoughts on from this article...

back to your post...

well, a couple things.  gays understandably want their "partners" to carry all the legal rights and responsibilities of married hetero couples...from taxes, and power of attorney issues, inheritance issues, health benefits, and so on.  and i've never really seen a compelling argument why they should be deprived of these legal rights.  more importantly, though, i think, is that they WANT to feel accepted by mainstream society.  now i know this notion gets people all fired up about the homos trying to turn all our kids gay, soon they'll be promoting butthumping in public schools, blah blah blah. 

 

but think about it for a second.  a group of people who have traditionally been pushed aside my mainstream society...marginalized individuals who, simply because they weren't attracted to the opposite sex, were pushed out into a deviant gay subculture as the only place they could find acceptance and belonging.  and now many of them are saying "we don't want the deviance and promiscuity of underground 'gay culture', we want to partake in the great currents of american life -- we want committment, monogamy, love, acceptance within the church".  by saying they want gay marriage, they're saying, "we don't want to force deviance and promiscuity upon american life, we just want to participate in the american dream".  and yet, the people who claim to be such viscious defenders of the institutions of family and marriage and church feel the need to do everything in their power to keep gay people OUT of family, marriage, church; and therefore to insure that they stay a marginalized, deviant "other".  i really don't get it.  i mean, if you believe so strongly in marriage, family, and church, you should want to strengthen them by bringing people in.  you should rejoice that so many gay people want to leave behind the countercultural alienation past societies have forced upon them to partake in the great traditional institutions of american life.

 

1415196[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Hey Azz can you call me a momofektard or something so I can go back to disliking you? I'm having a hard time with this repectful feeling I am feeling. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well for one thing, i don't see how allowing gay people to join in legal union endangers "the family" in any way whatsoever.

1415196[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i never said it endangers anything. i said that legal unions should support families that bring children into the world. men and women do this, therefore they are supported.

 

i have no problem if a group wants to get together and define all of the benefits of the traditional american life that gay people are being deprived of as a result of not being allowed to marry and then create a construct to supply it to them.

 

without kids, the tax break is not large. again, most couples with no kids generally both work and file separately. there is no large economic impact here.

 

as far as power of attorney, doesn't anyone have the power to make anyone else their power of attorney. don't people have the right today to draw up these papers and enact this arrangement? i don't see any denial here.

 

we can all draw up clear wills that resolve any inheritance issues. people have the power today to see to it that all their goods can go wherever they like.

 

i believe the health care issue is similar to the tax issue. if the gay couple has no kids, chances are they both work, and chances are they can both get health care. if a gay couple adopts a kid, which i also would support if they pass all the requirements, then i would support extending health care to the guardian that stays home to be the primary care giver to the child. we could make this change, but that doesn't necessitate a legal union, it's about being a legal guardian.

 

i'm not sure what else is there that is being denied, but on the whole, there really is not a lot here. the traditional american family way of life is mom, dad, and the kids, by definition. that, by definition, doesn't extend to frank and bob, just as it doesn't extend to fred and his three wives. that is just a fact.

Edited by tonorator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, the wanted to have sex with the male angels--so in this sense if you wanted to you could interpret it to mean that homosexual rape is worse than heterosexual rape.

 

1415182[/snapback]

 

 

 

Or you could interpret it to mean that God cares more about who you have sex with, then if you care for you children or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marriage isn't a right. 

1415113[/snapback]

 

 

 

The United States Supreme Court disagrees. See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (holding that marriage is a "fundamental" constitutional right).

 

Tonorator, you are free to your religious views. (Which I share with you, by the way). However, if we are not "Americans" first, and Catholics (or Hindus, or Methodists, etc.) second, then our freedom to practice and hold religious values is imperiled. Simply stated, we cannot allow our individual religious beliefs to undercut the rights of others, or else we threaten the very protection that permits us to hold our religious values in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i never said it endangers anything.  i said that legal unions should support families that bring children into the world.  men and women do this, therefore they are supported.

 

come on, you HAVE to see how easily upended this logic is? couples who are sterile, couples who don't want to have kids, couples too old to have kids. those are not familes that bring children into the world. it would be very easy for the law to prohibit these people from marrying just as it prevents gays. but obviously the idea of it doing so is absurd. the logic behind that argument is ridiculously frail.

 

and even if society decides it's a good idea to "support families that bring children into the world", why does that necessitate refusing to recognize marriages that do NOT bring children into the world? if you want the law to reward having kids, then have it reward having kids. don't have it tell people who they can or can't marry based on the likelihood of them having kids.

 

i have no problem if a group wants to get together and define all of the benefits of the traditional american life that gay people are being deprived of as a result of not being allowed to marry and then create a construct to supply it to them.

 

without kids, the tax break is not large.  again, most couples with no kids generally both work and file separately.  there is no large economic impact here.

 

as far as power of attorney, doesn't anyone have the power to make anyone else their power of attorney.  don't people have the right today to draw up these papers and enact this arrangement?  i don't see any denial here.

 

we can all draw up clear wills that resolve any inheritance issues.  people have the power today to see to it that all their goods can go wherever they like.

 

i believe the health care issue is similar to the tax issue.  if the gay couple has no kids, chances are they both work, and chances are they can both get health care.  if a gay couple adopts a kid, which i also would support if they pass all the requirements, then i would support extending health care to the guardian that stays home to be the primary care giver to the child.  we could make this change, but that doesn't necessitate a legal union, it's about being a legal guardian.

 

1415249[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

ok. none of it's any big deal. so then what's the problem with letting two consenting gay adults who want to marry do so? :D

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Azz can you call me a momofektard or something so I can go back to disliking you? I'm having a hard time with this repectful feeling I am feeling.  :D

 

1415244[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

well. you're an idiot simpleton for "respecting" someone or "disliking" them based solely on which "side" they're on in any given debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

will that do? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States Supreme Court disagrees.  See, e.g., Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (holding that marriage is a "fundamental" constitutional right). 

 

Tonorator, you are free to your religious views.  (Which I share with you, by the way).  However, if we are not "Americans" first, and Catholics (or Hindus, or Methodists, etc.) second, then our freedom to practice and hold religious values is imperiled.  Simply stated, we cannot allow our individual religious beliefs to undercut the rights of others, or else we threaten the very protection that permits us to hold our religious values in the first place.

 

1415254[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

from that judgement ...

 

"It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

 

hardly an endorsement of gay marriage.

 

i'm not being anti-american yo. i'm expressing my beliefs, which is all about america. if gay marriage were deemed legal and i continued to live in this country, i would honor the law. doesn't mean i wouldn't be in favor of changing/challenging it legally, but that too, is all about being an american. so i don't see how my individual beliefs are undercutting anything. every american has individual beliefs that they hold dear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok.  none of it's any big deal.  so then what's the problem with letting two consenting gay adults who want to marry do so? :D

 

1415264[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

for the same reason that we don't tinker and change every law because a group feels bad about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you're not opposed to gay marriage per se, you just don't see the need to futz around with the existing laws?

 

1415287[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i don't see what real, tangible good it does that couldn't be accomplished via other legal means. i don't believe that a gay relationship should constitute a marriage as marriage is defined and supported by our laws. for the same reason i am against polygamy, or any other alternate arrangement you can dream up. i guess i'm an old fuddy-duddy, but i hold marriage to be a sacred institution between a man and a woman and don't believe it should be messed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

false.

 

Nature created two sexes for us to reproduce.  So therefore it is impossible for homosexual to reproduce with each other.  Hence it is wrong.

 

1415151[/snapback]

 

 

 

Ok, I will try to make this simple.

 

Take two people A & B. Both are healthy human beings, with no problems or defects with there sexual reproductive systems, and both are 18 year-old virgins, and neither one is named Mary.

 

With me so far?

 

Person A chooses to only have sex with adult humans, which are of the same sex.

 

Person B chooses to not have sex with any humans.

 

If neither person A or person B changes their behavior, neither one will ever have any children. If either person A or person B, chooses to change their behavior, and begins to have sex with adult humans of the opposite sex, it is possible that either one of them will have children.

 

If you are going to be completely objective, and you argue that Nature is proof that person A is "wrong" then how can you possibly argue that nature is not also proof that person B is "wrong"?

 

Oh, and by the way. Nature also created species that can reproduce by themselves, and species that can spontaneously change sex, and still reproduce. Nature also produces species other than humans, that play with the genitals of others of the same species and sex. What little lesson is that suppose to give? That God gave animals the capacity to sin, that God hates gays and not bisexuals or is this another one of Gods, see here is what you should not do, lessons?

 

I think that you would be better off leaving "nature" out of this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information