Originally posted by checkbaiterA beautiful post.
The Supreme Court of the United Sates recently heard arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. Whatever is decided in the SCOTUS, acceptance of same-sex marriage has mostly won the day in the court of public opinion. I do not believe that the arguments for gay and lesbian marriage are biblical or logically persuasive or good for society in the long run. B ...[text shortened]... ve. The gospel is still “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16).”
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousethe usual rant. why do you always sound so angry? it cannot be healthy.
God did not define marriage, people did. This is an institution not more than a few hundred years old, before that, people just said, hey folks, we are together now, if you don't like it, tough shyte. That is the way it SHOULD be, if that happens to be two guys, two girls, a girl and a guy or a guy and a girl, so be it. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. But the HING but civilized. They are as repressive as any Nazi or communist of the past brutal eras.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, despite the fact that you - on this thread have claimed that you are explicitly refusing to share your personal opinions - and have insisted on keeping them secret or private - and despite the fact that when we are in a discussion like this, you often reach a point where you say ill tempered deflecting stuff like your personal opinion is only your personal opinion and as such it means nothing to me, it is just tedious and boring, it is just a meaningless self-certified opinion, and it is irrelevant to the discussion' etc. etc. [not verbatim, but no so different from the kind of stuff you often say either].... despite all this, I will share my personal opinions with you, openly, honestly and forthrightly.
FMF could not furbish a singe guarantee that those who do not accept the stance will not be subject to prosecution, lets see if he does any better with these
If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?
Parents should be able to send their child to a different school if they want to and for their own reasons. If they are ridiculed by somebody, somewhere for doing so, that's life. Ridicule is not "harm".
If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?
Yes. This shouldn't happen. I think a private entity like a privately owned business should be able to engage in commercial transactions of its choice. I don't think any government office, or organisation receiving money from the government or a publically owned company should be permitted to discriminate.
If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?
It should not be forced to shut down.
If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
He shouldn't be fired unless he makes derogatory or vilifying statements about homosexual children under his charge or their parents or other members of staff, or makes any kind of threats or incitement to hatred that affects the trust placed in him as a teacher, in which case it would be appropriate for him to resign. Voicing his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook? He should have the freedom of speech to do that. Homosexuals do not have a 'right not to have their feelings hurt' or a 'right to be approved of by everyone'.
If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?
Police should cart them away and charge them with a breach of the peace. They should be allowed to picket the service as long as they are on public land or have permission to be where they are staging the demonstration.
If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?
I am not sure what "forced into silence" means. "Social retribution" is what? People not liking you? You are hardly in a position to condemn ostricization or shunning? Legal and financial retribution? Well this has been touched upon in other points here.
When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?
No they aren't. Freedom of speech trumps the notion of 'freedom from being offended'. You often say things designed to offend me or that are possibly offensive to certain people. I am not "harmed". I have never suggested you should be silenced.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59France now too.
I read that we were 13th but didn't know who the others were.
Why not UK? Has legislation not come into force yet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22261494
France has become the 14th country to approve a law allowing gay marriage.
The bill, which also legalises adoption by same-sex couples, was passed by 321 votes to 225 in the French parliament.
The decision follows a divisive public debate with some of the biggest protests seen in France in recent years.
Hundreds of opponents of the measure rallied outside the National Assembly building in central Paris as the result was announced.
The leader of the most high-profile group opposing same-sex marriage vowed to continue the fight.
Originally posted by sonhouseMarriage began more than a few hundred years ago. It started with the very first man and woman according to the Holy Bible.
God did not define marriage, people did. This is an institution not more than a few hundred years old, before that, people just said, hey folks, we are together now, if you don't like it, tough shyte. That is the way it SHOULD be, if that happens to be two guys, two girls, a girl and a guy or a guy and a girl, so be it. It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. But the ...[text shortened]... HING but civilized. They are as repressive as any Nazi or communist of the past brutal eras.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:21-24 NKJV)
Did you see that last statement?
That statement is said at every marriage ceremony in every church so that the woman becomes the wife of the man and they become as one flesh. This all started with Adam and Eve and is the way God wants it to be.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere's nothing stopping heterosexual couples from acting in accordance with this belief.
That statement is said at every marriage ceremony in every church so that the woman becomes the wife of the man and they become as one flesh. This all started with Adam and Eve and is the way God wants it to be.[/b]
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFOne could of course go through these assertions like 'ridiculing causes no harm', and cite instances where young people have committed suicide because of persistent ridiculing at school or instances where persons have expressed themselves in the work place and suffered dismissal, but it must appear to you that your open, honest and forthright opinions naturally carry more weight than any actual body of evidence, so ill leave it there, but let it be noted, I did not ask for your honest, open and forthright personal opinions, valuable as they may be, I asked for evidence.
So, despite the fact that you - on this thread have claimed that you are explicitly refusing to share your personal opinions - and have insisted on keeping them secret or private - and despite the fact that when we are in a discussion like this, you often reach a point where you say ill tempered deflecting stuff like your personal opinion is only your person am not "harmed". I have never suggested you should be silenced.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOne could of course go through these assertions like 'ridiculing causes no harm', and cite instances where young people have committed suicide because of persistent ridiculing at school
Have any homosexuals ever committed suicide because of persistent ridiculing at school? If it's bullying that you oppose then we are in 100% agreement. It is of course impossible to make "ridicule" illegal. Are you suggesting that it should be illegal?
instances where persons have expressed themselves in the work place and suffered dismissal
Well I have said I support freedom of speech. What exactly were these people dismissed for? Perhaps you will find that I don't support the way in which they were treated. You are being too vague about this.
it must appear to you that your open, honest and forthright opinions naturally carry more weight than any actual body of evidence
I thought you wanted to know what I thought about the situations you mentioned. What "actual body of evidence" are you referring to? What is the "actual body of evidence" pertaining to the mistreatment, bullying, ostracization, physical assaults, dismissals, victimization etc. etc. against homosexuals? What "actual body of evidence" have you yourself provided about anything? Do you mean, for example, your trawling through gay-related YouTube clips and reading the derogatory comments about gays; was that an "actual body of evidence"?
let it be noted, I did not ask for your honest, open and forthright personal opinions, valuable as they may be, I asked for evidence.
Did you agree with any of my points of view in my relatively long post above? Do we have some common ground on what freedoms people who disapprove of homosexuality should have?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethere are two bloody separate things. nobody is forcing a pastor or a priest to wed two gays. not yet anyway. not to mention who would want to be a part of an institution that believes they are abominations.
it has nothing to do with RJH, he stated as much and everything to do with protecting the institution of marriage from rabid secular liberals bent of diminishing every form of morality in opposition to their secular liberal agenda.
the religions marriage has not been the same with the secular one for quite a while now. and for obvious reasons, i can't believe you... persons can't see them. when atheists, buddhists, wiccans marry, they marry in front of the law first. Then they hold whatever additional ceremony they deem necessary. Atheists skip to the the boozing.
By what right do you deny two adults, citizens equal to you, to be married in front of the law? Scratch that, where do you get the chutzpah to tell them to their face: "because you don't believe the same as i do, i deny you the rights citizenship grants ".
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by checkbaiter'So what happens if the traditional family of mom, dad and children disintegrates? Well, ask yourself, what is already happening in our society because of broken homes? Sobering isn’t it. Can anyone else see Sodom and Gomorrah in the distance? So what can be done? The energy, the media and the protest slogans are all on the side of homosexual marriage.'
The Supreme Court of the United Sates recently heard arguments in favor of same-sex marriage. Whatever is decided in the SCOTUS, acceptance of same-sex marriage has mostly won the day in the court of public opinion. I do not believe that the arguments for gay and lesbian marriage are biblical or logically persuasive or good for society in the long run. B ...[text shortened]... ve. The gospel is still “the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16).”
why do you think the idea of traditional families will disintegrate? are you suggesting gay marriage will some how stop hetrosexual couples from falling in love and wanting to raise families????
are you also suggesting that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because hetrosexuals have a high divorce rate???
im not following your logic, could you expand.
Originally posted by stellspalfienobody is following that logic.
[b]'So what happens if the traditional family of mom, dad and children disintegrates? Well, ask yourself, what is already happening in our society because of broken homes? Sobering isn’t it. Can anyone else see Sodom and Gomorrah in the distance? So what can be done? The energy, the media and the protest slogans are all on the side of homosexual marriag ...[text shortened]... use hetrosexuals have a high divorce rate???
im not following your logic, could you expand.
"my marriage sucks because steve and george are married"
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe secular liberal agenda? Is that label given to those who don't view the world through the prism of ancient Jewish mythology?
it has nothing to do with RJH, he stated as much and everything to do with protecting the institution of marriage from rabid secular liberals bent of diminishing every form of morality in opposition to their secular liberal agenda.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, actually, it is not said at every marriage ceremony in every Church. You really need to get out more. The world is a big place.
That statement is said at every marriage ceremony in every church so that [b]the woman becomes the wife of the man and they become as one flesh. This all started with Adam and Eve and is the way God wants it to be.[/b]