Richard Z Barack Obama does not have to bow down to gay people and allow them to tell him what to do. He does not have to provide them special treatment simply because they enjoy intercourse with people of their own sex. Obama is not a pushover nor a clown.
The Power Of Prayer
-
Posted By: chike1 @ 12/29/2008 2:36:35 AM
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/29/2008 8:38:50 AM
"He does not have to provide them special treatment "
How is equal protection under law "special treatment"?-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 11:33:22 AM
It is special because it gives protection not to all but to those who fall only in this category of behavior. Equal protection covers all regardless of behavior and thus never specifies a behavior of an individual but the individual based on their sex or race. Being that all people are either male or female of different races it is inclusive to the homosexual as well.
Therefore the word Special- means distinct, different, unusual, or superior in comparison to others of the same kind. Then you look at Equal ??? meaning having the same privileges, rights, status, and opportunities as other. Do homosexuals have the right to marry? Yes, a homosexual man can marry a woman , a lesbian woman can marry a man! So now they want special rights to marry the same sex???..there is already Equal protection but don???t get it twisted with the Special treatment they are asking for???.-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/29/2008 1:17:16 PM
"It is special because it gives protection not to all but to those who fall only in this category of behavior. Equal protection covers all regardless of behavior and thus never specifies a behavior of an individual but the individual based on their sex or race. Being that all people are either male or female of different races it is inclusive to the homosexual as well.
Therefore the word Special- means distinct, different, unusual, or superior in comparison to others of the same kind. Then you look at Equal ??? meaning having the same privileges, rights, status, and opportunities as other. Do homosexuals have the right to marry? Yes, a homosexual man can marry a woman , a lesbian woman can marry a man! "
You have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. They do not.
Your amendment XIV is means tested, not forms tested, as given by Brown v Board of education. Stating that a Gay man "has the same rights, ie, to marry a woman, as a straight man" is no different than saying "a Black man has the same rights as a White man...to marry a woman of his own race", or "A Black child has the same rights as a White child: the Black goes to a Black school, and the White goes to a White school."
Allowing a person to marry the consenting adult of his/her choice is not a "special right", it is a universal right, as it applies to everyone equally, both gay and straight.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 3:32:31 PM
Below is Amendment XIV and the argument that you present about being tested is mute... due process of law is where the argument is being fought. All have the right but once you redefine what is something that has been established through laws for hundreds of years it is going after special rights period! Presedence should rule in this case of what is define as marriage and when courts ignore precedence they are subjecting themselves to be second guessed and overturn in the future by someone who will challenge even there decisions.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 12:22:28 PM
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Had trouble with this clause, did you?-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 1:01:09 PM
If I had trouble with it I would have never posted it...try reading the whole statement and get a understanding before you answer...
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 3:15:27 PM
I have. So has your supreme court (Brown v Board of Education, the Loving Decision, etc).
You should work on reading for content.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 4:17:15 PM
We are still talking about a man (white) marrying a woman (black) ....what we are not talking about is men with men and women with women....big difference..... I have read the contents and know the history.... these laws were introduced before the Constitution was even signed and had to do with slavery laws....Selah!
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 4:34:51 PM
"We are still talking about a man (white) marrying a woman (black) ...."
For now. It's only a matter of time.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 01/09/2009 10:46:47 AM
You are waiting to usher in this perversion aren't you Horrible? LOL.... keep it over in Europe and not in the USA....
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 12:21:55 PM
"Below is Amendment XIV and the argument that you present about being tested is mute... "
Is what? LOL.
For all intensive porpoises, I think you meant "moot". Can I take that for granite?-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 12:59:02 PM
For all intensive porpoises, I think you meant "moot". Can I take that for granite?
Mute is the not answering of charge; law refusing to answer a charge brought in court of law! So my use of the word is correct however your use of the word porpoises is not unless we are talking about sea mammal similar to dolphins. So I will just take it that you meant purposes and will not laugh out loud at you!-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 3:16:11 PM
Note to self: Do not use satire or irony on ignorant colonials.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 4:19:02 PM
Note to self: Never humor the ignorant!
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 4:35:29 PM
Yes, that's what I meant. Very good. Your comprehension is improving.
He CAN be taught!-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 5:11:24 PM
LOL... so can you... I hope!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 3:25:12 PM
You have the right to marry the consenting adult of your choice. They do not.
Yes they do as well as long as it is within the description of what marriage is and not a redefining of marriage to soot their behavioral needs.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Notice it says men and women not homosexuals. It doesn't emphasis behavior but it is general in its decription of what marriage is ....and that is between a man and awoman....so much for your Universal rights!-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/29/2008 4:28:17 PM
Homosexuals ARE men and Lesbians women. Note that it does NOT say one MAN AND one women, it says men and women, thereby it can be logcally and validly interpreted to mean that two men or two womrn can get married to each other.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 1:02:42 PM
That is you reading into the text and trying to make it fit your belief. It gives a qualification as to saying that men and women of FULL AGE, and it go on to say that they have the right to marry (showing the exclusiveness of who can marry each other) to found a family (is a verb showing they are to produce not manufacture through various means) Found - to take the first steps in building. You cannot take the first steps in building a family when you don???t have the necessary tools to establish one. Men with men cannot produce children and women with women cannot produce children.
Do I need to teach you the fundamentals of how children are produced? Also in the 3rd paragraph it says that the family is a NATURAL and FUNDAMENTAL group unity of society! There is nothing NATURAL or FUNDAMENTAL about homosexual unions??? period! Logically one would know that since the majority of the world only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman it doesn???t need to emphasize this in the article.
Here are a list of degenerative countries and some state in America that recognize this abomination union as a marriage..The Netherlands/Holland, 2001. Belgium, 2003. Massachusetts, USA, 2004. Canada, 2005. Spain, 2005. South Africa, 2006. Connecticut, 2008. Norway, 2009. So as you can see out of the 195 countries there are only a handful who recognize this union. So logically it would lead the average person to believe that they are only talking about women and men marrying each other and not what you suggest.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 2:30:21 PM
Actually it is you who are reading what you want into it. Having talked to international law experts about this subject, they have stated that the section you are talking about is not just about "foudinng a family" and that even that word cannot be read by intelligent people to insinuate that ONLY procreation is needed to make a family or that "natural" procreation" is what is being talked about. IT is not a you must have ALL three part to be granted rights. Tow men in a committed relationship are a family, just as childless man and woman are one.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 4:43:03 PM
LOL???Ghost you are always trying to convince me of all the experts that you know???LOL???. Well what did the experts say about the 98 percent of the world who don???t recognize these unions? I bet this Article was written before any of these countries made this same sex marriage law???also the redefining of marriage came after the Article was written.
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 6:28:30 PM
That is may have been written before the issue of same-sex marriage came up is not germaine. The experts all agree that it still validly supports the idea that marraige is not specifically defined as between a single man and a single woman, and that same-sex marriages can be part of it.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 1:48:34 PM
Ok name these experts that you are so famous for quoting! LOL??? I bet they are all homosexuals holding bias opinions and trying to push the LGBT agenda???not experts but perverts! You sound like President Clinton???who try to redefine sex???lol???
So let me ask you what is the definition of marriage then? If same sex marriage can be apart of it so can polygamy, bestiality, incest and child molestation as MABLA would definitely push to have passed. The age of consent would be eradicated and love would even be redefined and abnormal behavior would be eradicated from the thought and minds of the people. Everyone would do what is right in their own minds and right would be wrong and wrong would be right! Anarchy would be embraced and all out war would consume the planet because we want the freedom to do anything we please because we do not like boundaries place upon us! Sounds like a place I would like to be ???.NOT!
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 4:37:36 PM
"The Netherlands/Holland, 2001. Belgium, 2003. Massachusetts, USA, 2004. Canada, 2005. Spain, 2005. South Africa, 2006. Connecticut, 2008. Norway, 2009. So as you can see out of the 195 countries there are only a handful who recognize this union. So logically it would lead the average person to believe that they are only talking about women and men marrying each other and not what you suggest. "
The fact that there are any suggest the opposite.
You'll also notice that there are more and more as time goes on. You're on the wrong side of history.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 1:35:49 PM
Once again Horrible you missed the point....we are talking about the intent of Article 16 in which it was written didn't have in mind men with men or women with women when giving the rights of marriage to all age eligible men and women....
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 12:23:41 PM
"Yes they do as well as long as it is within the description of what marriage is and not a redefining of marriage to soot their behavioral needs."
You redefined marriage in 1967. You'll do it again, sooner rather than later. They're not going away, and they'll just wear you down. It's inevitable.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 1:08:34 PM
Never redefine just clarified that a man and a woman of any race can marry.... as far as it wearing me down....lol...this whole world could come into agreement over this but the true Author of marriage will never be convinced or recognize this abominable act.....
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 3:16:59 PM
"Never redefine just clarified that a man and a woman of any race can marry"
Then you're just going to have to clarify it again.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 4:21:41 PM
Nope those who aren't ignorant get it.... and those who remain in this state cry like babies claiming that someone has denied them their civil rights....
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 4:36:20 PM
Like I said, it's only a matter of time. This isn't a matter that will be dropped.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 1:32:55 PM
Neither will the judgement of God be dropped!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/29/2008 4:25:41 PM
Actually it does not grant special protection. It is purely equal. Civil marrige is NOT a hard-line definition, it is defined as whatever a court of law says is means. Tradition has no standing. It allows two consenting adults of age to marry. The gender of those adults has no relevance.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 4:13:38 PM
Since civil marriage took the concept of marriage fromt he religious point of view it has no authority to redefine marriage. Civil marriage should not be able to dictate the concept of marriage to the institution that was recognizing marriage before civil authorities took part in the recognition.
When you start to say that tradition has no relevance you are wrong...one cannot look into the future without knowing where they have come from....tradition and history has to be remember for the purpose it was established..-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 5:12:19 PM
"Since civil marriage took the concept of marriage fromt he religious point of view it has no authority to redefine marriage."
Actually yes it does. Civil marriage is now a separate institution. It grows and can change. It is not stuck in the dark ages.
"Civil marriage should not be able to dictate the concept of marriage to the institution that was recognizing marriage before civil authorities took part in the recognition. "
That makes no sense whatsoever. At no point wold chaging the definition of marriage in the civil context in any way, shape or form change what churches define as religious marriage. Like it or not hey are now tow separaetae institutions.
"When you start to say that tradition has no relevance you are wrong...one cannot look into the future without knowing where they have come from....tradition and history has to be remember for the purpose it was established.."
Remember that until less than 60 years ago tradition also placed blacks as second class citizens and forbade interracial marriages.
At no point have you given one valid reason why same-sex marriage would innay way shape or form (except in the paranoic imagination of those opposed to it) harm or damamge the institution of marriage.
Are you implying that if same-sex marriage was allowed that all of a sudden most married heterosexual men and women would suddenly divorce their opposite sex spouses and decide to marry same-sex partners?
Are you saying that if smae-sex marriage were allowed that suddenly heterosexual married couples would throw thier children into the streets?
Are you saying that if same-sex marriage were allowed that suddnely most married couples would get divirced (Oh wait the divirce rate is already around 50%, maybe it would jump to 60%)?
Are you saying that if same-sex marriage occurred there would suddenly be this sudden jump in unmarried women having children and deciiding to not get married to the fathers?
Are you saying the if same-sex marriage was allowed that suddenly heterosexual couples would suddenly decide that they will stop having church weddings, and only have civil marriages?
Only a fool would argue that if same-sex marriage was allowed that the existng institution of marriage would in any way be harmed or lessened. There is no proof whatsoever that such a thing would happen. The damage to that institution long pre-dates the idea of same-sex marriage.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 1:31:16 PM
Actually yes it does. Civil marriage is now a separate institution. It grows and can change. It is not stuck in the dark ages.
Civil authorities consist of citizens and if citizens hold fast to the concept of marriage should only be between a man and a women then it is not in the dark ages.
That makes no sense whatsoever. At no point wold chaging the definition of marriage in the civil context in any way, shape or form change what churches define as religious marriage. Like it or not hey are now tow separaetae institutions.
That is a lie! Just as the LGBT community has sued E-Harmony for not conforming to their interest in meeting a mate (sick) and many other lawsuits file against preachers, churches for not allowing or refusing to perform same sex marriage have been launched show who is living in the dark Ghost!
Remember that until less than 60 years ago tradition also placed blacks as second class citizens and forbade interracial marriages.
Not tradition just ignorance of leaving slave laws on the books after the Constitution or shall I say the Declaration of independence stated that all men are created equal???a nation went to war because of this remember???.are you saying that we should go to war over same sex marriage? Not even begins to come close to a scrimmage???.
Only a fool would argue that if same-sex marriage was allowed that the existng institution of marriage would in any way be harmed or lessened. There is no proof whatsoever that such a thing would happen. The damage to that institution long pre-dates the idea of same-sex marriage.
The following link below show you the health risk of just being homosexual???it should answer your questions of why we shouldn???t endorse this type of behavior???
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2940-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/31/2008 3:11:41 PM
Citizens do not get to define equal rights, the courts do. Otherwise you might still be sitting in the back of a bus in some areas of the US. . Unfortunate but true.
"Just as the LGBT community has sued E-Harmony for not conforming to their interest in meeting a mate (sick) and many other lawsuits file against preachers, churches for not allowing or refusing to perform same sex marriage have been launched show who is living in the dark Ghost!"
Those lawsuits will most likely not succeed (and they should not succeed as E-Harmony is a private company and the lawsuits will not pass the Establishmetn Clause test.)
"Not tradition just ignorance of leaving slave laws on the books after the Constitution or shall I say the Declaration of independence stated that all men are created equal"
A lot of traditions are based on ignorance. Remember that the US Constitution also said that blacks were to count as 3/5 of a white.
"are you saying that we should go to war over same sex marriage?"
No it should not. But the Supreme Court should rule those laws a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
"The following link below show you the health risk of just being homosexual???it should answer your questions of why we shouldn???t endorse this type of behavior???"
Come up with a website from an INDEPENDENT reputable group. Orthodox Anglicans do not begin to qualify just as the Family Reaserch Council is not reputable.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 01/08/2009 4:45:57 PM
Citizens do not get to define equal rights, the courts do. Otherwise you might still be sitting in the back of a bus in some areas of the US. . Unfortunate but true.
Wrong the people do get to define equal rights! You always seem to forget that the laws of the land have to go through the government to get ratified and the people can and do ultimately have a representative who should vote on their behave for or against the bill. The courts are merely there to carry out the will and law of the land and not legislate from the bench.
Those lawsuits will most likely not succeed (and they should not succeed as E-Harmony is a private company and the lawsuits will not pass the Establishmetn Clause test.)
Well You better tell that to E-Harmony who just settled the lawsuit!
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/11/19/eharmony-settles-lawsuit-starts-gay-site
A lot of traditions are based on ignorance. Remember that the US Constitution also said that blacks were to count as 3/5 of a white.
Same argument ghost old slave laws left on the books and latter we went to war over these things. Same sex-marriage is not even in the same class as slavery. It is in the class of special rights for individuals behaving in said manner!
"are you saying that we should go to war over same sex marriage?"
No it should not. But the Supreme Court should rule those laws a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Not in violation if one chooses not to follow the definition and guidelines of marriage!
Come up with a website from an INDEPENDENT reputable group. Orthodox Anglicans do not begin to qualify just as the Family Reaserch Council is not reputable.
So you attack the message but refuse to attack the context as being misrepresented???.not much to say to your sidestepping of the facts!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: chike1 @ 12/29/2008 3:07:23 AM
Chris Crain many blacks feel that homosexuals' insistence in using the backs of abused, beatened, and murdered black slvaes in order to push a movvement that blacks find sinful and disgusting is racist and offensive. The blacks who were forced into slvaery and split from their families would find this kind of statement insulting and their lives cheapened. Black people are a race and not an inferior one. Stop using us to excuse sin and shamefulness.
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/29/2008 7:17:16 AM
Chike1,
"many blacks feel that homosexuals' insistence in using the backs of abused, beatened, and murdered black slvaes in order to push a movvement that blacks find sinful and disgusting is racist and offensive."
First off the LGBT community is not "using the backs of" blacks. They are making very valid and intellectualy sound analogies between the variants of the civil/equal rights movements. I would remind you that just because some blacks find homosexualtiy "sinful and disgustsing" is of no consequence. The same (or very similar) things were said about blacks by many racists and bigots in the past (and by some even today).
"The blacks who were forced into slvaery and split from their families would find this kind of statement insulting and their lives cheapened."
And yet there are many blacks who are saying that the analogy is completely valid and correct. Do not presume to speak for an entire community.
" Black people are a race and not an inferior one."
No one in the LGBT community (or those of who support them in the heterosexual community) are implying that you are inferior. That accusation is garbage.
" Stop using us to excuse sin and shamefulness."
It is only sin in your opinion. But as several black clerics I know have said (and again this is THEIR WORDS not mine), it does seem that some parts of the black community have forgotten what it is liike to be discriminated against and THAT is shameful. Discrimination and the denial of equal rights (especially when siad discrimination is based on religious belief which has no place in US law) IS shameful and wrong.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 11:16:45 AM
Ghost get reall you say that one person doesn't speak for the whole race and then you use some misguided cleric to say that it is a shame! Blacks voted overwhelmingly to say no to gay marraige and yet you try to minimize this important fact by saying that all blacks don't feel this way....you are right but the majority do ans statistics proves this.....it is simply an Abomination or Obamination which ever one you want to use....
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/29/2008 4:40:18 PM
"Ghost get reall you say that one person doesn't speak for the whole race and then you use some misguided cleric to say that it is a shame!"
Some of those clerics marched with Dr King, so their view about the analogy with the civil rights movement are not misguided., They spoke from experience. What I was pointing out is that not all blacks think that the analogy is invlaid. Thier opinions are jsut as valid as those who dislike the analogy.
"Blacks voted overwhelmingly to say no to gay marraige and yet you try to minimize this important fact by saying that all blacks don't feel this way....you are right but the majority do ans statistics proves this"
Well, it took a while to educate whites to not oppose interracial marraige (and they considered it as much of an abonimiation as many blacks do same-same marraige). The black community just needs time to get educated about the injustice of discriminating against the LGBT community. Right now they are still justly focusing on the remaining discrimination and injustice that their community is still suffering.
But it really does not matter because the people do not ge to define what rights humans are entitled to.
.....it is simply an Abomination or Obamination which ever one you want to use....-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 1:41:38 PM
Some of those clerics marched with Dr King, so their view about the analogy with the civil rights movement are not misguided.
Haven???t you read scripture? It doesn???t matter who they marched with??? Galatians 1: [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
[10] For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
,
They spoke from experience. What I was pointing out is that not all blacks think that the analogy is invlaid. Thier opinions are jsut as valid as those who dislike the analogy.
The black community just needs time to get educated about the injustice of discriminating against the LGBT community. Right now they are still justly focusing on the remaining discrimination and injustice that their community is still suffering.
Are you calling the black community ignorant? Are they uneducated because they don???t think the way you think? How do you know what they think? Are you black? I am!-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 2:21:36 PM
bojack27,
Haven't you read scripture?
It doesn't matter who they marched with"
It very much does matter when they were part of the civil rights movement. The issue that was being discussed was NOT was not their view of scripture (which is irrelevant to civil law and civil rights), it was whether the analogy between the discrimination that the LGBT community is now experiencing and that of the black community experienced in the past (and till experieinces today) is valid. My post was specifically in response to Chike1 saying that it is racist and offensive. The clerics I mentioned and their history and experiences on the forefront of the civil rights movement gives them special status to say that analogy is a vlaid one.
"Are you calling the black community ignorant?"
No I am not. I am saying that many of the community are still fighting their own valid battle for true equality and have not yet had the time to realize that whenever people are discriminated agsint it is wrong. That is not a criticism, just an observation.
"Are they uneducated because they don???t think the way you think?"
Uneducated does not mean stupid, it just means a lack of knowledge/understanding about a specific issue. It takes time and the ability to step outside of the situation to see it from all sides. When one is still fighting for one's own rights that is harder.
"How do you know what they think?"
I have read a lot of the "reasons" that members from both sides of the black community have said about it. The main reasoning against it that I have seen is religious and that is of no relevance in US law.
"Are you black? I am!"
I am basing my viewpoint on comments made by members of the black community. I know many blacks(most of them highly educated) who feel that their community is wearing blinders on this issue. The idea that they need to be educated about came from those people not my own idea. As a few of them said, they would never agree to same-sex marriages in their churches but can come up with no valid reason to deny civil same-sex marriages.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 3:21:53 PM
It very much does matter when they were part of the civil rights movement. The issue that was being discussed was NOT was not their view of scripture (which is irrelevant to civil law and civil rights), it was whether the analogy between the discrimination that the LGBT community is now experiencing and that of the black community experienced in the past (and till experieinces today) is valid. My post was specifically in response to Chike1 saying that it is racist and offensive. The clerics I mentioned and their history and experiences on the forefront of the civil rights movement gives them special status to say that analogy is a vlaid one.
Well I do agree with Chike1 that it is racist and offensive to say that the struggle of homosexuals is the same as the black struggles during the civil rights demonstrations in the 60s. I have seen Jesse Jackson, Correta Scott King and her children take up this immoral stance and try to incorporate it into a civil rights issue. The problem with this is that blacks overwhelmingly voted against this measure and the churches do not hold to this way of thinking. These leaders that you have yet to name are walking on the outside of an issue which the black community is very much against. So that is why I posted the scripture about the angel preaching another gospel???it really doesn???t matter who was marching in the civil rights march! If they have compromise their moral standing then they are not to be respected in the sight of those who know the difference between right and wrong. A cleric is to speak the things of God and once he compromises these things he or she deserves no respect! No matter how much re-education they or you may think that the black community needs in order to accept immorality this will never change for those who stand on their convictions. These convictions were demonstrated within the voting booths November 4, 2008.
"Are you calling the black community ignorant?"
No I am not. I am saying that many of the community are still fighting their own valid battle for true equality and have not yet had the time to realize that whenever people are discriminated agsint it is wrong. That is not a criticism, just an observation.
It is not discrimination to deny special rights! It is catering to behavioral patterns that discriminate against those who act normal! Thus giving into immoral practices and making it a hate crime to speak out against these immoral practices is wrong period.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 6:37:02 PM
"It is not discrimination to deny special rights! "
In no way shape or form have you even begun to prove that is it is "special right". It is not saying that same-sex marraiges are granted any extra privileges. It is not saying that same-sex couples get to avod paying the licensing fee. It is not saying that if a heterosexual couple and a same-sex couple were to show up for a civil marriage that the same-sex couple, if they were second in line for the license would be able to jump to the head of the line. It is not saying that the laws for same-sex estates would be any different thatn those of heterosexual estates. It isnot saying that a same-sex spouse gets more benefits than a heterosexual spouse. Show one example where a same-sex marraige grants any ADDED rights over that of a heterosexual marriage and then maybe you can make a claim of "special rights". You can't because all they are asking for is EQUAL RIGHTS. Any claim to the contrary is a lie. Discrimination is when equal rights are bieng denied. This is clearly discrimination.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 12:27:01 PM
So let us look at the meaning of special! Special ??? means to be distinct, different, unusual, or superior in comparison to others of the same kind. Rights???means a justified claim or entitlement, or the freedom to do something.
So according to the definitions above you are saying that granting same sex marriages doesn???t give an entitlement to those whose circumstances are distinct, different, unusual than the norm? Get Real Ghost! No matter how you look at this it is very unusual that same sex marriages occur and I gave you the facts of 195 countries???which you discarded! It is also asking for a superior exception to the law for granting a marriage based upon one???s behavior be considered equal to that of one of normal circumstances. Thus treating those (homosexuals) seeking this type of marriage special privileges based upon going outside the most commonly accepted practice of marriage throughout the world.
Equal Rights is granted to all age appropriate adults the right to marry. If some of these age appropriate persons doesn???t want to go along with the standards laid out for what is considered to be a valid marriage by law then it doesn???t mean that they are being denied equality. In changing the laws it shows us that the unlawful and ungodly are not able to accept the standards of society. So why should society accept the standards of the unlawful and ungodly? You cannot ask for something that you already have! And if you don???t like the standards you cannot go change them every time your behavior dictates that you want to live a certain way outside the normal rule of society. It is NOT discrimination it is simply BLOWING SNOT BUBBLES IN PUBLIC-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/31/2008 2:56:57 PM
Interesting theory but it holds no legal validity,
Under the legal definiton of discrimination is is discrimnation. In several states it is illegal to discrimnate on account of sexual orientation.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 01/09/2009 10:44:29 AM
It holds a lot more validity than you can imagine or are willing to accept.... and the laws that you state are for discrimination in the work place and not marriage....two totally different situations.... I on one hand think that if a persons behavior causes a company to loose business then they should not be obligated by law to hire them. If someone wants to act perverted on the job then one shouldn't be subject to this type of behavior when they find it offensive... Just do your job and not make yours sexual orientation a big business in the work place....
-
-
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 3:29:58 PM
"Are they uneducated because they don???t think the way you think?"
Uneducated does not mean stupid, it just means a lack of knowledge/understanding about a specific issue. It takes time and the ability to step outside of the situation to see it from all sides. When one is still fighting for one's own rights that is harder.
That is a bunch of crock! It is not harder for one to recognize discrimination if you have been discriminated against yourself! It is easier to recognize and sympathize with those who are truly being discriminated against! Blacks have voted that this is neither discrimination nor a civil rights issue. This is why you don???t see the masses of black demonstrators protesting the prop 8 passage.
"How do you know what they think?"
I have read a lot of the "reasons" that members from both sides of the black community have said about it. The main reasoning against it that I have seen is religious and that is of no relevance in US law.
You keep on saying that religion or religious has no relevance in U.S. law. Then you truly don???t know what America is all about and the foundations in which this country was founded upon. I do believe that you are like Horrible and are not even American???. Do you not know that the civil rights march started in the black churches? I guess if we took your reasoning the law of segregation wouldn???t have changed because it has its bases from the bible.
"Are you black? I am!"
I am basing my viewpoint on comments made by members of the black community. I know many blacks(most of them highly educated) who feel that their community is wearing blinders on this issue. The idea that they need to be educated about came from those people not my own idea. As a few of them said, they would never agree to same-sex marriages in their churches but can come up with no valid reason to deny civil same-sex marriages.
Ok??? then with this I do apologize for my tone against you. But I disagree with these leaders whether they are highly educated or not they have made themselves outcast within the black community. The church has been the foundation that has held the community together throughout the years and now to ask for blacks to turn from the teachings of God and embrace immorality is wrong. What civil courts do has to go through a voting process and these people who voted were church members who said NO loud and clear! They don???t need to be re-educated but these leaders need to turn from their backsliding ways, especially if they consider themselves the moral leaders of the black community.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 4:54:55 PM
" I do believe that you are like Horrible and are not even American. "
I am a third generation Native Born US Citizen. My father fought in WWII and was awarded a Bronze Star for his bravery against the Nazis. He and my mother were very equal rights oriented and he was a constitutional scholar, who taught me to love and respect that most sacred of documents. My Grandfather was very civil rights oriented even in the 1920's when in Baltimore blacks were discriminated against. He risked his buisness to make sure that that his black customers were treated with equality, dignity and repsect. My family has very strong ties to the civil rights movement and has fought segregation and discrimination when it was dangerous for whites to do so. But my father also fought for gay rights as well, since he said that equal rights does not pay attention to religious belief, and that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality (and I was raised in a practicing Jewish household.)
You may think that the black leaders that you have condemned are not worthy of respect, and that is your right, but in my opinion and the opinion of many others, black and white, they are the true heroes of the civil rights movement. Their views have higher standings than those of the rank and file, for they truly understand what civil rights and equal rights are all about. Remember that your very bible was used by the proponents of segregation and anti-black rhetoric in much the same way that your churches are using it today against the LGBT community.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 12:57:58 PM
Ok you have me a little confuse first you say that you are a third generation Native Born US Citizen and then you later refer to or imply that your family is white in this statement?????? My family has very strong ties to the civil rights movement and has fought segregation and discrimination when it was dangerous for whites to do so.??? So I take it that someone in your family is white and thus would explain why a Native American would be raised in Judaism. It really doesn???t matter what race you are but you sound like Horrible and I assumed wrong that you were not from the USA???.
As for my bible being used wrongly to justify segregation shows that there is ignorance from those pushing their evil agenda. But don???t get it twisted that it is being used today against the LGBT in the same manner! On the contrary I see that it is being misused by the LGBT community to justify their perversion by changing the doctrine itself to accept it as being normal. Regardless of what the bible says if one thinks that their lifestyle is right then live it according to how you see it suppose to be lived. But if you are trying to change the way people view you by changing laws, biblical passages and other things to be accepted then we have a problem. Because now you and these leaders who champion one cause and are standing on the opposite side today have loss the credibility they once had. It is not what you have stood for in the past that I have condemned it is their actions (not they themselves) of today in which I have no respect for.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/01/2009 9:54:14 AM
Bojack,
"Ok you have me a little confuse first you say that you are a third generation Native Born US Citizen and then you later refer to or imply that your family is white in this statement?????? My family has very strong ties to the civil rights movement and has fought segregation and discrimination when it was dangerous for whites to do so.??? So I take it that someone in your family is white and thus would explain why a Native American would be raised in Judaism. It really doesn???t matter what race you are but you sound like Horrible and I assumed wrong that you were not from the USA???."
You do not understand the term Native Born as it concerns US citizenship. There are two different types of US citizenship. Native Born and Naturalized. A Native Born citizen is one who was either born inthe US or who has one parent who was a US Citizen when they were born. A Naturalized US citizen is one who is granted citizenship by the US governmetn (usually after having studied for several years, and having taken a test, then taking the oath of citizenship. ) My statement was that I am a Native Born US citizen having been born in the US (in fact a third generation Native born US citizne since 3 of my grandparents were born in the US. )
I may at times, sound like Horrible, but my viewpoints come from being raised by a Consitutuional Scholar and lawyer who taught me to understand the the US Constitution is the ONLY sacred document to the country itself (to the government and the laws). He did raise me to also understand that the bible might be more important to individual citizens (which is fine) but that the Constitution was more important to the country as a whole. I was rasied to love this country but not to have blind patritoism. To understand that it is the obligation of educated citizens to challenge the government when it tries to violate that constitution and to fight the citizenry when they try to put thier bias and prejudice into law (especially when the prejudice is religiously based). Also that oneis to openly criticze the president then that person (who is just an employee when all is said and done) engages in illegal and unconstitutional acitivities. He also taught me understand that if people ever say "America Love it or Leave it" that those people are traitors to the Consitution and thereby at the height of unpatriotic activity. I love this country and although I am fully aware that is is far from perfect it is still, usually the best there is (even when people like Cheney try to destroy it.)-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 01/02/2009 11:41:28 AM
My bad I thought you meant Native American (Indian) Citizen and got a little confuse over that....
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/02/2009 6:30:01 PM
No problem.
-
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/01/2009 3:03:57 PM
Typo correction
"Also that oneis to openly criticze the president then that person (who is just an employee when all is said and done) engages in illegal and unconstitutional acitivities."
Should say
Also that one is to openly criticze the president IF AND WHEN the president (who is just an employee of all the citizens of the US when all is said and done) engages in illegal and/or unconstitutional acitivities.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/29/2008 11:26:44 AM
"Blacks voted overwhelmingly to say no to gay marraige"
So what? Are you willing to allow the public to vote on, say, your right to free speech?-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 2:38:56 PM
Wlakas!!!!!!
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 4:33:49 PM
Good Lord, he's speaking in tongues.
-
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 2:31:36 PM
?????????????? ??????????, ?????????? ?????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ??????????????! ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?????????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ????????????????????. ???????? I' ???? ?? ?????? ???????????????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????? ???? ?????????????????? ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????????? don' ???? ?? ?????????? ???????? I' ?? ?????? ???????????.
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 12:20:34 PM
Oops. I think I broke the bigot.
Sorry, everybody.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 12:47:49 PM
Wlakas!!!!!!
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/30/2008 3:13:47 PM
Yes, it seems poor Bojack has gone stark raving mad.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 01/07/2009 2:52:35 AM
But according to the Bible, if they had been treated well, than slavery would have been just fine.
You have actually read the Bible, haven't you? -
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/29/2008 8:37:08 AM
"Chris Crain many blacks feel that homosexuals' insistence in using the backs of abused, beatened, and murdered black slvaes in order to push a movvement that blacks find sinful and disgusting is racist and offensive."
So what? They can feel whatever they like. The parallel is direct, and accurate.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 11:13:18 AM
So what! So the homosexual community can feel what they want as well! Talk about tolerance and acceptance...yeah right!
-
Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/29/2008 11:26:01 AM
Absolutely. And they will have their rights as well, no matter how much the bigots wail about it.
It's only a matter of time. After all, allowing a segment of the population to be crapped all over is not "tolerance". Allowing bigots to ruin the lives of others is not "tolerance", either...so quit your moaning.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: xyzer @ 01/09/2009 4:49:34 AM
Amazing that the writers veiw incest as abhorent and feel justified in their opinion, but do not understand that many of us find homosexual activity just as perverse. I guess perversion is i the mind of the beholder......
-
Posted By: BRUCEeffinWALTKE @ 01/09/2009 4:34:17 AM
"he is an evangelical Christian who has actively reached out to both Muslims and Jewish people and recognized them as worshiping the same God as Christians"
hahahaha. wrong.
And your bit on the 'only biblical literalist tool' is so far off you have no clue. How do people so ignorant of the Scriptures and modern evangelical hermeneutics get a soapbox to stand on in the media? Oh yeah, you know somebody.
The fact is that Warrens Biblical literalism is quite more stringent than "fundamental Christianity". Fundamentalists are socially inept (like the Amish), and that has nothing to do with literalism. It has everything to do with poor exegesis, like basing behaviors off of a single scripture instead of allowing the Scriptures to balance themselves.
Christianity isn't a salad bar, it's a one plate deal. Pauline theology is abundantly clear on homosexuality. Either eat the meal, or find another religion that makes you feel good, but don't pick and choose what you do and do not like, and then lie to yourself that you're a Christ follower.
Back to the blog, if a Christian minister is asked to say a prayer, of course he's going to say CHRISTIAN things.
If a Muslim was going to say the prayer, I would expect him to say MUSLIM things.
Leah you're so in over your head that the rest of Evangelical America is laughing hysterically at you.
-
Posted By: neverXmiss @ 01/08/2009 2:45:33 PM
//The bible (and god) is irrelevant in regards US Law and Government and thereby with regards the innauguration. //
Is that why our forefathers were mostly religious, why our currency states "in god we trust," why legendary presidents like lincoln and washington were sweared in by the bible, why every court has one to sworn in?
Yea, it has a lot to do in inauguration sorry, but NOTHING to do with Gay rights or gay moment. Despite YOUR FEELINGS, the president chose to do so and is within his rights.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/08/2009 5:13:34 PM
"Is that why our forefathers were mostly religious, why our currency states "in god we trust," why legendary presidents like lincoln and washington were sweared in by the bible, why every court has one to sworn in?"
Most of our forefatthers would not respect the "religiousity" tthat is prevalent today. Washingotn, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin , Paine and Madison had very little use for preachers and those who wore their religions on their sleeves and who tried to insinuate thier religions into government. In fact they had a fair amount of justified contempt for such people. Most courts no longer use the bible.
And just because the individual presidents chose ot be sworn in on them does not mean that the ceremony itself should have prayers in them.
"Yea, it has a lot to do in inauguration sorry, but NOTHING to do with Gay rights or gay moment. Despite YOUR FEELINGS, the president chose to do so and is within his rights."
He has the right to say a few words AFTER the Oath of Office (since "So help me god" is NOT part of the oath of office) but since pat of his oath is to preserve protet and defend the constitution he does NOT have the right to violate the Establishment clause.
-
-
Posted By: neverXmiss @ 01/08/2009 2:32:03 PM
///Again, religous texzt of no relevance to US Law or the US Government, or the country as a whole. Maybe imporatnt to believes but not ot everyone.///
Very relevant sorry, since the debate touches topics on religion.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/08/2009 5:07:31 PM
Yes the debate touches topics of religon. But at the core is that we are talking about the innauguration and the prayers are a clear violation of the Establishment clause.
-
-
Posted By: neverXmiss @ 01/08/2009 2:20:06 PM
//In summation, don't confuse your condmenation with God's condemnation. None of us can speak for God.//
We don't have to, the bible does.
the old testament is used as a past example of what happens when you dont follow the rules, and the new testament are the actual rules. Now just because the bible allows slavery, doesn't mean we practice it. It was considered normal in those times, and im sorry but its not the same as black slavery in america. The bible as a whole is clear on its attitude towards homosexuality. The new testament is clear on that too. There is no room for interpretation on that subject, not without modifying the bible like some "gay/homosexual" churches/religions are. The new testament condemns it, and old one does too. Nobody can condemn, but the bible can.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/08/2009 5:05:40 PM
But the bible is irrelvant to US law and government the innauguration is part of US law and giovernment NOT religion. Therefore the prayers themselves (from either cleric) have a valid place in the ceremony.
-
-
Posted By: mike7145 @ 01/08/2009 11:49:40 AM
There is no such thing as samw sex marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. God joined back to man what he originally removed from him. And Adam knew Eve and they became one again. A woman can never be a man and a man can never be a woman. Their mind of these people says that God does not exist or he made a mistake. I think not.
Somebody is wrong and I guarantee that it is not God. When man or woman succumb to these dumb idealogies they have a dim view of who they are, God is still God and they will still burn in hell because they are denying their creator. Hell is real. He made man and woman to reproduce in the earth, no two men can reproduce children or two women. When they want children they have to submit to a woman or a man to create another life. Therefore if its any other way, they are dead while they live.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/08/2009 5:03:01 PM
"There is no such thing as samw sex marriage."
Of course there is. Civil marriage is whatever the courts say it is.
"Marriage is a covenant between a man and woman."
Only in some religons which is irrelevant to US Law.
The rest of your post is revival tent garbage. Of no importance to US Law.
-
-
Posted By: mike7145 @ 01/08/2009 11:42:51 AM
America Deal with It
A Nation Bound By Sin
We have become too comfortable in our acceptance of anything goes. It all started when prayer was taken out of the school, off the walls of justice and out of the settings where the meeting of the minds of the leaders needed to come together. How can anything start without God, when he is the beginning and the end? What???s happened in America, the land of the free? America was the land where even the enemy could come and become rich. When did America lose its morals that our forefathers built a nation on? America is bound by sin from the White House to the Out House. My heart bleeds for my country. We have loosed everything into the land of the free; we will not leave sin alone, and don???t mention the monstrous children that we have created that will one day throw my generation to the dogs. They won???t need healthcare just a casket because the children will leave them to die. But with even this America has a chance to repent, change the laws that they know goes against the order of God, and turn from their own wicked ways everyone individually.
Man is so selfish and caught up in himself that he only seek to please himself and now the women has acquired that same spirit and the kids just kick back and drug themselves out from the lack of attention.
Surely God should be able to find at least one person that he can count on to pray and make a difference. Why not let it begin with you and me. You cannot depend on the next person to do what you yourself need to do.
Why have the pleasure of sin for a moment and have an eternity of Hell? Eternity is a long time to burn up, especially when some of us can???t take the heat here on earth.
America we need to deal with sin, we are a nation bound by sin: but we were built on the foundation of honor and truth from the Word of God. All of our laws hinged on the Ten Commandments and what the Word said about it. Once we return to God the Powers as is will be returned to us. We will once again gain the respect of other countries and lead out in the world. Our greatest enemies are the ones we have embraced as friends. They did not win the battle, but they do intend to win the war. They are temper some, dominating, and tyrannical. They want to banish America off the face of the earth. China rules with the technology created to destroy every young mind. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Kids rather play games and videos, talk on cell phones, and fight rather than do the right things. I would dare to say that at least a third of American children go to school and the ones that go; maybe another third of them is failing.
Wake up America; you cannot give into the pressures of the enemy, but in God We Trust. It is all over our money, but do we really trust God?-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/08/2009 5:00:45 PM
"It all started when prayer was taken out of the school, off the walls of justice and out of the settings where the meeting of the minds of the leaders needed to come together."
Actually our truly becoing a first world nation occurred when those things happened.
"How can anything start without God, when he is the beginning and the end?"
That is your opinion not fact.
"Wake up America; you cannot give into the pressures of the enemy"
Tue, we are to give into the enemies of the US Constitution like Warren who want to turn the US into a conservative theocracy.
but in God We Trust. It is all over our money, but do we really trust God?"
Actually the idea is that in a fantasy called god we trtust, everyone else pays cash, check or credit card.
Everything else you say is revival tent garbage.
-
-
Posted By: worldlight @ 01/08/2009 10:54:07 AM
The concept of Lesbian, homosexual or similar that are deviated from the mankind's natural behavior and original life, natural partnership and are believers in different lust based ideology. They are like AIDS virus in good human blood. These groups seeking recognition. I believe that the law of this country was written for natural human beings with trust in God. No changes should be made to recognise people with AIDS like antisocial behaviors. Why Police /court put thiefs into jail - simply antisocial dangerous elements!.
Mindless politicians are offering changes, to get into power. It may increase with new LEADER of cocktail culture. But above said groups arguing for special recognition in various areas are proving themselves as not natural humans with human mind but a typical ones with having form of humanbody and without human mind. They want to justify their worst case behaviors and make public to accept it thus collapse the entire world. Time to condemn this behaviours and consider legal action like for thieves. All natural humans behaves and lives like naturally made them. Even animals have their ways of natural living since its origin and not yet changed. Is there any Lesbians, homosexuals in animals ever found! I don't know. So you learn something from this that you are deceived and living for satisfying your worst behavior. As a behavior problem, these group need to put to corrections (Police/Court) rather than making adjustments in the society and politics, military and reservation quotas in general.
Abuse of Freedom = Lesbian, homosexuals.-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 01/08/2009 4:55:16 PM
"The concept of Lesbian, homosexual or similar that are deviated from the mankind's natural behavior and original life, natural partnership and are believers in different lust based ideology. They are like AIDS virus in good human blood. These groups seeking recognition. I believe that the law of this country was written for natural human beings with trust in God. No changes should be made to recognise people with AIDS like antisocial behaviors. Why Police /court put thiefs into jail - simply antisocial dangerous elements!."
Wow, an advoicate of a US based Taliban. Talk about treasonous.
" Is there any Lesbians, homosexuals in animals ever found! I don't know. "
Yes there have been many exmaples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.
"As a behavior problem, these group need to put to corrections (Police/Court) rather than making adjustments in the society and politics, military and reservation quotas in general. Abuse of Freedom = Lesbian, homosexuals."
Sounds more like Iran's laws and Saudi Arabia's laws thatn US law. And it is just as much garbage.
-
-
Posted By: chike1 @ 12/29/2008 3:01:56 AM
Leah Mcelrath Renna, Christianity is not divided into a variation of different beliefs. There is only one God, one Jesus. Christians are followers of God the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. We believe in Jesus Christ, The Son, dying on the Cross for our sins enabling us to have eternal life with HIm if we repent of our sins, believe He is God, making HIm # 1 in our lives and follow Him to the end we will spend eternity with Him in heavan. God did not ordain homosexuality. He flatly said that the act is an abomination. A true follower of God will obey His commands because he loves his Lord. You can not be a true Chriistian if you insist on disobeying Him and trying to change His Words and His Plans in order to suit your own selfish desires.
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/29/2008 7:08:14 AM
Chike,
Sorry, but since there are many highly knowledgeable and educated Christian theologians (who I would guess know far more about what is and is not "reaL" Christianity" than you can ever hope to) who disagree with you, your comment is onlyyour presonal opinion andnot a fact.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/29/2008 11:23:14 AM
Ohhh you really convince me with that argument Ghost....NOT! you just provided your opinion without knowledge or proven facts. Why don't you demonstrate your knowledge of the subject and post the facts stated in the Christian doctrine to support such claims and I will gladly debate them....this is the problem with those who support, claim it is not a sin, and try to justify their beliefs by twisting scripture to support their lifestyle....they provide no proof of their claims that is written in the bible......
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/29/2008 4:34:26 PM
"Ohhh you really convince me with that argument Ghost....NOT!"
I am not trying to convince you of anything. what I am saying is the Christianity does NOT speak with one voice. Frankly I do not care that hey are arguing about it. It just goes to show that it is all man-made stuff up to human interpretation.
"Why don't you demonstrate your knowledge of the subject and post the facts stated in the Christian doctrine to support such claims and I will gladly debate them."
Again, it is not my concern what Christain doctrine says except for the simple fact that there ARE clerics from different Christain denominations out there (and some of them are apparently fairly well regarded and considered highly kowledgable) who hold that homosexuality is not against Christain doctrine. I am not trying to debate whether they are correct or wrong jsut that there is no single Christian doctrine.
"...this is the problem with those who support, claim it is not a sin, and try to justify their beliefs by twisting scripture to support their lifestyle....they provide no proof of their claims that is written in the bible......"
Or maybe it si the opposite and those who try to use scripture to jsutify calling it a sin are twisting scsripture. Just an idea. As for me it is just religious hooeee, so it has no relevance to me or US law.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/30/2008 1:31:35 PM
I am not trying to convince you of anything. what I am saying is the Christianity does NOT speak with one voice. Frankly I do not care that hey are arguing about it. It just goes to show that it is all man-made stuff up to human interpretation.
No it just goes to show you that reading comprehension and carefully studying of the scriptures within its context is not adhered to by those who have their own agenda. I will debate with anyone and logic will dictate that what they are doing is either eisegesis or exegesis and are not using the Inductive Method of reading the bible.
The Inductive approach looks at the whole text in its context and pulls out facts, interprets them, and then applies them. There are no pitfalls with this method as long as the exegete is honest to the text.
Again, it is not my concern what Christain doctrine says except for the simple fact that there ARE clerics from different Christain denominations out there (and some of them are apparently fairly well regarded and considered highly kowledgable) who hold that homosexuality is not against Christain doctrine. I am not trying to debate whether they are correct or wrong jsut that there is no single Christian doctrine.
On the contrary there is a single Christian doctrine called the bible (books) and the various translations in which people have tried to reinterpret according to their beliefs have been exposed. Like the NIV bible which is the most controversial of all??????
Or maybe it si the opposite and those who try to use scripture to jsutify calling it a sin are twisting scsripture. Just an idea. As for me it is just religious hooeee, so it has no relevance to me or US law.
I don???t live in the maybe! Obvious you live there and have pitched a tent in the undecided???thus your stance with not believing in God!-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/30/2008 2:24:12 PM
"I don???t live in the maybe! Obvious you live there and have pitched a tent in the undecided???thus your stance with not believing in God! "
I have not pitched a tent in the undecided. I am very much decided and convionced that there is not god outside of the human imagination.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 12/31/2008 1:03:35 PM
Are you trying to convince me that you are convinced or are you trying to convince yourself that you are convinced? Deep down inside you know that God exist and just because He doesn't do things the way you see fit doesn't negate His existence. God is Sovereign and not you Ghost ...he is also infinite not finite like you and I...His ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts...
-
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/31/2008 2:58:33 PM
Deep down inside I have always known that he does NOT exist. It just took time for the rest of me to figure it out.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 01/08/2009 2:59:55 PM
If it took time for the rest of you to figure this out then you had to be convinced ....so your statement is incorrect in saying that you knew this all the time...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: neverXmiss @ 01/08/2009 2:26:17 PM
////So all you "christian gay bashers" (oxymoron) get a clue, you have sins too, and our job isn't to point out the sins in the lives of outher people, that's the holy spirit's job. Our job is to share with everyone that we are ALL flawed sinners, who need to call out to God and give our life over to Him through HIs son Jesus.////
There is a difference though. For the genuine christian, if there is a fault, we try to fix it. we try to change, we don't embrace it like you do. So I agree we all sin, the difference lies on what we do: correct it or not.
-
Posted By: pineapple1012 @ 01/08/2009 12:38:27 PM
One of my favorite things about this debate is that people on the right (of the debate, not necessarily people who lean politically right across the board) assume that people supporting same-sex marriage and homosexuality as the way some people are naturally made think that God is wrong, or that they choose to disobey/spite God, or they must assume God does not exist. While I'm sure there are atheists, agnostics, and people angry with God on this side, that doesn't mean that everyone who supports the LGBT community falls under that category.
We do not believe God doesn't exist. We believe he exists and he is a God of Love. More to the point, we don't think GOD is wrong. We think YOU are wrong. No one on this earth is God. Calling the Bible the literal word of God is fine, if that's what you believe, but I don't see many Fundamentalist Christians living truly biblically. Stop with the shellfish already then. I realize that point has been belabored over and over, but it's a good point. If you're going to take the bible literally, maybe you should start taking the WHOLE THING literally.
We have adjusted our understanding of the Bible to fit expanding knowledge, science, and ethics. We no longer believe slavery or having multiple wives is okay. We no longer stone to death women who have been raped. We no longer think women are unclean during menstruation. We don't believe blacks are inferior. We have evolved on so many other issues. Maybe it's time we grow up and evolve on this issue too.
I am not saying that there are no homosexual sinners out there, or bad people who are gay. There are, I'm sure. There are awful awful straight people too. And how can wanting to be in a loving, committed relationship with one person for the rest of your life be a sin?
In summation, don't confuse your condmenation with God's condemnation. None of us can speak for God.
-
Posted By: pineapple1012 @ 01/08/2009 12:35:21 PM
One of my favorite things about this debate is that people on the right (of the debate, not necessarily people who lean politically right across the board) assume that people supporting same-sex marriage and homosexuality as the way some people are naturally made think that God is wrong, or that they choose to disobey/spite God, or they must assume God does not exist. While I'm sure there are atheists, agnostics, and people angry with God on this side, that doesn't mean that everyone who supports the LGBT community falls under that category.
We do not believe God doesn't exist. We believe he exists and he is a God of Love. More to the point, we don't think GOD is wrong. We think YOU are wrong. No one on this earth is God. Calling the Bible the literal word of God is fine, if that's what you believe, but I don't see many Fundamentalist Christians living truly biblically. Stop with the shellfish already then. I realize that point has been belabored over and over, but it's a good point. If you're going to take the bible literally, maybe you should start taking the WHOLE THING literally.
We have adjusted our understanding of the Bible to fit expanding knowledge, science, and ethics. We no longer believe slavery or having multiple wives is okay. We no longer stone to death women who have been raped. We no longer think women are unclean during menstruation. We don't believe blacks are inferior. We have evolved on so many other issues. Maybe it's time we grow up and evolve on this issue too.
I am not saying that there are no homosexual sinners out there, or bad people who are gay. There are, I'm sure. There are awful awful straight people too. And how can wanting to be in a loving, committed relationship with one person for the rest of your life be a sin?
In summation, don't confuse your condmenation with God's condemnation. None of us can speak for God.
-
Posted By: jimi12 @ 01/08/2009 12:27:20 PM
Sorry my brothers ans sisters I am so very saddened by some of these comments and of course the actions taken by Rick Warren. As a Pastor, Husband and Father I have for years been bothered by Rick Warren's comments and bias opinions. Really he should never have agreed to speak, if he was truly a man of this conviction he would have said no. I can only assume that like so many others who yell real laud against gays and same sex relationships that he is harboring some strong feelings. Maybe this will be the year he comes out of the closet or gets caught. Over and over again I have found that Christians who are yelling rather than loving are hiding something. For the record researchers have found that large numbers (you really don't want to know) of pastors suffer from addiction to pornography or other sexual desires. I have addressed my fears and looked into my sexual self and discovered who i am, I am not gay but I do clearly understand why I am attracted to my wife and find others beautiful. I also understand why I can love some people and not others, currently I have found I am having a hard time loving all those that are so hateful to same sex relationships. And I for one have gotten tired of watch Christian leaders get caught being gay I would rather see an open world which allows them not to have to hide there real feelings.
-
Posted By: brianserrano @ 01/08/2009 12:05:02 PM
God loves a gay man as much as he loves an obese man. He loves a lesbian as much as he loves a woman who gossips. We are all flawed humans. Where the church and pastors and many "Christians" have gone wrong is to attak homosexuality as a sin far greater than any others. In reality we are all sinners. What i dont understand is why these, "christians" who are so against "sin", dont boycott fat people going to mcdonalds, gluttony is a sin against God. Or why dont we protest against gossips having telephones, gossip is a sin against God. What it all comes down to is we are all sinners. And yeas homosexuality, gossip, gluttony, murder, are all sins. They may have different consequences, and in our human minds some may be greater than other, but before a holy and pure God, or imperfection is repulsive and offensive to Him, because it violates his standard of holyness and cost Him the life of HIs son, Jesus, we He had to allow Him to be sacrificed on a cross for our sins. So all you "christian gay bashers" (oxymoron) get a clue, you have sins too, and our job isn't to point out the sins in the lives of outher people, that's the holy spirit's job. Our job is to share with everyone that we are ALL flawed sinners, who need to call out to God and give our life over to Him through HIs son Jesus. Because in a thousand years it wont matter where we stood on gay marrige, but it will be a difference of Heaven or Hell as to where we stand with God. So quit bickering and find Jesus, and if you do have Him, act like it.
-
Posted By: gpbatlanta @ 01/08/2009 11:48:24 AM
Wordlight
Much of what you post is completely illogical, unsupportable by fact and, in my opinion, alarmingly narrow minded and judgemental.
In what way is AIDs associated with an 'antisocial behaviour'? Further you imply that AIDs and homosexuality are somehow specifically linked one to another. Are you aware that AIDs is not even a predominately homosexuel disease - statistically speaking there are far more people with AIDs who are heterosexual than homosexuel. So your implication that in someway the negative or 'antisocial' aspeects of HIV/AIDS are in anyway specifically related to gays and lesbians is simply showing to one and all how poorly informed you are and how biased/judgemental your views are.
I would also take exception to your depiction of Lesbians and Gays as members of the 'Cocktail Culture' as I happen to know a GREAT many Lesbians and Gays who are completely opposed to the use of alchohol and drugs.
Homosexuals have existed as a part of the human (and animal) kingdom for as long as both have existed. You ask if there are any examples of Lesbian or Homosexual behaviour in animals - I suggest that you do even just a little bit of reading/research. Because if you do you will find that such behaviors most definitely exist in the animal kingdom - particularly amongst our closest reliatives, the higher primates.
Abuse of Freedom = Judging others and expecting them to behave according to your particular beliefs instead of embracing the multiple ways that human beings can express their love for one another.
-
Posted By: tomkopi @ 01/08/2009 10:56:17 AM
well jamie, i disagree;
and not only because i am a bit older than you but also because i grew up in europe where historically in the last 50 years marriages between same sex partners are common: but there they are called something else but marriage: life partnership.
this is bad enough but acceptable. if a man lies by a man that is disgusting enough, unnatural and disturbing. if we make this one legal, what is next? man and animal? man and inanimate objects?
think about it, one day you guys have to rule and what will be going on in a few years from now?
-
Posted By: Deborah Ann @ 01/08/2009 10:47:49 AM
Bravo, remnd...I couldn't have said it better....
-
Posted By: Deborah Ann @ 01/08/2009 10:46:11 AM
BRAVO, remnd...I couldn't have said it better...
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss