posted
I was watching the Rock the Vote debate tonight and Wesley Clark said something very interesting, and I wondered why no one here had ever brought it up.
I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are against gay marriage (and I know there are a number of you).
Actually, there are two questions.
First, if you had a son or daughter who told you they were gay, would you still love them?
Second, if you had a son or daughter who were gay, would you want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
[ November 04, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think Dean's candidacy may be effectively over if people watched this tonight. He didn't come across as capable of understanding why his confederate flag remarks were likely to offend blacks, and poor and middle class southern whites.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Ugh, tell me about it. I've been a Dean supporter since June and I'm definitely having second thoughts. We'll have to see what happens.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support gay marriage, but I would say that your questions are loaded questions, and I expect that an opponent of gay marriage would find them irrelevant.
An example:
quote:I'd like to pose a question to all of you who are against man-boy love (and I know there are a number of you).
Actually, there are two questions.
First, if you had a son or daughter who told you he or she was a pedophile, would you still love him or her?
Second, if you had a son or daughter who was a pedophile, would you want him or her to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
My answer to both questions would likely be yes, and it would still be irrelevant to my position on the morality of pedophilia.
The original questions seem to imply that people opposed to gay marriage must love their children less, or have led sheltered lives, or they would not be able to feel as they do.
posted
The original questions also imply that "the same rights as everyone else" includes the right to marry whomever you love. An opponent of gay marriage would say that they clearly do not, and that they would want their child to have the same right as anyone else--to marry an adult of the opposite gender.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
I understand the general idea behind your analogy & agree to an extent, except I think using paedophilia as an example is flawed.
Why you ask? Well, I would imagine that the parents of a paedophile would understand the needs for certain restrictions on their child's rights: for example, not being able hold a job that has regular contact with young children (teacher, child care worker etc).
This is obviously to protect people who may be harmed directly by the fact that person is a paedophile.
In the case of gay marriage, it is arguable that no-one gets directly hurt. In the case of a hurt to society in a larger sense, (which some people believe) I think this is quite a different issue than direct hurt to inidvidual victims.
Of course that doesn't negate your point that you can love someone without veiwing all of their actions, or lifestyle as moral. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I recently read a comment that you made where you said that you wanted to be the candidate for guys with confederate flags on their pickup trucks. When I read that comment, I was extremely offended.
Could you explain to me how you plan on being sensitive to needs and issues regarding slavery and African-Americans, after making a comment of that nature?
(APPLAUSE)
DEAN: Sure. Martin Luther King said that it was his dream that the sons of slave holders and the sons of slaves sit down around a table and make common good.
There are 102,000 kids in South Carolina right now with no health insurance. Most of those kids are white. The legislature cut $70 million out of the school system. Most of the kids in the public school system are white. We have had white southern working people voting Republican for 30 years, and they've got nothing to show for it.
They vote for a president who cut 1 percent of this country's taxpayers' taxes by $26,000, which is more than they make. And I think we need to talk to white southern workers about how they vote, because when white people and black people and brown people vote together in this country, that's the only time that we make social progress, and they need to come back to the Democratic Party.
COOPER: Reverend Sharpton, I just want to point out, in the last couple days, earlier last week, you have called some of Governor Dean's positions anti-black. It sounds very close to calling him racist.
SHARPTON: No, I don't think the governor is a racist. I think some of his positions would have hurt us. But I think that doesn't answer, Governor, this young man's question.
(APPLAUSE)
First of all, Martin Luther King said, "Come to the table of brotherhood." You can't bring a Confederate flag to the table of brotherhood.
quote: First, if you had a son or daughter who told you they were gay, would you still love them?
Second, if you had a son or daughter who were gay, would you want them to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else?
I think a child growing up with two gay parents is pschologically damaging, so I would be against adoption of children of married gay couples.
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. If homosexual couples want to get married, I have no problem if it's state recognized, but if they want to be married as Christians, I'm totally against that, and I believe God is too.
That said, my answer to both questions is yes, but with extinuating circumstances.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Say you have a daughter. You yourself know the joy of raising children, and want her to be able to share that joy in a family of her own. Your daughter, however, is a lesbian -- and she wants to adopt a daughter with her partner. Would you feel your daughter, who you raised, capable of raising a child? Or would you refuse her that joy, and yourself your own joy at being a grandparent? If she did adopt, would you consider your grandchild to be damaged by her home environment? Would you love that grandchild less, or try to provide her psychological help...?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: , I'm totally against that, and I believe God is too.
Why would God make his children this way if He were against it?
I'm sorry, I'm a neo-pagan. I don't see what the big deal is---two consenting adults who love each other want to be joined as one in the holy state of matrimony.
If they love each other, the children they raise will only see and feel love---I do not think love is damaging to children. Children do not notice sexuality until they are much older.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage isn't a right. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they planned to be married by. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they thought they would be grandparents by. (sorry for the dangling prepositions).
If my son or daughter were in love with someone else's spouse, I would have empathy for them but would not be pleased if they acted out on it. I'm not pleased at the thought of my children overeating or staying up too late or any other destructive behavior. But I know finding their own way (within reason) through these challenges is part of why they came to Earth.
Marriage is a contract with society and the spouse that one will subsume one's sexual impulses to create a family. I'm not saying gay people should just get married and white knuckle it. But labeling something that is not marriage "marriage" to improve everyone's self esteem is like giving everyone an A, regardless of their actual level of preparation to go on in school.
If I were gay, I'm sure I'd wish my primary relationship could be appreciated by society. But then, I wish the government would give me a sweet car and a lifetime supply of cracklin' oat bran.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Would you feel your daughter, who you raised, capable of raising a child?
And here it starts.....
Kasie H: It has nothing to do with a having a lesbian daughter, it has everything to do with the child. The child won't understand why s/he has two moms or dads, and this cause pshcological issues later on.
I just don't think it's fair for the children.
Starla:
quote: I do not think love is damaging to children. Children do not notice sexuality until they are much older.
Of course love isn't damaging. That's not what I said.
Of course children notice that their parents are different from other kids' parents, they just don't understand it until later when they start "noticing sexuality when they're much older" as you said yourself.
And you wanted to know what was wrong with this?
quote: I'm sorry, I'm a neo-pagan. I don't see what the big deal is---two consenting adults who love each other want to be joined as one in the holy state of matrimony.
Romans 1:26-27 NIV
quote: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
That can be interpreted in a few ways, but the fact that Paul said it was perverted says it all to me.
That is why I think they should have the same rights in STATE COURTS(same financial rights as heterosexual married couples), but if they want to be married in a Christian church, I believe that is totally and absolutely wrong and against God's wishes.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. You seem to be okay with it on the secular or "civil union" side, so I won't argue with you.
However, religiously I am not on the same page. I do not believe in satan,the devil, lucifer, et al. I do not believe in God in the Christian sense.
Your bible quote explains to me why you think it's wrong.
But I don't believe in the bible either.
Okay---what I'm trying to say is I won't touch the religious aspect b/c that won't necessarily effect homosexual couples from getting the basic rights from the government. You agree that on the secular side they should get equal share---and I agree.
I may not agree with your religious ideals (I think they are wrong), but I agree with the other thingy.
Am I making sense??? I think its bedtime... Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your bible quote explains to me why you think it's wrong.
But I don't believe in the bible either.
That's why I added "I believe" before and after.
You can think I'm wrong, and that's fine, but now you can understand why nearly all Christian churches do not conduct homosexual marriages.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You can think I'm wrong, and that's fine, but now you can understand why nearly all Christian churches do not conduct homosexual marriages. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah, that's what i was trying to say. That's just my opinion though....
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my Taoist philosophy is more strongly against it than my Christian religion.
It's flaky to say civil unions are okay but church solemnization is not. Advice to Christians who feel that way- really study it out as a matter of faith and if marriage between a man and a woman is authentic truth you will no longer feel defensive or hedge on the subject.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage isn't a right. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they planned to be married by. Ask anyone who has gone past the age that, in their mind, they thought they would be grandparents by. (sorry for the dangling prepositions).
No, marriage isn't a right. But if you're going to make it a legal privilege, then you better extend it to every citizen. Or are heterosexuals more equal than homosexuals?
And what's this nonsense about age?
quote:If my son or daughter were in love with someone else's spouse, I would have empathy for them but would not be pleased if they acted out on it.
I doubt anyone would. What does this strange little analogy have to do with either homosexuality or heterosexuality? Your son could fall in love with another man's spouse -- he could fall in love with another woman's spouse. Infidelity between either gender is cheating. Your intellectually dishonest little story has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
quote:I'm not pleased at the thought of my children overeating or staying up too late or any other destructive behavior. But I know finding their own way (within reason) through these challenges is part of why they came to Earth.
And yet again, you compare homosexuality to a "destructive behavior." How, exactly, is it destructive? With the obvious exception of the risk of a broken heart, which is inherent in the game of love to either gender and either sexual orientation.
quote:Marriage is a contract with society and the spouse that one will subsume one's sexual impulses to create a family.
What? Forgive me, I always thought marriage was a contract between a loving, committed, monogamous couple to love and protect each other for the rest of their lives. Which vows, again, make promises to the rest of society?
Also, what the hell does this have to do with homosexual marriage? Because they aren't capable of producing children, they're disqualified from marriage? In that case, let's ban all people with barren women and sperm-deficient men from marriage. If they can't crank out kids, what use are they to the institution of marriage?
Ugh.
quote:I'm not saying gay people should just get married and white knuckle it. But labeling something that is not marriage "marriage" to improve everyone's self esteem is like giving everyone an A, regardless of their actual level of preparation to go on in school.
Again, what? How is, like I said, a contract between a loving, monogamous couple to protect and love each other for the rest of their days not marriage? Which aspects of marriage, exactly, disqualify homosexual marriages from the "real" definition?
quote:If I were gay, I'm sure I'd wish my primary relationship could be appreciated by society. But then, I wish the government would give me a sweet car and a lifetime supply of cracklin' oat bran.
Ugh.
No. Homosexuals aren't looking for your approval. They aren't looking for an "extra" from the government. They're looking for us as a country to stop persecuting them and let them live their lives. Preferably with fewer homophobic murders. Ignorant jackasses like Falwell and other lunatic, bigoted Christians can go ahead and declare homosexuals and liberals the end of society. Fine. Though I'll disapprove, they have the right. What they don't have the right to do is infringe on other people's equality. Exactly how is that different from declaring that all Jews are banned from living in certain parts of the city?
Oh wait, I forgot, we now consider people who discriminate against Jews to be bigots.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would God make his children this way if He were against it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satan tempts them. God does not make imperfect things.
Oh, Nick, are you saying Satan tempts you to be homosexual? How many times per day would you say Satan makes you get turned on by other men?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh, Nick, are you saying Satan tempts you to be homosexual? How many times per day would you say Satan makes you get turned on by other men?
I'm saying that God does not make anything that is wrong. According to the Christian faith, God created everything perfect, and we messed it all up ourselves because Satan tempted us.
I'm not saying Satan tempts ALL men or women. So to answer your questions respectively: No and Never.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why we are at a disagreement here. I'm not saying they shouldn't get equal rights. Where is the issue? The government cannot force a church to do anything (like marry homosexuals). That little clause in the first amendment of the Constitution. No laws can be made in respect to any religion or something like that.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I have already said what I feel like in earlier threads. It sounds like you have some real frustration with my point of view, so maybe you should email me.
Maybe you could look up some of the old homosexuality threads. I posted as "Nick" member # 4311
quote: But that would invalidate that God can make no wrong...
Wrong.
Satan was an angel, and made perfect at first, just like Adam and Eve.
Satan rebelled and chose his own path. And he tempted Adam and Eve to do the same thing. That's what free will is.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, devout Christians, let's list all the parts in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, okay?
1) Leviticus. Leviticus claims that men should not lie with men. However, Leviticus was also banned by the Council of Jerusalem for being so unbelievably crazy. All Christians who use this book to oh-so-righteously legislate against homosexuals, I insist, no, I DEMAND that you remain consistent and true to the rest of the laws in this book. Which means, yes, you are also banned from sowing fields with different seeds, wearing clothes sewn of different fibers, and cutting your hair.
2) Paul. Paul, in a tiny, one-sentence blurb, lifts the quote from Leviticus and sends it in a letter. He doesn't do this anywhere else -- however, if Christians are pious enough to listen to Paul while disregarding the source of this bigoted belief, please, remain true to the rest of Paul's teachings. You may be interested in Paul's more mysogynistic beliefs as well.
quote:As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
quote:A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)
There are plenty of apologists out there for Paul. Many say he's outdated; many say he's just trying to conform the standard of the era and not push too many buttons; many say he didn't really mean it. Whatever. If you're going to take this one, tiny blurb about homosexuality seriously (especially considering its source), I insist you be as devout and pious about every aspect of the Bible.
Because picking and choosing bits of the Bible to believe -- especially picking parts that would allow you to discriminate against others, and disregarding parts that would harm you as a woman -- that would be, y'know, hypocritical. And I'm sure you're not that.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And nobody even try to use the Sodom story as some bizarre justification of persecution against homosexuals. Or else I run the serious risk of growing more irritated with you.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very good point. But let us look at the culture of the Corinthians. Women were not allowed to confront men in that culture and Paul had to compromise to avoid division instead of unity in the Church.
With the Timothy verse, again you have to consider what Paul had to deal with when it came to Ephesian culture.
quote: Because picking and choosing bits of the Bible to believe -- especially picking parts that would allow you to discriminate against others, and disregarding parts that would harm you as a woman -- that would be, y'know, hypocritical. And I'm sure you're not that.
Who am I discriminating against? I'm no hypocrite, and I think you're kind of being over-sensitive and rude toward me and my beliefs. Why don't you take a few breaths before coming back?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, Nick, are you saying Satan tempts you to be homosexual? How many times per day would you say Satan makes you get turned on by other men? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm saying that God does not make anything that is wrong. According to the Christian faith, God created everything perfect, and we messed it all up ourselves because Satan tempted us.
Wow. I don't think I've ever been tempted to laugh and be insulted at the same time before.
Fine. God doesn't make things that are wrong. Despite the obvious logical fallacies in that statement, and your clear lack of, yeah, the scientific method in accumulating this "data," how dare you claim that homosexuals are made "wrong"? Jesus. Nick, let's go through this. Why, exactly, are homosexuals wrong? What makes their love so much less qualified than yours? If you're going to make these kinds of blatantly bigoted statements, at least be prepared to back them up. Homosexuality is not wrong. You can't justify it with Scripture, you can't justify it with science, and you can't justify it with logic. The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice -- and while I'm sure you'll hang on to it tenaciously while claiming that yes, Scripture does support your bias, I'm going to want some very detailed explanations on the inherent inferiority of homosexuals, how you discovered it, and why it makes any difference in how anyone should perceive the good person.
Man. If Heaven's made up of people who think like this, I can't wait to get to Hell.
quote:I'm not saying Satan tempts ALL men or women. So to answer your questions respectively: No and Never.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why would God make his children this way if He were against it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satan tempts them. God does not make imperfect things.
So Satan hasn't tempted you to become homosexual. Why not? Didn't you just say Satan tempts God's children? How exactly would you know homosexuality to be a temptation if you, yourself, had not been tempted to experience the joys of homosexual sex?
I'm having trouble understanding how homosexuality can be a temptation. A relationship with a man, for me, would be just like a relationship with a woman. The only really noticable difference would be the sex, and it's certainly not a temptation to me. I'm wondering Nick, why exactly do you consider anal sex to be such a great temptation?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I disagree that the difference between legal civil unions and church solemnizations is only splitting hairs. After all, a Christian minister would probably decline to marry, say, a Buddhist couple, but that doesn't mean the minister should push for Buddhist ceremonies to be illegal. I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the church believes something is wrong, it doesn't have to try to make society condemn it. There are plenty of things the church condemns but never tries to legislate out of existence.
Now, if you're talking about gay adoption, that does add another dimension to this whole issue...and it's a grey area for me. I'm really not sure what to think yet. I strongly disagree with the "joys of parenthood" argument, though. Raising children isn't something you should do for your own fulfilment or for the experience. This is a person, not a toy or a pet.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as once last addendum, I mean no disrespect to homosexuals by citing my interest in anal sex. I'm also uninterested in fat or ugly women -- this does not mean that I support legislation to keep fat or ugly women from marrying those they love, either.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Because picking and choosing bits of the Bible to believe -- especially picking parts that would allow you to discriminate against others, and disregarding parts that would harm you as a woman -- that would be, y'know, hypocritical. And I'm sure you're not that"
Agree with you to the extend that you CAN NOT pick and chose bits of the Bible to believe. You HAVE to take the WHOLE Bible. And what more - you have to read it in CONTEXT. If you pick a verse and do not read and study what's been writen before and after that verse, in context the entire book, in context of entire NT, most important, in context with the teaching of Jesus -you are MISSING the important point then. CAN NOT pick a verse and say - this is obsolete, or that Paul was crazy and it's not biding for us today. One has to be careful when pronouncing judgement of that kind.
I believe that homosexuality is a SIN. But, is adultery any less sinful? No! Is stealing any less sinful - no! There's no difference between sins. SIN is a SIN. As christians - we ought to love the people - no matter whether they claim to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. We love the people but HATE the SIN.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Despite the obvious logical fallacies in that statement, and your clear lack of, yeah, the scientific method in accumulating this "data," how dare you claim that homosexuals are made "wrong"?
Assumption alert!
I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS ARE MADE WRONG! I ARGUED AGAINST IT!
Don't you get that? Maybe you should hold back some of your emotions and get a little more rational before attacking me personally. So far I'm: 1. A bigot 2. Predudiced Are you going to unjustifiably continue this list?
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Agree with you to the extend that you CAN NOT pick and chose bits of the Bible to believe. You HAVE to take the WHOLE Bible. And what more - you have to read it in CONTEXT. If you pick a verse and do not read and study what's been writen before and after that verse, in context the entire book, in context of entire NT, most important, in context with the teaching of Jesus -you are MISSING the important point then. CAN NOT pick a verse and say - this is obsolete, or that Paul was crazy and it's not biding for us today. One has to be careful when pronouncing judgement of that kind.
I believe that homosexuality is a SIN. But, is adultery any less sinful? No! Is stealing any less sinful - no! There's no difference between sins. SIN is a SIN. As christians - we ought to love the people - no matter whether they claim to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. We love the people but HATE the SIN.
quote: I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the church believes something is wrong, it doesn't have to try to make society condemn it. There are plenty of things the church condemns but never tries to legislate out of existence.
If you look back on the thread, I said the exact same thing as Shigosei did here Lalo.
I will not say another word to you until you calm down, stop insulting me, and rationally answer this question:
What did I say that offends you?
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nevermind. I know you won't answer my question anyway.
quote: Jesus. Nick, let's go through this. Why, exactly, are homosexuals wrong? What makes their love so much less qualified than yours? If you're going to make these kinds of blatantly bigoted statements, at least be prepared to back them up. Homosexuality is not wrong. You can't justify it with Scripture, you can't justify it with science, and you can't justify it with logic. The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice -- and while I'm sure you'll hang on to it tenaciously while claiming that yes, Scripture does support your bias, I'm going to want some very detailed explanations on the inherent inferiority of homosexuals, how you discovered it, and why it makes any difference in how anyone should perceive the good person.
You want to go through it? Fine.
What makes their love less qualified? I never said it wasn't. Their love is brotherly love and sinful lust in my mind, and you can criticize all you want, but what other mind can I use?
Homosexuality is a sin in my belief. Why is that offensive to you? Since you were blatant about what you thought of me, let me ask you something: If you think so low of me, then why are you putting so much effort into arguing with me? I thought my opinions were just "biases based on popular predujices"?
I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS WERE INFERIOR! It really seems as if you want to imply I believe that so you can try and make me out to be a scumbag and you can increase your feeling of solidarity of being "on the side of righteousness".
Here are a few suggestions: First: Get off your high horse and stop judging other people. Second: Stop making assumptions. Third: Try to stop insulting people who have differing opinions. I know it's a touch subject but man, you're being a bit over-the-top.
quote: The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice
Am I prejudiced, or are you paranoid against homosexual prejudice? I'd argue the latter.
quote:Very good point. But let us look at the culture of the Corinthians. Women were not allowed to confront men in that culture and Paul had to compromise to avoid division instead of unity in the Church.
Heh! So now you're saying we should interpret the Bible's obvious bigotries in a modern light, rather than rely on the outdated prejudices of a primitive hunter-gatherer tribe?
And hell, if you'll support a revising of the modern interpretation of the New Testament, surely you'll agree that Leviticus is far too insane to believe? Especially since it was vetoed by the Council of Jerusalem?
Or, of course, you can stop cutting your hair.
quote:Now, if you're talking about gay adoption, that does add another dimension to this whole issue...and it's a grey area for me. I'm really not sure what to think yet. I strongly disagree with the "joys of parenthood" argument, though. Raising children isn't something you should do for your own fulfilment or for the experience. This is a person, not a toy or a pet.
Shigosei, I'll have to agree with you on this. But while I agree the "joys of parenthood" argument isn't a strong enough case for adoption on its own, I have to add that's it's not good enough for heterosexual couples, either.
quote:Agree with you to the extend that you CAN NOT pick and chose bits of the Bible to believe. You HAVE to take the WHOLE Bible. And what more - you have to read it in CONTEXT. If you pick a verse and do not read and study what's been writen before and after that verse, in context the entire book, in context of entire NT, most important, in context with the teaching of Jesus -you are MISSING the important point then. CAN NOT pick a verse and say - this is obsolete, or that Paul was crazy and it's not biding for us today. One has to be careful when pronouncing judgement of that kind.
I believe that homosexuality is a SIN. But, is adultery any less sinful? No! Is stealing any less sinful - no! There's no difference between sins. SIN is a SIN. As christians - we ought to love the people - no matter whether they claim to be homosexuals or heterosexuals. We love the people but HATE the SIN.
Um. You're missing the point, dude. Homosexuality has no comparison with adultery or theft, both of which harm a third party. But like you said, if you're devout enough to believe one verse in one book, believe all the verses in that book.
Start getting rid of your scissors, dude. It's time for you to go the grunge route and never cut your hair again.
And ugh. Please don't use that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. It's been refuted so many times here at Hatrack...
Since I'm rather eager to get on to Nick's comments, I'll just respond with a simple "hate the Christianity, love the Christian."
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite the obvious logical fallacies in that statement, and your clear lack of, yeah, the scientific method in accumulating this "data," how dare you claim that homosexuals are made "wrong"? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption alert!
I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS ARE MADE WRONG! I ARGUED AGAINST IT!
Don't you get that? Maybe you should hold back some of your emotions and get a little more rational before attacking me personally. So far I'm: 1. A bigot 2. Predudiced Are you going to unjustifiably continue this list?
Gee, Nick. How could I possibly assume that you believe homosexuals are wrong just by your statement that Satan effectively creates homosexuals, because God cannot make anything "wrong" and thus did not create homosexuality? Didn't you just say that homosexuality is a temptation made by the Devil to corrupt once-heterosexuals?
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the church believes something is wrong, it doesn't have to try to make society condemn it. There are plenty of things the church condemns but never tries to legislate out of existence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look back on the thread, I said the exact same thing as Shigosei did here Lalo.
I will not say another word to you until you calm down, stop insulting me, and rationally answer this question:
What did I say that offends you?
Haven't I answered this question in every post I've made thus far? You've repeatedly asserted that homosexuality is just a temptation made by Satan to weaker and lesser men, that God really meant for us all to be heterosexual, and that homosexuality is -- despite your abundant lack of any proof or reasoning -- a sin.
Nick, why don't you do me the courtesy I do you and address every question I pose to you? I'm sure you'll have a better idea of why I'm offended if you, y'know, read my arguments.
quote:Nevermind. I know you won't answer my question anyway.
Uh. What's this, Nick? Haven't I taken time out of my busy schedule to answer every question you've posed me? How dare you insult me by questioning my integrity? Especially when I've taken such great pains to answer your questions and point out your many logical fallacies. You should be thanking me (or at least offering a semi-coherent, logical debate), not muttering under your breath that I don't do exactly what I've been doing for the past hour or two.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus. Nick, let's go through this. Why, exactly, are homosexuals wrong? What makes their love so much less qualified than yours? If you're going to make these kinds of blatantly bigoted statements, at least be prepared to back them up. Homosexuality is not wrong. You can't justify it with Scripture, you can't justify it with science, and you can't justify it with logic. The only thing you have on your side is popular prejudice -- and while I'm sure you'll hang on to it tenaciously while claiming that yes, Scripture does support your bias, I'm going to want some very detailed explanations on the inherent inferiority of homosexuals, how you discovered it, and why it makes any difference in how anyone should perceive the good person. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You want to go through it? Fine.
What makes their love less qualified? I never said it wasn't. Their love is brotherly love and sinful lust in my mind, and you can criticize all you want, but what other mind can I use?
Tell me, Nick, how exactly is romantic love the equivalent of brotherly love? I don't know what kind of relationship you have with your siblings, but my own relationship with my brother has no sexual overtones or longing for a lifelong, romantic relationship.
As for sinful, what on earth are you talking about? I've already repeatedly refuted every possible aspect of this bizarre and useless adjective. You can't justify it through Scripture, science, or reason -- would you please explain to me exactly how and why you're still abusing this word despite any proof or reason behind its usage?
quote:Homosexuality is a sin in my belief. Why is that offensive to you? Since you were blatant about what you thought of me, let me ask you something: If you think so low of me, then why are you putting so much effort into arguing with me? I thought my opinions were just "biases based on popular predujices"?
I think your beliefs are a big part of what's wrong with America, and a small part of the biased majority that's suppressing equality for all. I would be equally offended if you were to repeat such statements about Mexicans or blacks -- even if I would be less worried. Thankfully, while bigotry against colored people is still fairly prevalent, it's not touted as proudly as anti-homosexual prejudice is.
And look at you, going again with the homosexuality-is-a-sin argument without any support or logic behind it.
quote:I NEVER SAID HOMOSEXUALS WERE INFERIOR! It really seems as if you want to imply I believe that so you can try and make me out to be a scumbag and you can increase your feeling of solidarity of being "on the side of righteousness".
Oh. Homosexuals are men weak enough to be tempted and molded by Satan -- but they're not "inferior." Heh. Christ.
Sure, blacks are the result of the Mark of Cain, which shows their inherently sinful nature -- but I don't think they're "inferior."
And heh, good lord. This is quite possibly the first time in any of these arguments that I've ever been accused of being on the side of the self-righteous. If you're feeling like a scumbag, Nick, maybe you should consider why. You have yet to justify any of the beliefs you've stated in this thread, regardless of the immense harm they can and have and do cause a great many people. This shows incredible irresponsibility on your part, to hold hurtful beliefs without even the simple ability to back them up; your subsequent insistence on believing in homosexuals' relationship with Satan and their inherently sinful nature only compounds your irresponsibility with denial, creating a concoction dangerously close to prejudice. Please back up your views, or change them. Until you can do that, I'm afraid I'll remain very unimpressed with your unconvincing and offensive belief system.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Have I made a mistake? Do you not agree with the Council of Jerusalem that it should be excluded from the Bible? Do you agree that cutting your hair is a sin?
posted
"Um. You're missing the point, dude. Homosexuality has no comparison with adultery or theft, both of which harm a third party. But like you said, if you're devout enough to believe one verse in one book, believe all the verses in that book.
Start getting rid of your scissors, dude. It's time for you to go the grunge route and never cut your hair again.
And ugh. Please don't use that "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullshit. It's been refuted so many times here at Hatrack...
Since I'm rather eager to get on to Nick's comments, I'll just respond with a simple "hate the Christianity, love the Christian."
With all due respect - I think you are missing the point. Any act that is against the will of the Lord is a sin. Therefore, THERE IS no difference between homosexuality and adultery, theft, lie, etc. These all are sinful actions!
I do believe in all that is writen in the Book - why do you want to go and question my integrity?
Allow me last comment - I believe there is no need to cuss. Or, are you so offended by people who have different oppinions?
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, back to the debate mentioned at the beginning of the thread. Do you think Dean has just shot himself in the foot? Or was he just trying to be inclusive of everyone--tolerate the intolerant, so to speak. Speaking of which, if you believe in tolerance, does that extend to the intolerant?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Dean should have said what he did, but I don't think he has shot himself in the foot. People have overlooked many worse things from politicians. This one won't recieve much press coverage.
Besides, with that many candidates most people won't know which one said it.
posted
Actually, Prolix, I believe he did shoot himself in the foot for the long run in the campaign. As we see the primaries run in Northern and Western states, it won't make much of a difference, but once you start moving to the Southern states, Dean's comments will be dredged up again and it will hurt him, because it will put him at odds with both black and white Southerners, people whose states he would need to get the candidacy.
I don't think he said it intending what impact it would have, but that comes from, most likely, a lack of knowledge of what the debate over the Confederate flag is about.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in South Carolina, The latest polls put Dean in a distant third here. If that is indicative of the rest of the region, he was already losing the south.
The main problem here is that Dean's candidacy has been hurting the democrats all along. He has alienated far too many people. I really believe that the only reasons he is in the lead in some states is because there isn't really anyone else to vote for. So if it's Bush or Dean, many people will take Dean because he isn't Bush, not because of anything he has done.
I can't prove it, but I believe that Dean is causing more harm than good for the total election effort. Whether he wins the nomination or not, he has done a good job of splitting much of the democratic party.
--ApostleRadio
Feel free to discount as much of that post as is neccessary, as it was written from a southern voter point of view. That's the only point of view I can write at the moment. I cannot say what the feelings in northern or western states towards Dean are, because I am not there and haven't paid as much attention to those polls.
Posts: 1612 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Wetchik has been far more reasonable than most Christians who consider homosexuality a sin in that he would permit (if not condone) civil unions and government recognition of gay unions. While total acceptance would be peachy, this is still considerably more than homosexuals have now. Why not take that and be glad of it? Or do you honestly think you can post the right words to a forum to make a person refute their religion?
I honestly do not think that Wetchik believes homosexuals to be inferior. Just from what he's said here, it's obvious that in his eyes all humans have sinned, and committing homosexual acts is just one of those sins.
The fact that I don't agree with any of his beliefs doesn't change my opinion that he's been remarkably patient in this thread.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
for Lalo.....![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I cannot say what the feelings in northern or western states towards Dean are, because I am not there and haven't paid as much attention to those polls.
