|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
DaveTWB, you can rationalize the "your kind" remark however you wish.
But I will endeavor to return this to a civil discussion. You have to understand, Dave, that for you, it's "an issue." For many of the rest of us, it's life. Please, despite whatever religious conviction you hold, don't lose sight of that. I believe Jesus argued for compassion...
If a professional psychologist wishes to ask the question of whether or not homosexuality is, as you put it, a "healthy state of mind," then let him or her. As a trained research psychologist, I would not support any activist trying to smother the asking of that question. But I still wonder just how many of my psychology brethren hold the idea that it is not...
A problem is, though, that it will be extremely difficult...perhaps even impossible...to tease out whether or not it is HOMOSEXUALITY wholly in and of itself that is at the root of why any client presents at a psychotherapist's office.
Regarding reorientation therapy...there are a whole can of worms that can open up in this arena that impact on its validity and overall usefulness. How long term is the success? If you aim at just changing behaviors, have you really "reoriented" the gay person at a cognitive level? If you "reorient" someone, were they really gay in the first place, or were they just bisexual or suffering from some other kind of sexual confusion?
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
Frog.
That's what my therapist said too. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
From NARTH's webpage boilerplate...
"It is NARTH's aim to provide a different perspective. Particularly, we want to clarify that homosexuality is not "inborn,""
The NARTH assertion that homosexuality is not inborn is no more valid that a biopsychologist's claim that homosexuality is rudimentarily connected to neurochemistry and neuroanatomy.
Both are assertions warranting empirical investigation, and neither has been unequivocally supported.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
On the contrary, as I've detailed repeatedly, it changes the definition of marriage and the integrity of Christianity, if our culture permits gay marriage.
But that doesn't affect you personally. You can still consider homosexuality immoral and wrong, if you so choose. You don't have to change your views.
Quote:
If gays are recognized as a "legitimate" minority, then a Christian who owns a business doesn't have the right to not hire a gay person whose lifestyle they don't agree with.
Unless being gay affects the success of the business, why should they care what lifestyle an employee has? Shouldn't the person also have the right to not be discriminated against?
Quote:
And ULTIMATELY, Christian parents attempting to raise their children teaching them Biblical principles, don't have the ability to prevent public schools from teaching a contradictory values system about homosexuality, without public school teachers and the entire system undermining the core values these parents are trying to teach their children.
Inherit the Gay Wind?
I suppose when you send your children to public school(or most any school, really), you run the risk of having the teacher imprinting their own personal values on your child, even if those values contradict your own.
In my opinion, parents should present enough information to allow their children to make up their own mind about their beliefs, and support their decision as best they can. That way each child is an individual, and not merely an extension of the parent. I've seen far too many kids spouting off ideas they clearly are just reciting, as if they are their own.
Quote:
All that shows is the liberal/pro-gay propaganda already in britney's words "your influence is growing", and have swayed a whole generation away from the true Biblical perspective.
That's one interpretation. Mine is that it shows that people are finally starting to open their eyes, and are beginning to see just how hypocritical our society is, preaching freedom and equality yet denying it to those that simply wish to peacefully go about their lives.
Quote:
And as I said, to even quote Biblical verses that say homosexuality is immoral, can ALREADY be considered a "hate crime" in Canada.
"Hate crime"? A person can be arrested or fined in Canada for reciting biblical verses suggesting homosexuality is immoral?
Quote:
It's ALSO not 40% of the public in this survey that endorses and embraces the gay lifestyle, it's 40% of people saying yeah, sure whatever, let them marry if they want to.
I never said it was the percentage of people endorsing or embracing the gay lifestyle, I said it was the percentage of people in favor of allowing gays to marry. That's "changing the definition of marriage", as you said, because such activity is currently illegal in this country.
So, my point still stands.
Quote:
But again, that's assuming the survey can even be trusted to be an accurate representation of what our nation truly thinks. (As the poll says, just over 3,000 people were surveyed for their opinion, out of a U.S. population of 290 million people. And as others have said, the way questions are asked in a poll can get the kind of answers someone wants.}.
If you question this poll, then I guess I should question the one you constantly reference with your "2% of the population is gay" comments. After all, polls are just samples, estimations, educated guesses.
Quote:
It was at precisely this point I became aware of gays as an intolerant and downright militant political force, who intimidate their critics into silence.
You make them sound like the mafia.
I have a few anecdotes of my own. I remember waking up after my best friend's 13th birthday party to find "Jesus Killer" written in red paint(so as to look like blood, I'm assuming) on the side of his house. Not one of the more pleasant experiences from my childhood.
There isn't a group of people(racial, religious, etc) that doesn't have a few individuals of radically different thinking.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
I have a few anecdotes of my own. I remember waking up after my best friend's 13th birthday party to find "Jesus Killer" written in red paint(so as to look like blood, I'm assuming) on the side of his house. Not one of the more pleasant experiences from my childhood.
Animalman, are you trying to use a person or persons individual action(s) to represent Christians or people who aren't necessarily Christians but have the same ideals as them as a whole?!
Sorry to have to disagree with you, but that reasoning is flawed. A single persons actions doesn't represent a group's actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
I think that was the point he was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Whoopys?  Missed that. I kinda just skimmed along and missed that. Me so solly. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:On the contrary, as I've detailed repeatedly, it changes the definition of marriage and the integrity of Christianity, if our culture permits gay marriage.
But that doesn't affect you personally. You can still consider homosexuality immoral and wrong, if you so choose. You don't have to change your views.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:If gays are recognized as a "legitimate" minority, then a Christian who owns a business doesn't have the right to not hire a gay person whose lifestyle they don't agree with.
Unless being gay affects the success of the business, why should they care what lifestyle an employee has? Shouldn't the person also have the right to not be discriminated against?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:And ULTIMATELY, Christian parents attempting to raise their children teaching them Biblical principles, don't have the ability to prevent public schools from teaching a contradictory values system about homosexuality, without public school teachers and the entire system undermining the core values these parents are trying to teach their children.
Inherit the Gay Wind?
I suppose when you send your children to public school(or most any school, really), you run the risk of having the teacher imprinting their own personal values on your child, even if those values contradict your own.
In my opinion, parents should present enough information to allow their children to make up their own mind about their beliefs, and support their decision as best they can. That way each child is an individual, and not merely an extension of the parent. I've seen far too many kids spouting off ideas they clearly are just reciting, as if they are their own.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:All that shows is the liberal/pro-gay propaganda already in britney's words "your influence is growing", and have swayed a whole generation away from the true Biblical perspective.
That's one interpretation. Mine is that it shows that people are finally starting to open their eyes, and are beginning to see just how hypocritical our society is, preaching freedom and equality yet denying it to those that simply wish to peacefully go about their lives.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:And as I said, to even quote Biblical verses that say homosexuality is immoral, can ALREADY be considered a "hate crime" in Canada.
"Hate crime"? A person can be arrested or fined in Canada for reciting biblical verses suggesting homosexuality is immoral?
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:It's ALSO not 40% of the public in this survey that endorses and embraces the gay lifestyle, it's 40% of people saying yeah, sure whatever, let them marry if they want to.
I never said it was the percentage of people endorsing or embracing the gay lifestyle, I said it was the percentage of people in favor of allowing gays to marry. That's "changing the definition of marriage", as you said, because such activity is currently illegal in this country.
So, my point still stands.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:But again, that's assuming the survey can even be trusted to be an accurate representation of what our nation truly thinks. (As the poll says, just over 3,000 people were surveyed for their opinion, out of a U.S. population of 290 million people. And as others have said, the way questions are asked in a poll can get the kind of answers someone wants.}.
If you question this poll, then I guess I should question the one you constantly reference with your "2% of the population is gay" comments. After all, polls are just samples, estimations, educated guesses.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:It was at precisely this point I became aware of gays as an intolerant and downright militant political force, who intimidate their critics into silence.
You make them sound like the mafia.
I have a few anecdotes of my own. I remember waking up after my best friend's 13th birthday party to find "Jesus Killer" written in red paint(so as to look like blood, I'm assuming) on the side of his house. Not one of the more pleasant experiences from my childhood.
There isn't a group of people(racial, religious, etc) that doesn't have a few individuals of radically different thinking.
Every last one of these nitpicking dissections of yours toward my quoted answers has already been addressed.
Basically, all you've done is come back and say you don't like my answers, and spun them into a nullified category through disinformation. Which is consistent with most of the responses to what I've said, by many here.
You obviously disagree with what I've said.
I obviously have a different perspective than you.
A perspective grounded in three key areas:
1. One that is based in the clear and undeniable fact that homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible.
Arguments for gay marriage can only make their case by circumventing and hiding that incontrovertible fact.
2. That while those in the psychiatric profession who oppose homosexuality are an apparent minority, that while that perspective is presently unpopular (i.e., that it bucks the gay/liberal holy war to legitimize homosexuality, no matter what the true facts are, and suppresses conservative dissent in the professional psychiatric community through bitter slander and intimidation) that even so, psychologists who argue that homosexuality is a pathology have just as much scientific weight, despite their perspective not being the dominant one.
Jim Jackson acknowledged that there are many schools of thought in the psychological community. The fact that the pro-gay sect can't tolerate the opposing view, and struggles so hard to trash and discredit those who view homosexuality as pathological, only gives weight to the political (as opposed to scientific) motivation to do so. A liberal holy war on progress.
3. That gay activists are prone to organized harassment and even violence toward those who oppose their perspective. It's not "some" or "just a few", as you, klinton and others allege. It's a clear and consistent PATTERN, of the same tactics that Nazi Germany used to crush all dissent: Propaganda, intimidation, threats, even violence.
Which I find ironic, as your side wraps itself in democratic freedom and the right to belief and expression, even as they go --consistently-- way beyond democracy's parameters to silence opposition.
Clearly, gays (and the liberals who support their cause) only believe in "freedom" as long as their side is exercising freedom. Even a lone dissenting conservative voice has to be harassed and intimidated into silence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Sorry to have to disagree with you, but that reasoning is flawed. A single persons actions doesn't represent a group's actions.
That's exactly my point, Pariah. That's why I'm trying to say, in contrast to what Dave seems to be implying.
.....and after I read more posts I see you get that now. Sorry.
Last edited by Animalman; 2003-12-24 4:10 PM.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Basically, all you've done is come back and say you don't like my answers, and spun them into a nullified category through disinformation. Which is consistent with most of the responses to what I've said, by many here.
Oh, I see. I thought I was participating in a discussing, an exchange of ideas.
I've listened to your argument, I've taken in your points, and I've even tried to ask questions(specifically, on the Canada thing) so as to better understand your perspective. This is an extremely long thread, but from the few pages I did peruse, I didn't see you address those points.
Though I might not agree with them, I never said I "don't like" your answers. Infact, I think I've remained pretty civil throughout my posts. I haven't insulted you or called you names. I haven't generalized you(as you've done to me) or belittled your position. I'd just like to have an honest conversation about a prevalent topic in today's society.
I maintain one, basic principle; equal rights. I believe that gays should have the right to do what everyone else has the right to do.
I also believe that those who do not support or endorse homosexuality should have the right to peacefully voice their opinion(just as everyone else has the right to voice theirs), so long as in doing so they do not deny gays their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as stated in the Constitution.
It's a pretty simple concept. All people have the right to believe whatever they wish, and to voice that beliefs in a non-violent or harrassing manner.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Animalman said:Quote:
Pariah said:Sorry to have to disagree with you, but that reasoning is flawed. A single persons actions doesn't represent a group's actions.
That's exactly my point, Pariah. That's why I'm trying to say, in contrast to what Dave seems to be implying.
.....and after I read more posts I see you get that now. Sorry.
I'm not implying anything. I'm flatout saying it.
There are consistent patterns within the gay community, in backlash toward ANY criticism of the gay perspective, no matter how polite and objective that reporting is.
I saw a show on PBS' Frontline program, profiling Rush Limbaugh and his rise to popularity, where Limbaugh in the mid 1990's had been a guest host for the Tonight Show and he was ambushed by gays who hijacked the program to attack Limbaugh for his stated views (up to that time) on gays. They had to clear the entire audience from the Tonight Show set to allow Limbaugh to come back from a commercial break and give a closing comment.
The Frontline program said that since then, Rush, despite the controversy of his program in general, steers away from any discussion of gay issues, because of that specific harassment.
If someone of Rush's resources can be intimidated by gays into silence, I think that says quite a bit about the consistent harassing tactics of gays against those who publicly criticize te gay movement.
Any reporting of the ugly side of homosexuality in mainstream news, any portrayal of gays as being how they truly often are, promiscuous, vulgar, decadent, gyrating against each other in mock-sex at gay parades, dressed in all sorts of freakish drag, or wearing leather S & M clothing, or flogging each other with whips publicly in the middle of a gay march, or expressing endorsement of pedophilism and other perversions, ANY of this is attacked if portrayed in mainstream news, DESPITE its news accuracy. I've seen footage of all these things on the 700 Club and other Christian news programs, but very few others accurately report this side of the gay movement.
This again, as I've discussed in other topics, is something Bernard Goldberg described in his book Bias about the liberals taking causes they are sympathetic to, such as AIDS victims, homosexuality and homelessness, and distorting these groups to (disproportionate to reality) APPEAR to look "just like us" (i.e., white middle class mainstream America, that these groups are more widespread within the mainstream than they truly are) even though the true facts, if only reported, would clearly show them to be something else.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
You clearly miss my point, Animalman, about the relentless regurgitation of the same accusations that you and others have made throughout this topic. I answer questions (and Captain Sammitch and others) and you come right back and say the same thing of "how can you justify your position, it's just ignorant of you to say that?" when I (and others) just answered.
You just come back and back and back, and offer the same objections and arguments over and over, to points already answered.
You say it's a long topic.
Well, yes it is. But if you're going to accuse me of things, then I think you have a responsibility to read what I and others have already said.
I guess the only way to clarify what I'm saying is to go through another pointlessly exhaustive point-by-point:
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
On the contrary, as I've detailed repeatedly, it changes the definition of marriage and the integrity of Christianity, if our culture permits gay marriage.
But that doesn't affect you personally. You can still consider homosexuality immoral and wrong, if you so choose. You don't have to change your views.
You don't even have to go back 26 pages, I JUST SAID in detail how that affects my ability to live as a Christian, or even as a non-religious person who objects to homosexuality on moral grounds.
Legitimizing gays legally as a minority forces me to hire gays.
It forces me to rent apartments to gays.
It prevents me from insulating myself and my family from letting a pro-gay mindset override my own cultural beliefs.
And labels any attemt to insulate myself from that lifestyle as "a hate-crime" or "discrimination".
That, once again, because you chose to ignore my previous responses, is an infringement on my right to follow my own beliefs, and does affect me personally.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
If gays are recognized as a "legitimate" minority, then a Christian who owns a business doesn't have the right to not hire a gay person whose lifestyle they don't agree with.
Unless being gay affects the success of the business, why should they care what lifestyle an employee has? Shouldn't the person also have the right to not be discriminated against?
No. Again, I already answered this and you simply didn't like the answer, so you slightly re-phrased and repeated the same question.
No, a gay person doesn't have that right. Any more than a Christian has the right to go into a workplace or public school and evangelize to others.
If a gay person is known to be gay, then it goes without question that they are making their homosexuality an issue, and essentially, promoting their gay beliefs and lifestyle by doing so.
Christian teachers can't even say "Merry Christmas" to their students, or display a nativity scene, or put a nativity scene in front of a firehouse or other government building without a backlash of legal action. That simple benign symbolic display is considered threatening.
But gays have the right to profess their beliefs and force them on others through their own disproportionately defended freedom of expression.
Which is a formula for corruption of the mainstream.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And ULTIMATELY, Christian parents attempting to raise their children teaching them Biblical principles, don't have the ability to prevent public schools from teaching a contradictory values system about homosexuality, without public school teachers and the entire system undermining the core values these parents are trying to teach their children.
Inherit the Gay Wind?
I suppose when you send your children to public school(or most any school, really), you run the risk of having the teacher imprinting their own personal values on your child, even if those values contradict your own.
In my opinion, parents should present enough information to allow their children to make up their own mind about their beliefs, and support their decision as best they can. That way each child is an individual, and not merely an extension of the parent. I've seen far too many kids spouting off ideas they clearly are just reciting, as if they are their own.
That "spouting off recited ideas" could just as easily be said about the mainstream liberal/politically-correct arguments in defense of gay rights that you've just repeated.
Parents have a right to follow their beliefs and teach their beliefs to their children.
It is not the function of teachers or the state to teach a contrary pro-gay belief system to students. If Christianity, and even "Merry Christmas" is banned from public schools, how disproportionately unfair and biased is it to say it's okay to teach pro-gay/anti-Christian values?
Your argument is biased toward the liberal side. If it was gay parents, and Christian teachers were teaching an opposing view that homosexuality is immoral, you wouldn't be arguing that it's the right of the children to hear both viewpoints and decide for themselves what to believe.
Again your argument has already been answered, but you relentlessly raise the same question that's already been answered. And present a re-spin that favors the secularist/liberal mindset.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
All that shows is the liberal/pro-gay propaganda already [described] in britney's [previously posted] words: "your influence is growing", and [the influence of gays over the last 30 years] have swayed a whole generation away from the true Biblical perspective.
That's one interpretation. Mine is that it shows that people are finally starting to open their eyes, and are beginning to see just how hypocritical our society is, preaching freedom and equality yet denying it to those that simply wish to peacefully go about their lives.
Again, that's your soapbox editorial, and taking another dig at what I clearly already answered, but you just felt a need to editorialize one last time your self-presumed intellectual superiority on the issue.
I made clear that freedom and equality existed for gays for 10 years, since "don't ask/don't tell" in the military began, and spousal benefits for gays began.
Those who "simply want to live peacefully and go about their lives" are now trying to undermine my definition of marriage( and the Bible's definition of marriage and morality), and enact laws that infringe on my ability to practice my religion, my ability to raise my children the way I want, and even make it a crime to express my beliefs about homosexuality, or otherwise insulate myself from the gay culture.
As I've already said, clearly and repeatedly.
And you don't even have to go back more than a page or two to see this question already answered.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And as I said, to even quote Biblical verses that say homosexuality is immoral, can ALREADY be considered a "hate crime" in Canada.
"Hate crime"? A person can be arrested or fined in Canada for reciting biblical verses suggesting homosexuality is immoral?
Once again, you'e pointlessly repeated yourself. The question has been answered.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
It's ALSO not 40% of the public in this survey that endorses and embraces the gay lifestyle, it's 40% of people saying yeah, sure whatever, let them marry if they want to.
I never said it was the percentage of people endorsing or embracing the gay lifestyle, I said it was the percentage of people in favor of allowing gays to marry. That's "changing the definition of marriage", as you said, because such activity is currently illegal in this country.
So, my point still stands.
In your attempt to split hairs and show some kind of difference between what you said and what I said, I read what you said in the above quote like 5 times, and I still can't discern a difference.
Your point that "still stands" is indiscernable to me.
It's again just the same question I've already answered re-cycled and thrown back at me again, needlessly.
My point is that the given 40%, who probably have listened to 3 decades of politically correct pro-gay propaganda, who probably have a contempt for the silliness of gay marriage as a concept, but figure, what the hell, let gays do what they want inside their own little sub-culture, assuming it won't affect them. But they're wrong.
Gays will push for even more "freedom" which will increasingly infringe on the rights of others. Especially Christians, and others with religious beliefs to the contrary of homosexuality.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
But again, that's assuming the survey can even be trusted to be an accurate representation of what our nation truly thinks. (As the poll says, just over 3,000 people were surveyed for their opinion, out of a U.S. population of 290 million people. And as others have said, the way questions are asked in a poll can get the kind of answers someone wants.}.
If you question this poll, then I guess I should question the one you constantly reference with your "2% of the population is gay" comments. After all, polls are just samples, estimations, educated guesses.
The 2% is a widely regarded number, confirmed by a number of studies and not one isolated poll.
Even so, my own belief is that 2% number is inflated, and much larger than the actual ratio in the public. But it's the most widely regarded number. As I said repeatedly, it's a number often quoted, and I've seen it in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel (the largest Knight-Ridder owned newspaper in South Florida) and TIME magazine, among many other sources.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
It was at precisely this point I became aware of gays as an intolerant and downright militant political force, who intimidate their critics into silence.
You make them sound like the mafia.
Your choice of words is clearly mocking, but that doesn't change the reality I addressed in my quoted comment.
Once again, I've already responded to this question repeatedly. The gay movement has a consistent backlash to ANY criticism of gays, no matter how objective, polite or academic the criticism.
Gays have an approach I'd compare more to the Nazis (and have compared, repeatedly) in the organized way they intimidate those who publicly dissent or offer studies contradictory to the gay perspective.
And whether you call it similar to Nazis, or similar to the Mafia, it's still strong-arm tactics, and un-democratic.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
I have a few anecdotes of my own. I remember waking up after my best friend's 13th birthday party to find "Jesus Killer" written in red paint(so as to look like blood, I'm assuming) on the side of his house. Not one of the more pleasant experiences from my childhood.
There isn't a group of people(racial, religious, etc) that doesn't have a few individuals of radically different thinking.
Yes, but again --as I said repeatedly before-- gays have a very consistent tendency toward harassment and intimidation of their critics.
We're not talking about isolated individuals, we're talking about an organized and consistent pattern. Not isolated individuals.
You could just as easily argue that all Nazi aggression was perpetrated by "individuals". But WW II was still an organized conquest of Europe, and an organized genocide by the Nazis, despite being individuals. You could just as easily point to individual Nazis who were merciful and not engaging in cruelty and genocide. But that didn't make the Nazis any less of a threat to the millions they hurt.
Gay activism isn't killing people, its threat is a bit more subtle than that. But it is still a small minority using intimidation and harrassment to impose its will on the majority, and undermine the freedoms of those who don't agree with the gay perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
I answer questions (and Captain Sammitch and others)...
I don't know these things! I'm just an actor! 
Actually, my purpose here has shifted from trying to make a point to trying to calm you folks down a little.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Speaking for myself, I don't require calming.
I don't mind debating an issue with people who don't share my views. I do mind answering the same question over and over and over. And then still being told I'm intolerant and don't make sense.
As I've said repeatedly, the intolerant ones are the small minority of gays, who want to impose their views of "gay marriage" and related issues on the overwhelming majority.
Rendering the clear verses regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible a "hate crime", as they are now in Canada, as gays and liberals want them to be in the United States.
And then have the audacity to say "well, this doesn't affect you".
Heck yes it does !
Any questions ? Just read my posts over the last 26 pages, where I've explained my views abundantly and more than patiently.
But geez, when do I have the right to say my views are being ignored and glossed over? I think as often as I've stated my perspective, I've earned that right.
The bottom line is, gays will believe what allows them to pursue their chosen lifestyle, despite any evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
I answer questions (and Captain Sammitch and others) and you come right back and say the same thing of "how can you justify your position, it's just ignorant of you to say that?" when I (and others) just answered
When have I said that? I think you're attributing things to me that I haven't done, Dave.
Quote:
But if you're going to accuse me of things, then I think you have a responsibility to read what I and others have already said.
What have I accused you of? Other than making gays sound like the mafia.
Quote:
You don't even have to go back 26 pages, I JUST SAID in detail how that affects my ability to live as a Christian, or even as a non-religious person who objects to homosexuality on moral grounds.
I read all that. I'm arguing that it doesn't, at least, not in any capacity that deprives you of the rights you already had to beginwith.
Quote:
Legitimizing gays legally as a minority forces me to hire gays.
It forces me to rent apartments to gays.
It prevents me from insulating myself and my family from letting a pro-gay mindset override my own cultural beliefs.
You don't have to hire or rent to anyone. You just can't refuse someone a job or shelter on the simple principle of their sexual preference. There is a difference there, Dave.
I can't deny a Christian employment from my establishment because they are Christian, or a Jewish person employment because they're Jewish, or an African American because they're black, or a white because they're white, or a Native American because they're Indian, etc. etc. etc. Everyone else in the country has the right to not be discrimated against because of their race, gender, creed, or sexual preference. Yes, I'm aware that I'm repeating myself here, but I'm trying to drive this point home, because it's irrefutable.
Quote:
And labels any attemt to insulate myself from that lifestyle as "a hate-crime" or "discrimination".
It's a label because that's what it is, Dave. If a gay person is more qualified for a job than a straight person, and you deny the gay person that job simply because you don't believe homosexuality is right....that's discrimination.
discriminate:
"To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice"
I'll agree that calling it a "hate crime" is going a bit far, but it is, by definition, discrimination.
Quote:
That, once again, because you chose to ignore my previous responses, is an infringement on my right to follow my own beliefs, and does affect me personally.
Well, see, now we're crossing over into a different category here. Before we were talking about recognizing gays as a legitimate minority. Here I'm simply referring to allowing gay marriage. I don't think the basic act of marriage, between two parties that you don't care to socialize with or allow influence in your life already, really affects you. You can still believe that homosexuality is wrong, and you can still teach this to your children, if you so choose.
Quote:
No, a gay person doesn't have that right. Any more than a Christian has the right to go into a workplace or public school and evangelize to others.
How is a Christian going into a public school or workplace and trying to evangelize others comparable to a gay person not being discriminated against?
By gaining employment, you're not forcing your beliefs or your sexuality on someone else. You're just trying to earn a living, something that everyone else can do unrestrained.
Quote:
If a gay person is known to be gay, then it goes without question that they are making their homosexuality an issue, and essentially, promoting their gay beliefs and lifestyle by doing so.
I think there's a difference between living a gay life, and promoting that life. Some homosexuals choose to actively promote the acceptance or recognition of their beliefs, some don't. The same goes for most racial or religious groups.
Quote:
Christian teachers can't even say "Merry Christmas" to their students
???
My sister's teacher said Merry Christmas to me just last week when I went to pick her up.
Forgive me if this is "nitpicking", but it seems like a pretty important part of your argument.
Quote:
or display a nativity scene, or put a nativity scene in front of a firehouse or other government building without a backlash of legal action.
Can gays display something classically attributed to homosexuality? Can Jews display Moses or a Menorah? Can men display the male sign, or women the female sign?
Quote:
But gays have the right to profess their beliefs and force them on others through their own disproportionately defended freedom of expression.
I'm still not seeing how it's being forced on someone.
Quote:
That "spouting off recited ideas" could just as easily be said about the mainstream liberal/politically-correct arguments in defense of gay rights that you've just repeated.
It could be(I didn't limit that concept to purely conversative or religious ideas). If you're implying that I'm defending gays as a simple regurgitation of something my parents told me(and I'm not saying you are, I'm actually not sure), then I'm afraid you're quite mistaken.
Quote:
Parents have a right to follow their beliefs and teach their beliefs to their children.
Absolutely.
Quote:
It is not the function of teachers or the state to teach a contrary pro-gay belief system to students.
Nor is it the function of teachers or the state to teach an anti-gay belief system to students.
Quote:
If Christianity, and even "Merry Christmas" is banned from public schools, how disproportionately unfair and biased is it to say it's okay to teach pro-gay/anti-Christian values?
I haven't heard about Merry Christmas being banned, or Christianity as a whole. I think teachers should display impartial, unbiased, neutral information to their students, rather than provide a slanted view of the world. Any slant, pro-gay, anti-gay, whatever. It doesn't matter.
Quote:
If it was gay parents, and Christian teachers were teaching an opposing view that homosexuality is immoral, you wouldn't be arguing that it's the right of the children to hear both viewpoints and decide for themselves what to believe.
I think it's the responsibility of the parents to show both points of view(yes, even for gay parents to show the Christian pov). As I said before, I don't think teachers should display any kind of slant.
Quote:
Again, that's your soapbox editorial, and taking another dig at what I clearly already answered, but you just felt a need to editorialize one last time your self-presumed intellectual superiority on the issue.
I assume no intellectual superiority. I was simply presenting my point of view, in contrast to you presenting yours. That is, after all, what message boards are for. At no point did I state or suggest that my idea was better than yours. You're more than entitled to express your opinions in any discussion, just as I am.
Quote:
I made clear that freedom and equality existed for gays for 10 years, since "don't ask/don't tell" in the military began, and spousal benefits for gays began.
In that 10 year period, could gays attain a marriage license?
Quote:
Those who "simply want to live peacefully and go about their lives" are now trying to undermine my definition of marriage( and the Bible's definition of marriage and morality)
You've said this time and time again, but you've yet to actually illustrate how it undermines your definition of marriage. You can still have your definition. You can still believe it's wrong. You can still believe true marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Quote:
Once again, you'e pointlessly repeated yourself. The question has been answered.
Where??? I didn't see it, sorry.
Quote:
Your point that "still stands" is indiscernable to me.
My point was that, according to that poll, 40% of the population is in favor of allowing gays to marry.
Quote:
It's again just the same question I've already answered re-cycled and thrown back at me again, needlessly.
It wasn't a question. It was a statement.
Quote:
My point is that the given 40%, who probably have listened to 3 decades of politically correct pro-gay propaganda, who probably have a contempt for the silliness of gay marriage as a concept, but figure, what the hell, let gays do what they want inside their own little sub-culture, assuming it won't affect them. But they're wrong.
Ok. My point is supported by research. Your point is based on "probably". As I've said before, you're entitled to your opinion, but in this case, I must respectfully disagree.
Quote:
Gays will push for even more "freedom" which will increasingly infringe on the rights of others. Especially Christians, and others with religious beliefs to the contrary of homosexuality.
I can't predict the future, but I will say that I believe gays should have the same rights and the same freedom as everyone else, and not one iota more. So, if what you suggest does happen, then we'll be on the same page(though perhaps from different angles).
Quote:
Your choice of words is clearly mocking, but that doesn't change the reality I addressed in my quoted comment.
I'm sorry if you took it that way, but I wasn't mocking. I thought you did make them sound like the mafia. You called gays "an intolerant and downright militant political force, who intimidate their critics into silence." That sounds like the mafia to me.
Quote:
Yes, but again --as I said repeatedly before-- gays have a very consistent tendency toward harassment and intimidation of their critics.
If that's your opinion, ok. Having had more experience with Christians than gays, I think they're more consistently forceful. Apparently, from your experiences, you believe the opposite. Perhaps the real truth lies somewhere in between? I don't know.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
since I saw that Dave mentioned "Don't ask , don't tell": Quote:
[qb]The Price of Not Telling
How ironic that the 10th anniversary of the military's dreadful "don't ask, don't tell" policy fell just months after the U.S. Supreme Court forcefully overturned state laws criminalizing consensual sex between homosexuals. A majority of the high court recognizes what pollsters find, that "straight" Americans have grown more tolerant toward homosexuality. But not the military brass.
Because of alleged national security concerns, the military continues to operate with a harshness and bias against homosexuals that the Constitution otherwise would bar. As the justices said of laws wrongly targeting gays, they create a "lifelong penalty and stigma … that cannot be reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause." So why does it serve a democracy to exempt its military from the progress of civilian society?
The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" law, which President Clinton signed Nov. 30, 1993, lets gay men and lesbians serve without expulsion or harassment so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret and do not engage in sex. From the start, however, the policy was a compromise of expediency and timidity designed to placate Pentagon chiefs fearful that gays would undermine unit cohesion. While the armed forces showed they could overcome great obstacles in the ranks over race and gender — indeed, they have been trailblazers of social equality in these areas — hypocrisy has held with "don't ask, don't tell."
Its unintended consequences have cost this nation and thousands of gay men and women dearly. The all-volunteer services, already stretched thin, can ill afford to lose competent soldiers. But many gays and lesbians find military life more uncomfortable after "don't ask, don't tell," especially in comparison with the civilian world, where strong anti-discrimination laws prevail. Many of the 10,000 gay soldiers and officers who departed the military in the last decade asked for discharge, telling commanders that escalating harassment from suspicious fellow soldiers made them fear for their safety. Among those gone: seven Arabic specialists whose invaluable skills are scarce these days.
The gay ban weakens rather than strengthens bonds between soldiers. It fails to recognize that homosexuals can adhere to military codes and conduct their private lives appropriately. The ban, which fosters dissembling over honesty, erodes the mutual trust essential to an effective fighting force. Three retired officers — two generals and an admiral — who this month disclosed that they are gay described the ban's painful personal toll. "I was denied the opportunity to share my life with a loved one," said retired Rear Adm. Alan M. Steinman, "to have a family, to do all the things that heterosexual Americans take for granted. I didn't even tell my family I was gay until I retired."
Gay men and women have served with honor in the military, many keeping their orientation secret, others with tacit acknowledgment from comrades and officers. A decade is long enough to conclude that "don't ask, don't tell" is as unjustified in theory as it is unworkable in practice.[/qb]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Animalman, you've done it once again.
You've gone point-by-point through my long post where I was careful to address every issue you raised, and you just came back ONCE AGAIN, ignored my points, just re-stated what you believe, claimed I didn't make my case (by which I can only assume that you can't read, because I've been detailing the case for my perspective since page 2 of this topic).
You've again ignored my arguments and simply re-stated your side, when your side is already abundantly clear.
All you've done is smother my opinion in yet another long post of your attempted deconstruction, re-spin, and misrepresented me as allegedly not having made my case, when in truth I have.
Over and over.
I've laid out that the Biblical concept of marriage is in diametric opposition to the notion of gay marriage. Homosexuality is unquestionably adultery, as I've laid out chapter and verse from the Bible.
And the cross-reference of these verses makes their meaning beyond question:
Homosexuality is sin, adultery, abomination, detestable in the eyes of God, a prophecied precursor of a civilization turning away from God and facing imminent self-destruction.
Hello?
How much more clearly can I say it?
I've been saying it since page 2.
Whatever you choose to believe, I've made it CRYSTAL clear that gay rights imposes on Christians' right to practice their religion as it is taught in the Bible, and obstructs preservation of the Christian lifestyle by smothering us all in a relentless wave of secularist/liberal/pro-gay propaganda, even in public schools.
Propaganda alleging that there's nothing immoral or abberant about homosexuality. And backing that pro-homosexuality liberal agenda with a lot of unproven pseudo-scientific mythology that is as much a religion of faith as Christianity. (i.e., that homosexuality is inborn, a gay gene, that being gay can't be controlled, that it's not an abberant compulsion like gambling or alcoholism, etc.)
You give lip service to equality of all ideas, but just as you hype your secularist liberal version of the facts here, you know very well that the secularist pro-gay liberal perspective is taught in schools, and Christianity is barred from the classroom. So you can wax philosophic about equal representation all you like, but you hypocritically ignore that Christianity is omitted and homosexuality is endorsed in the present system. What you say about wanting true equality is just empty words.
Again, Ive made clear that legalizing gay marriage forces that definition of marriage on Christians as well.
THAT is discrimination against Christians, and stomps on the rights of Christians, and is also discrimination against all others of other religions who don't recognize homosexuality as moral or socially acceptable. And discriminates against non-religious people who don't believe in homosexuality as well. The pro-gay perspective is a pseudo-religious belief system that is publicly advocated and taught in schools, while Christianity is excluded and undermined.
Finally, the point about teachers who can't say "Merry Christmas".
My mother was a teacher in Palm Beach County for 17 years before she retired. (And taught in private school before that.) And that is what she told me, and other teachers I know through her told me. The schools could have displays of Christmas trees, and give neutral greetings such as "Happy Holidays", that celebrated the general holiday season, but were prohibited from any artwork or displays or personal expressions that favored Christians regarding the holidays.
And there again, the enforced secularization, where religion cannot be discussed, but a teacher can be known to be gay and even express they are proud to be gay, simply creates a system where religion cannot root, but secularist/anti-Christian ideas will be encouraged and inevitably dominate, and ultimately leverage Christianity further and further out of the picture with each new generation.
Gays can't legally marry in the U.S., but so what?
Gays can live together.
They have spousal benefits, just by living together.
They can hold hands and kiss in public.
There are gay night clubs where they can socialize, in addition to any other public place they choose to go.
I fail to see any persecution.
An oft-quoted statistic (most recently I heard it from Ted Koppel on Nightline) is that gays, far from being discriminated against, have the highest per capita income of any group.
I fail to see the necessity of gay marriage, beyond harassment of the Christian community, and chipping away at Christian religious freedom.
In the Bible that invented the Judao-Christian concept of marriage gay marriage is clearly not a concept compatible with the Biblical view of homosexuality.
Or with the Muslim concept of marriage.
Or the concept of marriage in Hindu India, where marriage means one-man/one woman.
Or the concept in Taoist/Buddhist China and throughout the Far East, where marriage again means one-man/one-woman.
As I said before, but your inability to read forces me to repeat.
So it isn't just Christianity that gay marriage threatens. It's every human culture that exists, and has existed for 6000 years.
And suddenly gays come along and want to change that definition?
By what arrogance do they think they have that right?
Marriage has a very clear definition.
Only three countries in the world (Netherlands, Belgium and now Canada) have usurped that standard with a gay/liberal alternative definition, allowing gay marriage. And very recently.
And if popular opinion in the United States is any indication, it was an elite bunch of liberals in these three countries who usurped the will of the majority to legalize gay marriage in these places.
In any case, I've made my points clear:
How gay marriage is in contradiction to the Bible, and millenia of human tradition in every culture.
How gay rights undermines and infringes on religious freedom.
How gays use intimidation to silence and otherwise trash any political opposition to gay rights.
As I (again) already said, I was tolerant of gays, when there was a balance, where gays had a right to live together and work without persecution and even enjoy benefits of living together. Roughly the last 10 or 15 years.
But now "gay marriage" threatens that balance, and forces legalistic legitimacy of the clearly illegitimate concept of gay marriage on the whole of society, which infringes on those who are Christian and of other faiths, who don't buy what is being shoved down our throats.
You can dress it up as many times as you want, but it's still a liberal rationalization that bypasses the truth. We're headed toward a world where gays have rights and Christians don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I don't remember where I saw it, but I now this was mentioned on this board someplace. Fox News did a bit both yesterday and today about how there is a movement towards Christian intolerance. Granted both times I saw it, I was litterally on my way out the door and my dad was watching it so I didn't get a chance to hear what was said, but I'm looking for it and once I find it, I'll post a link for it.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
your going to link us to the tv?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Sigh...you know, Dave, I tried to be respectful, I tried to be reasonable, I tried to understanding. You clearly would rather just insult me and accuse me of entrenching on your beliefs than actually have an intelligent discussion with me.
I've stated my argument. You've stated yours.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I'm sorely tempted to start a thread against intermarriage, religious tolerance, and inter-faith relationships as I think your harmless so called "rights" threatens the continued exsistance of my and all races. 
This is a CHRISTIAN nation after all.
Quote:
Exodus 34
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Exodus 23
32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.
Deuteronomy 7
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Do not allow your sons (who believe in Christ) to marry the enemies unbelieving daughters. Do not give your daughters, who are believers, to marry the enemies unbelieving sons.
Now I only bring this up because it clearly demonstrates how some bigots, Herbert Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God for one(ironically one of the 1st places I turned to when studying the bible in my youth), once used the Bible itself to prohibit interracial marriages. As you can see those passages can be used to justify all sorts of b.s. not just intermarriage but allowing religious tolerance and condonig wartime rape.
Now on this passage, I dunno....It's a little troubling given the fact that Milosevich is on trial for war crimes which included rape:
Quote:
[When ancient Israel went to battle against foreign nations, and they chose to make war against Israel, God commanded His nation to] smite the males, "But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself' (Deut.20:14).
God said further, "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies. . . and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thy house . . . and she shall. . . remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deut24:10-13).
Last edited by whomod; 2003-12-26 8:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Well, Whomod, the question you raise is partly a new point, but I answered this earlier in the topic, when addressing other Bible verses listed.
First off, Milosevich is a pretty unquestionably evil guy, who wages war in Bosnia to wipe out all opposition and seize power in the breakaway then-Yugoslavian province of Bosnia.
He murdered men, women and children, and oversaw the orchestrated mass-raping of women, for no other reason than terror and preservation of power.
In contrast, Israel was commanded by God to wipe out an evil civilization that lived in Canaan. God had given the Canaanites centuries to turn away from evil, and had finally resolved to erase their evil influence on the rest of the human race. They were heavily involved in the occult, human sacrifice, drinking of blood and so forth. Evil.
So God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites, and the wiping out of every last artifact and vestige of their culture, to prevent its corruption of the conquering Israelites or others.
It wasn't (as with Milosevich) a choice of one culture to wipe out its rival culture. It was a command from God, to wipe out what, in God's infinite wisdom, was an evil and dangerous civilization.
Second, the verse you quote is not given by you in the full context of the section it was taken from, or in the larger consistent cross-referenced meaning it has with other sections of the Bible that deal with similar issues.
To use one example, the slightly expanded passage of DEUTERONOMY 20:
Quote:
Going to War
1 When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.
2 When you are about to go into battle, the priest shall come forward and address the army.
3 He shall say: "Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them.
4 For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."
5 The officers shall say to the army: "Has anyone built a new house and not dedicated it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else may dedicate it.
6 Has anyone planted a vineyard and not begun to enjoy it? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else enjoy it.
7 Has anyone become pledged to a woman and not married her? Let him go home, or he may die in battle and someone else marry her."
8 Then the officers shall add, "Is any man afraid or fainthearted? Let him go home so that his brothers will not become disheartened too."
[ Temporary allowances from military service were given for a variety of reasons. ]
9 When the officers have finished speaking to the army, they shall appoint commanders over it.
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.
13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.
14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.
15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance [i.e., Canaan] , do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy [1] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD your God has commanded you.
18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
verses taken from:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=DEUT+20&language=english&version=NIV
And the entire NIV Bible is available online, at:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=NIV&passage=all
Clearly, there is a divinely-led purpose to war in this situation.
But in any case, there is a deeper context than you let on in your excerpted quote, and within that context of being God's chosen people and doing everything by the direct order of God, and out of cultural obedience to God and His laws, these things that sound self-servingly cruel, are actually more lawful and directed toward serving God than they sound when excerpted.
For example, taking women as spoils could simply mean taking them into their household as servants and laborers, not raping them as you imply. Teaching them the ways and service of God within Jewish culture, and having their captives and their descendents become part of Jewish culture, and part of Israel itself.
But in other topics, you've expressed that you're a Christian, and as you say, you've studied the Bible. So surely you already understand this context, without myself or anyone else explaining it to you.
And thirdly, these are ancient times. Treatment of women, slavery and other issues, however harsh and barbaric they seem to us now, were regarded much differently in those times.
It was one of my history professors at Florida Atlantic University, who said that slavery and serfdom was a virtual economic necessity in ancient times, to build cities and civilizations.
The Bible verses you quote, however harsh, were progressive for their time. They establish laws of what is and is not permissible in war with Israel's enemies.
And in an era where we still have mass graves in Bosnia, Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan and elsewhere (and the U.S. genocide of Native Americans is no exception to this, or similar genocides by other cultures in China, Australia, Russia, and Europe over the last 100 years or so) it is highly questionable whether we ourselves in the modern era are so enlightened and civilized that we can call their practices of war and dividing its spoils barbaric.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Sigh...you know, Dave, I tried to be respectful, I tried to be reasonable, I tried to understanding. You clearly would rather just insult me and accuse me of entrenching on your beliefs than actually have an intelligent discussion with me.
I've stated my argument. You've stated yours.
I would suggest you re-read the last few topic pages, at least from pages 21 to this page (27). You will see that I have been incredibly polite, relative to the mud slung at me from multiple angry gay/liberal sources.
In which, seeing others already attacking me, you elected to take a few extra shots at me. With all due respect, you're simply repeating what's already been said. If you re-read even just the last six topic pages, that's not an insult. That's just a pure and simple fact, that all these things have been discussed already in the topic.
And I just answered you at length again in my last post above, at considerable length, but you again ignored my points and strawmanned that I "insulted" you, despite my lengthy and reasoned response.
In summary, from my above post:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
In any case, I've made my points clear:
How gay marriage is in contradiction to the Bible, and millenia of human tradition in every culture.
How gay rights undermines and infringes on religious freedom.
How gays use intimidation to silence and otherwise trash any political opposition to gay rights.
As I (again) already said, I was tolerant of gays, when there was a balance, where gays had a right to live together and work without persecution and even enjoy benefits of living together. Roughly the last 10 or 15 years.
But now "gay marriage" threatens that balance, and forces legalistic legitimacy of the clearly illegitimate concept of gay marriage on the whole of society, which infringes on those who are Christian and of other faiths, who don't buy what is being shoved down our throats.
You can dress it up as many times as you want, but it's still a liberal rationalization that bypasses the truth. We're headed toward a world where gays have rights and Christians don't.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Hi!
This Post is NOT directed at or to anyone here
in particular, but I have been following this
thread here for a while and this is my Two cents:
I'm a 46 year old gay man. I lived with a man for
seventeen years. We lived on his 100 acre farm in Maryland.
He was a great friend, like a father to me. He was 30
years older than I, and taught me about a lot of things.
He was killed in an accident on January 31, 1998, when
the 3,800 pound tractor he was riding turned over and
crushed him. He died almost instantly. His last words were,
" Oh, God. "
Well, there was no will. I had to call his family.
I could not have the one who loved me most cremated without
THEIR permission. They were his family, who he rarely saw
because he was Not fond of them. I was just the [censored]
who spent the last 17 years of his life with him.
The family broke things, stole things, and in general
harrassed me so badly that I left the house My partner
and I had lived in for the better part of two decades
before any kind of hearing for custody of the farm
could begin. They were especially angry with me because
they thought their Uncle was wealthy, which he was NOT,
and had their hearts set on inheriting tons of money.
Instead they got an old house, and a lot of debt.
I did not cause the debt. My partner was in Debt bigtime before I met him. I DID help pay for a lot of things
there, and had been helping to fix the debt on a monthly
basis.
My reward for all this, Because My longtime companion
had NOT written a will was to be treated like [censored].
If the USA had had same sex marriage laws, we could
have been legally married, and I would have automatically
been entitled to the house and the land it resided on.
I do NOT want " Special Rights. ", I did NOT choose to
be gay, I just am. Who among you reading this can remember
the EXACT day you CHOSE to become heterosexual?????
I just want the SAME rights as Heterosexuals. I pay my taxes, I pay my bills on time. I have to worry about illness and taking care of my cats and the high price
of everything and being lonely same as heterosexuals
must do.
There is only ONE line in the Bible against Homosexuality,
yet there are at LEAST 300 rules for heterosexuals.
Now attitudes about women and racial stereotypes have
changed over the centuries, why cannot attitudes about
Gays and lesbians change?? I refuse to believe that God,
who loves us ALL, would create a minority only to have them
predestined to enter eternal damnation AUTOMATICALLY, in spite of any and all good things they accomplish as individuals or as a Group. Hitler? Saddam? Osama>?? yes,
if their truly IS a Hell, then my friends, they are either
already their or heading for it.
Me? I like men - Older men - and I refuse to believe I'd
go to hell for THAT.
The guys who killed that poor Sheppard guy a Few years
back, now they are evil.....But it is MY business what
I do with a man behind closed doors. But many cannot
respect that. Their is NOTHING obviously gay about me,
but I have been beaten up and hospitalized a few times,
had the word " FAGIT " painted on my garage door, etc.
( Oh, and you'd think that the moron who did that to
my garage door would at LEAST have spelled the word
properly! It's FAGGOT. : )
So, No, if THOSE are my SPECIAL rights, to be treated
like THAT, No thanks, I do NOT want those rights.
All I want is the same rights as Heterosexuals. To be married to a Man I love who loves me back. To have legal
rights AUTOMATICALLY concerning decisions that may need
to be made about my partner's health and internment,
and property rights. For me, and for the MANY other Gay
men and women who want this, too.
Happy Holidays to all!!!
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Quote:
Pardon the insensitivity, but cry me a river. I went through a very similar experience and I'm straight. There are a few crucial differences, but not the point.
I get beat up a lot too, and I also get called faggot and [censored] and [censored] head, and so on and so forth. I just pretty much beat em' up right back.
Coulda gotten married, shoulda gotten married, woulda gotten married. Don't blame circumstance on bad luck. We're all dealt cards with or without such factors, no matter. The severity is no different.
Also, there is no minority created by God. He judges us equally for sins that we commit (to us Christians and Catholics anyway). Homosexual acts are one of those sins. So don't start whining about being singled out.
Can't imagine how someone so charming gets beat up so much? Marriage wasn't an option for him & his lover. It is for you. While his boyfriend's death would have still been tragic he wouldn't have had to dealt with crappy relatives having more rights.
Captain Sammitch wrote:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
If you can make allowances for the whackos on your side who pull crap you disagree with,(like bombing abortion clinics or the GodHatesFags.com people) why then not make the same concession for the other side's?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I never claimed any of those characters as being on my 'side'. I'm trying to politely disagree in a generally positive and groovy way. And I'm sure most of you on either side are the same way - at least in intent, if nothing else. I bailed from this thread because it was getting dragged out into debating the legitimacy of homosexual lifestyles - which is not the original intent of this thread, at least not the way I saw it. Plus, I realized that I was also taking cheap shots at people I didn't agree with, and the way we're doing this now, it's almost impossible for any of us to discuss this issue in a fair, reasonable, level-headed fashion.
I personally think that posters on both sides of this issue are taking the whole thing way out of proportion. Regardless of who is complaining about the other's lack of pluralism or fairness, very few of you have been objective and understanding to the point where you're justified in crying foul on others.
For me, it's not about who's right or wrong in this thread anymore. Sometimes, the outcome of a battle is less important than how it was fought. And almost all of us have been fighting dirty at one point or another.
So please don't play the victim in this, any of you. Put down the cheap shots and personal attacks, and follow the lead of those on this thread who are engaged in constructive activities. And yes, disagreement can be constructive.
Just my two cents. "
I was not aiming those comments at you but pointing out that Dave the Wonder Boy has on occassion pointed out that he may be be prolife & antigay(insert whatever the pc conservative term is for antigay), bombing an abortion clinic or celebrating a gay bashing victim's death isn't something he endorses. It's a point worth bringing up IMHO because when it comes to say a rabid gay activist or organization he has no problem stating we're all like that or at least endorse that type of behavior. So he can make some distinctions between extreme activism if it concerns his side of an issue but if it falls on the other side it's evidence & reflective of the whole.
Dave the Wonder Boy, I think where I live you actually wouldn't be able to fire me for being gay. Many large metro areas have included language that protects sexual orientation. Your comparison of the Christian not being able to evangelize is hardly comparable to the gay person (who may be a Christian also) just simply existing in the workplace. I would imagine if that gay person tried converting somebody into another gay that would be more comparable to the Christian trying to evengelize on the company's dime. In any case no amount of legislation really prevents an employer from getting rid of an employee who is suspected of being gay. They can always find a legal reason to fire or terminate employment.
In general whats at risk for you is really what other people think of you & your stance. In this country the KKK is still allowed & protected to organize, why would people such as yourself be allowed less than they? This country protects your right & in so doing protects mine.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
It's not a matter of missing the point, I just don't see where anybody is saying their life is more awful than yours. The point here is respecting the deceased wishes. In this case they were not. I think more people reading a post like that would think it's wrong that estranged relatives essentially had more rights than the surviving spouse. Legislation can be passed to fix that.
If your getting beat up do you just passively lay there taking it or do you try to defend yourself? Gay's are quite simply seeking to defend themselves like I'm sure you naturally do.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Dear Dave The Wonder Boy,
Thank you. You summed it up nicely.
The point I was trying to make is
That as a gay man who'd been in a
long term relationship that had
ended in death, That I had as much
legal rights as an ameoba, whereas
hetersexuals have Marriage and the law
to back them up.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Beardguy, I purposely haven't responded to this board in a while, because I didn't want to obligate myself to another 20 responses to the inevitable backlash at whatever I say.
So I don't know what you're referring to my having summed up, because I've purposefully kept my own counsel on your comments till now.
I'm not without sympathy for your situation. While clearly I'm not a supporter of the gay lifestyle, I'm certainly understanding of your losing someone you cared about.
I think we've all been there.
I had a friend who died in September who was my closest female friend (Jennifer) for about 13 years. The circumstances of her death appear to be alcohol-related. Her boyfriend, who saw her collapse, said it appeared to be heart attack or stroke. But her autopsy was inconclusive. She was only 36 years old.
So I'm sympathetic to your loss of someone close to you.
But at the same time (on the second and separate issue), I don't support your argument for gay marriage.
As you yourself said, if your partner had a will, the property would have gone to you, regardless of the fact that gay marriage is illegal.
And what happened to you also happens to millions of heterosexual families every year. For precisely the same reason, no will was planned. And while you were obviously the one closest to your friend, there's no will he left to legally establish that.
And I've certainly had the unfortunate experience of observing firsthand many similar parasitic relatives to what you describe, who were not a part of someone's life, and then grubbed for what they could get when the person died. A will can eliminate that, regardless of marital status.
But regardless, I am sorry for the loss of your friend.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
ATENTION -
Dave The Wonder Boy :
Pariah :
Apparently , I screwed up!!
I read the postings wrong, it was
PARIAH that made the comments that I
was responding to.
Dave, thanks for your comments.
I'm sorry your friend died. I know
how awful a loss like that can be.
Before George died, I had lost NO
ONE in my life that had been so important,
Except for a few cats and I loved them
dearly, as well. There were other friends
that I lost to Aids, accidents and other
various illnesses, but I was not anywhere
NEAR as close to them as I was with George.
Now I understand just how it feels for
others to go through the loss of a friend,
spouse or lover. It's awful, but I survived.
Most of us do.
Maybe that's why I took 9 - 11 so hard.
I knew what the families, friends and loved
ones had lost... Someone special in their
lives that was never coming home again.
Below is a reprint of my Post, tho it is meant
for Pariah THIS time around.
Thank you. You summed it up nicely.
The point I was trying to make is
That as a gay man who'd been in a
long term relationship that had
ended in death, That I had as much
legal rights as an ameoba, whereas
hetersexuals have Marriage and the law
to back them up.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I don't want to be pitied..I just want to be heard and understood. 
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I'm sorry to hear about that, Beardguy. While I don't condone the gay lifestyle myself, I have many friends who are openly gay, and whenever something bad happens to any of them, I don't suddenly feel less sympathy for them than I would for one of my straight friends. I honestly can't say I would agree with altering the legal definition of marriage, but I really don't think that would lessen the difficulties faced by homosexuals anyway. There will always be people who think persecuting someone will magically change their minds. Anyway, sorry to hear about everything that happened to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Hi Captain Sammitch,
Thank you for your kind thoughts.
I just wanted people to think a bit.
Apparently, I accomplished my goal,
as there have been a few replies
to my Post in here, and then I'm
certain others read it, too.
Happy New Year!
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23,089
The Once, and Future Cunt 15000+ posts
|
|
The Once, and Future Cunt 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 23,089 |
Quote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quoted from World AP-Canada:
Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage
By COLIN McCLELLAND, Associated Press Writer
TORONTO - The Canadian prime minister said he will file a bill to permit same-sex marriages, a change that would make Canada only the third country where such homosexual couples can legally wed.
The bill will be drafted within weeks and submitted to the Supreme Court for review, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said Tuesday. Chretien's Liberal Party has a majority in the legislature, though the issue has caused division in the party.
Currently, only Belgium and The Netherlands recognize same-sex marriages.
Recent court rulings have declared Canada's definition of marriage as unconstitutional because it specified it as the union of a man and a woman.
An Ontario appeals court last week declared the wording invalid, changing it to a union between two people.
Dozens of homosexual couples have obtained marriage licenses since the court ruling, with at least one wedding taking place.
"There is an evolution of society," Chretien said in making the announcement after a Cabinet meeting. He said the law would allow religions the right to decide what marriages should be sanctified.
An Anglican diocese in Vancouver has approved a blessing for same-sex unions, which it says is separate from marriage. The blessing ceremony, performed once so far, caused a split in the diocese with some churches dissociating themselves.
Opinion polls indicate a slight majority of Canadians favor legalizing same-sex marriages. After the Ontario appeals court ruling and similar previous ones by courts in British Columbia and Quebec, the government was under pressure to change the law or file appeals that would have left the issue unsettled.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said Tuesday it was time for change.
"We have decided not to appeal those rulings ... and proceeded with draft legislation that will be ready shortly ," he said. The new law would redefine marriage as called for by the courts while protecting religious freedoms, according to Cauchon.
"We're talking about essential freedoms here," he said.
Svend Robinson, a Parliament member for the leftist New Democratic Party who has pushed for same-sex marriages in Canada, praised Chretien's government for showing leadership. He rejected opposition by conservative political groups, who argue that changing the definition of marriage uproots a fundamental tenet of Canadian society.
In the United States, homosexual marriage lacks full legal recognition in all 50 states. Vermont recognizes civil unions that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage but are separate from legal marriage.
"Americans now have the chance to see a society can treat gay people with respect," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the New York-based Freedom to Marry organization promoting homosexual marriage. "Families are helped, and no one is hurt."
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">'Bout time, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
I thought this was interesting http://www.geocities.com/mollyjoyful/marriage.htmlHomosexual Marriage Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, explores the historical context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996). Paul Halsall, also a historian, supports the findings of Boswell and unearthed other cultures’ acceptance of male-male or female-female relationships. In his essay, Lesbian and Gay Marriage through History and Culture, he documents the recognition of same-gender couples in many cultures. He specifically lists, “Ancient Greece, Egypt, Crete, Sparta, Thebes, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, Malay, Bali, Australia, India, Native Americas (Chukchi, Koriaks, Kamchadale), New Mexico tribes, Peru, Brazil, Medieval Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism” (Halsall, 1996). While certainly the couplings and the recognitions were not everyday common occurrences, they were recorded as happening. The role of the church in condoning homosexual marriages is also evident, according to Boswell. The Catholic Church, in particular, legitimized same-gender unions for over 1,500 years. This tradition was halted only in the 1800s. There were over 100 liturgies specifically for same-gender marriages. Since childbearing parts of marriage did not fit the same-gender unions, they were removed. As a replacement, the liturgies praised the companionable parts of marriage. For instance, a gay couple was cited as celebrating "brotherhood.” (Dorrell, 1994) Other religious denominations accept and support same-gender commitments. Religious ceremonies for gay male couples and lesbian couples have been performed in assorted religious persuasions, including, Buddhist, Episcopalian, Reconstructionist, Jewish, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, Quaker, Unitarian and others (Where to Get a Religious Blessing, 1995). It is noteworthy that while many of the arguments against same-gender marriage pertain to religion, currently the only instances where Americans can have same-gender marriage rites performed are religious. The law does not recognize same-gender marriages, but many churches do. Female-female and male-male couples have existed throughout history and exist in great numbers today. The level of social recognition has varied through time, religions and specific cultures. However, homosexual relationships are not a new concept nor are they something that have just sprung out of the decaying American society. They have always existed, however they may not have always been a discussed topic nor have a great deal of couples wished to be socially open with the true nature of their relationship. Marriage in the United States has gone through many changes since the establishment of the country, transcending many elements that were once regulated, such as race of the couple. Making the gender of a marriage partner open to personal choice should be the next step in the evolution of marriage.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-Eater Man:
.
.
The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral
The condemnation of sodomy pre-dates the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible, and as I've earlier detailed in this topic, verses of Biblical scripture CLEARLY condemn homosexuality, from Genesis forward.
It was under Moses, around 1400 B.C. that written language began, and the verbal history of the Jews was first begun in Hebrew, Aramaic, and later (with the New Testament) Greek.
Written language began in Mesopotamia, Egypt and elsewhere, several hundred years prior to Moses writing the first five books of the Bible (i.e., The Pentateuch) and the Jews, previously uneducated nomadic shepherds, learned writing and other cultural ways of the Egyptians in the 300 years or so they lived in Egypt, prior to their later being enslaved by the Egyptians, and finally leaving Egypt in EXODUS. (All detailed in the latter half of Genesis and early chapters of Exodus).
But scripture, beginning with Genesis in 1400 B.C., clearly takes a hardline against homosexual practices.
Furthermore, any gay marriages by Presbyterians or any other Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish denomination is also a practice that clearly goes against scripture. Any Judao-Christian "service" that endorses or enacts gay marriage is Christian in name ONLY, and clearly does not follow what the Bible teaches.
Islam, which took hold in 600 to 700 A.D., as well condemns homosexuality, and well before the 13th century. (Which according to the article, was when homosexuality was suddenly allegedly "declared immoral". The pure and simple fact is homosexuality was widely condemned long before the 13th century. And not just by the Judao-Christian Bible. )
The written Bible clearly condemns homosexuality from its very beginning. Which again, predates the alleged 13th-century origin of condemning homosexuality by 2000 years.
And Jewish tradition condemning homosexuality predates much further than that, before written scripture, to the time of Abraham and Lot -- the time of Sodom and Gomorrah-- in Genesis chapters 18 and 19 which events are projected to have occurred between 2166 B.C. to 2066 B.C.)
And the Bible again sees widespread acceptance of homosexuality as a prophetic precursor to a society's destruction.
Looking at Babylonian, Greek and Roman cultures as examples, it seems that the Biblical perspective is quite accurate, that homosexuality marks the point of decline and downfall of those cultures.
Many of these cultures that endorsed homosexuality also practiced the occult, astrology, fortune-telling, human sacrifice and the drinking of human blood as well. Practices that are as frequently condemned as homosexuality in the Bible, and whose prevalence are also seen as prophetic signs, which are also occurring with increasing frequency in current culture.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Actually Rome adopted Christianity as it's religion before it was over ran by the Huns (not homosexuals) Anyways this is just evidence that gay weddings are nothing new & that some religions may have recognized them.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I think Jesus loves us all. Period.
Straight, Gay, whatever..as long as we
are good people at heart.
Just wanted to say that.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
