Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 19 of 50 1 2 17 18 19 20 21 49 50
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
Offline
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
Divorce is not an evil thing. Sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes, loving someone just isn't enough.

Are people expected to remain married when all they do is yell at each other, which actually hurts children more than helps them?

And what if the couple have drifted apart spiritually/religously? What then? Are they supposed to remain toghether when one parent, and the children, believe in a certain way of life, but the other has chosen, for whatever reason, to stop believing, and to stop living that way?

And what about adultery? Should a woman be expected to remain married to a man who cheats on her? That's an exceptable relationship?


<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
RDCW Profile

"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs

"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again:
If gays want to have civil union, that is acceptable to me.




Unfortunately, no civil union exists that provides the same financial privileges and security as marriage. In this case, the enemies are the insurance companies who refuse to compromise.


MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
Dammit, there's a long list of things we can blame on the insurance companies...


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

Quote:

Dave said: "Or more accurately, SAVING the rights of those who believe marriage is one man/one woman, protecting that definition, which has endured for over 6000 years, from perversion."




Dave, this is the United States of America. It is not a Judeo-Christian theocracy. It was not set up to be run in that fashion regardless of how much The Ten Commandments influenced our nation's laws. If the Founding Fathers wanted the Bible followed explicitly, they would have said so.

The marriage of any man and woman is no more threatened by a gay civil union (I fully accept that if a religion says a gay union is verboten then it's verboten IN THAT RELIGION) than it is threatened by a black marrying a white.

You cannot deny a civil liberty to one group of people that is afforded by another group of people.

The Constitution protects people and expands the rights of people. Not a "definition."

Jim




If I did not exert restraint on my response here, this could easily expand into a flame-war that would fill another two or three topic pages.
Feel free to re-read the arguments I made over the previous 10 topic pages, to save us from re-treading the same territory.

Answering your specific points, it's not entirely about religion. Many who are Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist (every major world religion) vaguely follow in that cultural tradition, but are not overly religious. But they still live by the concept of marriage = one man + one woman.

Being gay is not the same as being black or white or some other race. Being gay is a lifestyle choice. By your argument, we'd have to start giving minority protection rights to unabombers and skydivers and drug addicts and compulsive gamblers and (gasp ! Choke !) Christians.
( I mean hey, it's who they are, they aren't capable of being anything other than what they are. They shouldn't be treated differently because of what they're compelled to be, right? )

But we've already been through this argument several times.

The entire world, not just fundamentalist Christians, lives by the definition of marriage = one man + one woman.

Less than 2% of the U.S. is gay. So by what right, by what arrogance, does the gay community think it has the right to change the definition of marriage out from under the rest of us?

Let marriage keep its long-established definition, and civil union be established as the standard for gays. The term civil union makes no pretense of being sanctioned by God.

Although as I said a few pages ago, I find it hard to support ANY further rights for gays beyond what already exists, because any concessions are used by gay activists to push for more and more concessions, infringing on the rights of conservatives.
Gays will only be happy when Christians can't even say in a church that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

~

Penwing,

You're correct in saying the Bible allows for divorce under certain circumstances. The Old Testament allows for divorce in many circumstances.

In the New Testament, Christ himself states in Matthew that the only legitimate grounds for divorce is adultery. ( chapter 5: verses 31-32 ;chapter 19, verses 3-8, and also Mark 10: verses 2-12, and 1 Corinthians 7: verses 11-27, and Luke 16:verse 18 ) The New Testament has a much narrower set of circumstances that permit divorce.
The only non-adultery provision for divorce being if someone previously married as a non-Christian, and then became a Christian, if their spouse then leaves them, they can then select a Christian spouse ( 1 Corinthians 7: verses 12-16 ).
[ *** I edited this paragraph slightly after-the-fact, to include verses, and to write it more accurately than I previously had, from slightly faulty memory. ]

Although even adultery can be forgiven by a spouse, and a marriage can emerge even stronger from infidelity or other sources of contention.
But I certainly don't blame anyone for ending a marriage when they find their mate has been cheating on them.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
OP Offline
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Top Stories - AP

Bush Urges Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush urged approval of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages on Tuesday, pushing a divisive social issue to the center of the election campaign and setting a clear policy contrast with Democratic challengers John Kerry and John Edwards.

Bush said "activist judges and local officials" from Massachusetts to San Francisco to New Mexico were attempting to redefine marriage and "change the most fundamental institution of civilization" by allowing same-sex weddings. "On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard," he said.

Democrats accused Bush of pandering to right-wing supporters and tinkering with the Constitution to divert attention from his record on jobs, health care and foreign policy. "He is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.

Both Kerry and Edwards said they oppose gay marriages but would not support a constitutional amendment.

Banning gay marriage is a top priority for Bush's conservative supporters, particularly those among religious and family-oriented groups. But while a majority of Americans — sometimes by as much as a 2-1 margin — oppose legalizing gay marriages, Bush's move could hold political risks, particularly if voters see him as intolerant or question his self-description as a "compassionate conservative."


"The president needs to worry about fair-minded swing voters in America, not a Republican base that he has locked up," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group.

Mindful of the high emotions and clear differences on the issue, Bush said, "We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger."

Conservatives were delighted Bush had plunged in. "There is no more important issue for our nation than the preservation of the institution of marriage," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, a family advocacy group.

Momentum for a constitutional amendment has grown as San Francisco officials have performed thousands of same-sex marriages and have challenged their state law barring such unions. In Massachusetts, the state's highest court has ruled that a state law falling short of allowing full-fledged marriage for gays would be unconstitutional.

Bush softened his announcement by leaving the door open for states to legalize civil unions, which gay rights groups say is an insufficient alternative to marriage. "The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage," said Bush, who had opposed legalizing civil unions when he was governor of Texas.

Republican officials said there was no rush to bring an amendment to the floor in the House. Some conservatives want a broader approach than Bush supports, and others oppose federalizing the issue, at least for now.

"The groups that are for a constitutional amendment are split over what it should be," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "We are trying to bring them all together and unify them."

California Republican Reps. David Dreier and Jerry Lewis said a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

"I will say that I'm not supportive of amending the Constitution on this issue," said Dreier, a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000. "I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary." Lewis said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, said she would fight any amendment. "Never before has a constitutional amendment been used to discriminate against a group of people, and we must not start now," she said.

Amending the Constitution is not quick or simple. A two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate must pass an amendment, and then it would be sent to the states for ratification. It must be approved by three-fourths, or 38 of the 50. Bush's father pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning but it was not approved.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.

Bush's call for a gay-marriage amendment came as the president sought to regain his footing after he was thrown on the defensive about issues ranging from his Vietnam-era military record to missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said.

Answering Bush, Kerry said, "All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign."

"I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions," Kerry said. "I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states"

Edwards, campaigning in Georgia, where the state legislature is debating its own ban on gay marriage, said, "I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
Offline
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Being gay is not the same as being black or white or some other race. Being gay is a lifestyle choice.




I really HATE it when people use this in debates - especially when it's straight people trying to accomodate for what they fear or don't understand. Being OUT and gay is a lifestyle choice - the rest, is NOT KNOWN.

Dave, until you live a homosexual lifestyle, until you actually walk in a homosexual's shoes (and not just assume what it must be like), you can NOT state this as a fact, or even something you have any knowledge of. It is the exact same as saying you know what it is to be Chinese, or Black, or whatever - because unless we actually are, we simply don't, and can't.

Continue your debate, I welcome that - but don't throw out assumptions as facts.

No matter what scientific topics you pull up in favor of choice and lifestyle, I can challenge those with just as many of genetics.

The truth is that the answer is still unknown.

What I want to know is, just exactly *how* does allowing two homosexuals to marry (or drug addicts, as you like to use that so much) devalue YOUR wedding vows, or as a heterosexual male, anything you do? What difference does it make, to YOU, exactly? How does it threaten YOU? Nothing is being taken from YOU. I don't understand exactly why two people who love each other threatens YOU and YOURS so terribly. When it boils down to it, it really doesn't.

We could go into a whole other debate, which I won't start here - about how it really DOESN'T affect you - it just keeps us out of the legal systems so Christian America doesn't have to recognize us as an equal people - but out of being curious, I'd really like to know.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
I think Pres. Bush is definitely making a place for himself in the history books. Hopefully it will just be a 4yr one.


Fair play!
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Being gay is not the same as being black or white or some other race. Being gay is a lifestyle choice.




I really HATE it when people use this in debates - especially when it's straight people trying to accomodate for what they fear or don't understand. Being OUT and gay is a lifestyle choice - the rest, is NOT KNOWN.

Dave, until you live a homosexual lifestyle, until you actually walk in a homosexual's shoes (and not just assume what it must be like), you can NOT state this as a fact, or even something you have any knowledge of. It is the exact same as saying you know what it is to be Chinese, or Black, or whatever - because unless we actually are, we simply don't, and can't.

Continue your debate, I welcome that - but don't throw out assumptions as facts.

No matter what scientific topics you pull up in favor of choice and lifestyle, I can challenge those with just as many of genetics.

The truth is that the answer is still unknown.

What I want to know is, just exactly *how* does allowing two homosexuals to marry (or drug addicts, as you like to use that so much) devalue YOUR wedding vows, or as a heterosexual male, anything you do? What difference does it make, to YOU, exactly? How does it threaten YOU? Nothing is being taken from YOU. I don't understand exactly why two people who love each other threatens YOU and YOURS so terribly. When it boils down to it, it really doesn't.

We could go into a whole other debate, which I won't start here - about how it really DOESN'T affect you - it just keeps us out of the legal systems so Christian America doesn't have to recognize us as an equal people - but out of being curious, I'd really like to know.





no actually Dave is right.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
KrazyXXX DJ,

Your post indicates that you believe YOUR beliefs are the only ones that matter, and that anyone who disagrees with you has the right to be over-run by the agenda you advocate.
If only these ignorant Christians would just shut up and stand aside, you seem to say. Then we (gays) would have our freedom.
Well gee whiz, I don't know what it's like to be a gay man.

Well, you don't know what it's like to be a conservative white heterosexual male, surrounded by liberals who feel like white conservatives are the only ones in America who aren't entitled to opinion or protection from discrimination. And feel it's their right to constantly rip partisanly on conservative white America, but we aren't even allowed the right to have an opinion or respond.



We all have to face the heat of what we are. And while you like to piss and moan about what a hard road you have to walk as a gay man, the truth is, your experience is probably not much different than my own.
So get off your frickin' white stallion already.

As I just said in my previous post, marriage is sacred to many people, not just Christians. Many cultures, many other religions, and many who are not even religious, ALL recognize marriage as one man/one woman, and don't want that definition changed.
And many recognize "gay marriage" as an oxymoron and a perversion.
It's like changing the word for "grandma" to "dog shit".

Or the word "democracy" to "Rome, 400 A.D."

And I've consistently made this point repeatedly for 30 pages now, and gays like yourself consistently duck, weave, blunt, bypass, and plug your ears and hum, to avoid acknowledging that allowing gay marriage does affect me and my beliefs. It undermines my religious freedom to practice my Christian faith as it truly exists, and gay marriage would be the next step toward chipping away at that freedom, and working toward its complete annihilation in American culture and law.
( And whether you like it or not, religious freedom is the foundation on which American government was formed, and was intended to preserve. Specifically, the freedom to practice Christianity in its Biblical form, not in the form imposed on Europe by the Anglican and Catholic churches. )

As I just said in my previous post, legalizing gay marriage would not be the end of the gay rights issue, it's just the next step toward outlawing the practice of Christianity, as you and liberal schmucks like you slowly eradicate MY rights.

All you care about is your rights. You guys give idealistic lip-service to the rights of all people, but you don't give a damn about my rights being trampled on, so long as you get to do what you want.
And you know damned well what the counter-argument is to the nonsense you're spewing. The truth is, you just don't want to hear it.

But the point of gay/liberal rights snuffing out conservative traditions and values, and raising the level of decadence, permissiveness and chaos in our culture has been abundantly been made here, by myself and others.

You can plug your ears and resume humming now.


--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."


Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well, you don't know what it's like to be a conservative white heterosexual male, surrounded by liberals who feel like white conservatives are the only ones in America who aren't entitled to opinion or protection from discrimination.




This is a decidedly different picture than the one you paint in your other posts, where you suggest that it's not just you that opposes gay marriage, but the whole world. Everybody. There, you're the many, being undermined by the few. Now, you're the few, being oppressed by the many.

Which is it?


MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well, you don't know what it's like to be a conservative white heterosexual male, surrounded by liberals who feel like white conservatives are the only ones in America who aren't entitled to opinion or protection from discrimination.




This is a decidedly different picture than the one you paint in your other posts, where you suggest that it's not just you that opposes gay marriage, but the whole world. Everybody. There, you're the many, being undermined by the few. Now, you're the few, being oppressed by the many.

Which is it?




Your tone is condescending, but I'll roll with it.

I fail to see the inconsistency in my position that you allege. And I resent being accused of being inconsistent. I'm not.

There are only three nations on Earth that have legalized gay marriage (with an aggressive lobby in the U.S. attempting to make it the fourth).
The rest of the world does oppose gay marriage.

Within the U.S., I think gays are about 2% of the population, according to most official estimates I see. And liberals are roughly 50% of the population (gays contained within that 50%). But liberals in the media and courts are trying to unfairly leverage out conservative institutions and public thought, through unfair rulings and biased propaganda.
As I've quoted often, the media are statistically over 80% liberal. And while the news media is less than 20% conservative, the U.S. population is generally conservative by a much larger percentage.
But new generations growing up with liberal news and entertainment have increasingly cynical and warped values, with each new generation. The hegemonic influence of a liberal minority is slowly warping the majority.

Looking at American culture from a racial/ethnic perspective, white/European Americans are and have long been the majority in the U.S., but that is projected to decine to a minority of 43% or so by the year 2040, as non-European immigration, and domestic non-European birth rates increase at a faster rate than domestic white/European Americans (which are at pretty much zero growth rate, pretty much just having two children per family).

So there are two ways in which America is rapidly changing, like at no time in its history:

There is the racial perspective, of a declining European percentage.

And there is the cultural perspective, of liberals attempting to aggressively leverage out conservative institutions.

I think my area in Florida is changing both racially and culturally, at a much faster rate than the rest of the nation.
While I speak Spanish, I resent having to select English when I call my bank or use my ATM.

As I've detailed elsewhere, on the one hand, I find it exciting to meet so many people from so many places. But at the same time, I find it a bit threatening, that immigration and foreign presence in the U.S. has become so overwhelming. I would like to see immigration reduced by at least half, to allow recent immigrants to assimilate into American culture.

But I don't find the racial change in America nearly as threatening as the cultural change: the rise of gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay/liberal undermining of the values that I grew up with.
And swing clubs, rampant escort services and prostitution, and the number of people I've met personally who engage in group sex, promiscuity and drugs. And psychics, and gambling casinos, body piercing, tattoos...

This is not my fricking America.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
Offline
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
KrazyXXX DJ,

Your post indicates that you believe YOUR beliefs are the only ones that matter, and that anyone who disagrees with you has the right to be overrun by the agenda you advocate.





There you made your first assumption on my post. I never said my beliefs are the only ones that matter -- but my rights? Should be equal to yours at this point and are not.
When something is being held from me that is given to you and I can't have it just because of your beliefs, yes, I'll get a little testy.

Infringing on rights and infringing on beliefs are TWO different things.


Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well gee whiz, I don't know what it's like to be a gay man.




That's the only fact I found in your post. And because of this, you cannot state that "homosexuality is a choice" as a fact because it is something you perceive to be true.



Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:





Gee, thanks for that. Notice I refrained from the language and lewd insults in my post to you. Here's my reply:




Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
We all have to face the heat of what we are. And while you like to piss and moan about what a hard road you have to walk as a gay man, the truth is, your experience is probably not much different than my own.
So get off your frickin' white stallion already.





See, I never belittled your experience. Maybe your beliefs, but not your experience. I'm not on a white stallion. I'm not trying to withhold anything from you. But you're withholding something from me, just because your belief says I shouldn't have it. My experience IS different from yours, because at this point in time, you -- as an American - are granted a right I am NOT - as an American. That doesn't sit well with me. And if me pursuing a right that you have bothers you, that's tough shit. No one is taking anything from you in my pursuit of it.




Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And I've consistently made this point repeatedly for 30 pages now, and gays like yourself consistently duck, weave, blunt, bypass, and plug your ears and hum, to avoid acknowledging that allowing gay marriage does affect me and my beliefs. It undermines my religious freedom to practice my Christian faith as it truly exists, and gay marriage would be the next step toward chipping away at that freedom, and working toward its complete annihilation in American culture and law.





It seems you're the one here with his ears plugged.
I'm not the one ducking and weaving here. I asked you HOW, in your day-to-day life, does it affect you? What burden does two men who love each other place upon YOU? I still didn't get an answer.


It undermines your freedom? HOW?




It does NOT undermine your freedom (your RIGHT) to practice your religion as it now exists. That has got to be one of the most useless statements I have heard out of you yet. How many marriages dissolved this last week because of the gay marriages in California? NONE.

*NO ONE is asking that you give up your belief in God.

*NO ONE is asking that you participate in a homosexual marriage.

*NO ONE is asking that you lower your standards of YOUR marriage. How is MY marriage going to diminish YOURS? That makes NO fucking sense.

*NO ONE is trying to snuff out your religion, or freedom to practice that religion. ON THE OTHER HAND - YOUR religion is constantly imposing it's beliefs onto ME, through government. How is that fair? How is that equal? You constantly pit homosexuality into the same categories as pedophilia, drug addiction, thievery, etc., based on your BELIEF. For a religion so full of "thou shall not judge" - full of it!


You keep making the statement that no one is considering YOUR rights, but as far as I can see here, your rights haven't been trampled on at ALL. You keep coming at the issue like someone is trying to run you over, to take something from you - when NO ONE is! I could care less what you think of me, and vice versa, when we are on EQUAL ground.


Some things in American culture NEED chipping-away at.

The majority of people didn't want inter-racial marriages. The majority of people didn't want women to vote. The majority of people didn't want to end slavery. The rights of people should not and must not be held hostage to the whim of the people. The issue of civil rights is an absolute.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
( And whether you like it or not, religious freedom is the foundation on which American government was formed, and was intended to preserve. Specifically, the freedom to practice Christianity in its Biblical form, not in the form imposed on Europe by the Anglican and Catholic churches. )





Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion. However, I am denied my right because of an imposing Christian belief - How's that for ducking and dodging?




Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I just said in my previous post, legalizing gay marriage would not be the end of the gay rights issue, it's just the next step toward outlawing the practice of Christianity, as you and liberal schmucks like you slowly eradicate MY rights.





Aha! Finally, we're getting to the bottom of things. Fear.
We're not out to get your religion, believe it or not. You are allowed to practice any belief you want - as long as it does not impose on others!

No one is trying to snuff out Christianity or rid you of any right. We don't want you to remove Christianity from your life or Jesus from your heart. We just want you to pick it up and put it back into your own home. Stop putting it in everyone's faces as the ONLY truth. If I wanted or chose to worship some cow Goddess - THAT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. As long as I didn't do it in your house, it doesn't INFRINGE on any right you have. If Jesus lives in your yard - keep him there, and out of mine. THAT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.


Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
All you care about is your rights. You guys give idealistic lip-service to the rights of all people, but you don't give a damn about my rights being trampled on, so long as you get to do what you want.




Nothing could be further from the truth. If the roles were reveresed and it were CHRISTIANS who weren't allowed to marry, us liberals would have a lot to say about THAT, too. I would have a problem if you and I were born of the same earth yet you were held in lower regard because you didn't think the same as I.

Us liberal schmucks, we're less about the snuffing these days and more into fairness for EVERYONE. This here ain't Puritan Americana anymore, pahdna.



Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

But the point of gay/liberal rights snuffing out conservative traditions and values, and raising the level of decadence, permissiveness and chaos in our culture has been abundantly been made here, by myself and others.




No harmful offense meant, Dave, because I don't know you. But the world IS changing, whether YOU like it or not. If your belief helps you sleep better at night, then I am all the more for it. I could go into depth about how *I* believe in God, as well - the CHRISTIAN God - but how I see the Bible as flawed as it was written by man - afraid of what they did not understand- and men are known for power - and corruption - and changing things to their liking. For all the educated world knows, Jesus was just another Koresh. A delusional who had a strong power of persuasion. I don't believe that. But I do not believe that God put homosexuals on this earth to live unhappily, either.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
Dave TWB said: "All you care about is your rights. You guys give idealistic lip-service to the rights of all people, but you don't give a damn about my rights being trampled on, so long as you get to do what you want. "

We gay/bi people do care about your rights. We just want the same civil liberties you have. I thought this was America...


We all wear a green carnation.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
And that's what this is all about. Those in favor of gay marriages are seeking to broaden the definition of marriage so they do have protected rights, which under current conditions don't exist. Those opposed to it are seeking to maintain the current definition of marriage because they feel it would be eroded by what is seen as a very fundamental alteration. That's my most objective assessment of the situation.

I honestly don't know what it's like to walk in a homosexual's shoes. I was born a drug baby in a wildly dysfuctional family, but then adopted by a minister and his wife - who happen to be conservative (often I feel too conservative) - and I have never been abused or neglected. I believe I have found a spiritual path that gives me meaning, even though I often fall short of what I ought to be and don't represent my faith very well sometimes. I am happy with the life I have, and even though there are things that aren't perfect, I accept both the good and the bad.

Not everyone is as fortunate. I don't - I know I shouldn't - expect everyone to make the choices I have made for that very reason. I've said before that in all honesty I don't condone the homosexual lifestyle. But I honestly do care about people - all people - and I am a firm believer that what you do does not determine who you are. I can't say I would cast a vote to support altering the definition of marriage. But I have often demonstrated wherever I am that I can befriend people of other lifestyles, give them care and attention regardless of what I feel about what they do, and be there for them because of who they are, not what they do.

That's just the way I personally feel about all this. I'm sorry if this is offensive to any of you, but I can't in good conscience abandon what I believe. I honestly would not cast a vote supporting gay marriage, but neither will I ever willfully persecute gays or treat them hatefully. The essence of Christianity is to love everyone; NOT by glossing over what they do, but by doing what Jesus did - demonstrating in words and actions the love of God and its ability to change lives in all circumstances.

Just my thoughts.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
Offline
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
Quote:

Well, you don't know what it's like to be a conservative white heterosexual male, surrounded by liberals who feel like white conservatives are the only ones in America who aren't entitled to opinion or protection from discrimination. And feel it's their right to constantly rip partisanly on conservative white America, but we aren't even allowed the right to have an opinion or respond.




Funny, seems like that's what you are doing right now.
So often in these debates you accuse those who disagree with as squashing your right to express yourself, when they are only doing exactly the same as you: argueing their side.

Disagreeing with you and fighting their quarter is doing fuck all squared to your right to free speech.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There are only three nations on Earth that have legalized gay marriage (with an aggressive lobby in the U.S. attempting to make it the fourth).




The three countries are The Netherlands, Belgium and Canada, right? Those are the 3 I know of.

Anyway, yes, as of today there are only three countries that have passed gay marriage-bills, but all three were passed in the last few years, and many more are in the process of discussing it. That would suggest that support for gay marriage is growing.

In another five years, the number of countries that allow it may very well double...or even triple.

Quote:

But new generations growing up with liberal news and entertainment have increasingly cynical and warped values, with each new generation. The hegemonic influence of a liberal minority is slowly warping the majority.




I guess that's one way of looking at it. I think this is a recent historical trend only, though, and that, objectively, when you examine any era ripe with social change, each side tends to view the other as promoting "warped" values.

I will agree that the media takes a liberal stance on most social issues(yet still claims to be an unbiased, nonpartisan organization), but what I'm curious about is....why? How did this come about in the first place?

Quote:

This is not my fricking America.




The world is what you make of it.


MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
Offline
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
If you wanna know how the populace feels, we could always take an anonymous poll in here...




Sadly, like every poll here, it would just be a contest to see who had the most alternate ID's.




So what's the problem?

Are you saying the system is flawed?!


And that's terrible.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
KrazyXXX DJ,

Your post indicates that you believe YOUR beliefs are the only ones that matter, and that anyone who disagrees with you has the right to be overrun by the agenda you advocate.





There you made your first assumption on my post. I never said my beliefs are the only ones that matter -- but my rights? Should be equal to yours at this point and are not.
When something is being held from me that is given to you and I can't have it just because of your beliefs, yes, I'll get a little testy.

Infringing on rights and infringing on beliefs are TWO different things.




I didn't assume anything. You outright said it.
Forgive me, but I just want to puke every time I see the "You can never know what it's like to be [ fill in the minority group whining about discrimination ]."

Not to single out your use of that argument, but just in general, every time I see it used. I find it a very unproductive and alienating stance.

What arrogance, to make a statement like that (again, the statement in general, not you personally).

In the history of the world, EVERY racial group has been oppressed, conquered or enslaved by another group.
So I wish we could dispense forever with that "You'll never know what it's like ..." crap.


You came on strong to me in your opening post, and then you were surprised that I responded in kind. But as long as this doesn't move into an overly personal exchange, I'm content to discuss the issue. But if you unleash that kind of emotionally charged victim-culture "You can never know what it's like to walk in my shoes..." baloney, I will, and have, identified that rhetoric for the bullcrap that it is.


Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Well gee whiz, I don't know what it's like to be a gay man.




That's the only fact I found in your post. And because of this, you cannot state that "homosexuality is a choice" as a fact because it is something you perceive to be true.




That's your opinion, which you're entitled to.

I merely stated my own counter-argument on the subject, one shared by the 60 to 65% of the population (in polls, at the very least) that does not want gay marriage to exist.

You again seem to say that because I don't advocate gay marriage or the gay lifestyle, that my opinion is invalid, and that I don't have the right to say that homosexuality is a choice.
Well too fricking bad.
You are indoctrinated in a belief-system that says homosexuality is inborn, and that you have no control over it.

But you cannot disprove what I, and roughly 60% (at least) of the nation sees, that homosexuality is a choice. And you have no right to tell me I can't say that.

There is no scientific proof to back your allegation that homosexuality is inborn, or to disprove what I've said: that homosexuality is a choice.
As I documented, there are still a number of psychologists who treat homosexuality as a treatable mental disorder, and think it is a mistake and a disservice to homosexuals who need treatment, to NOT treat homosexuality as a treatable disorder, as it was until 1973. (see pages 22 to 24 of this topic).

My "refreshing can of... S T F U !" image was a combination of responding to your telling me I don't have the right to say what I said, and trying to do so with a bit of humor. That's one of several graphics I've found that I've been dying to post, and I kind of squeezed it in.
But my apologies, I think it was perhaps more offensive to you than I intended, and the humor of it was lost in the seriousness of out discussion. Maybe you'd find it funnier outside the context of our discussion.

Some other graphics I've been dying to use, that are irrelevant to our discussion (and hopefully provide some comedy relief in their juvenile tongue-in-cheek-ness) :







http://store3.yimg.com/I/coverprice_1726_24334969

These are not intended as slurs to gays, and some of these I've used in discussions with Whomod and others, in other topics (who are not gay). I don't believe in racial or ethnic slurs, and I wouldn't use them in that context. They're more just playful insults I'd use in, say, the OFF-TOPIC/OFFENSIVE POSTS section, as a playful banter, and not in a vicious context.
Just want to make that clear.

But in the context of this discussion, I fully deserved the giant bird you fired back at me. My apologies, the "can of S T F U" graphic was innappropriately placed in this more serious discussion.




Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
We all have to face the heat of what we are. And while you like to piss and moan about what a hard road you have to walk as a gay man, the truth is, your experience is probably not much different than my own.
So get off your frickin' white stallion already.





See, I never belittled your experience. Maybe your beliefs, but not your experience. I'm not on a white stallion. I'm not trying to withhold anything from you. But you're withholding something from me, just because your belief says I shouldn't have it. My experience IS different from yours, because at this point in time, you -- as an American - are granted a right I am NOT - as an American. That doesn't sit well with me. And if me pursuing a right that you have bothers you, that's tough shit. No one is taking anything from you in my pursuit of it.




Y'know, on re-reading my own comment here, I could have phrased what I said a bit more delicately, but again I responded harshly to some harsh statements of yours. I wish I'd said it more gently, but the point is made, either way.

I don't think I'm belittling your experience. Just the way it was expressed in "you can't ever know what it's like..." terms. A context that annoys me, coming from any minority.
And over the course of this very long topic, I've said several times that I'm not un-sympathetic to the difficulties of having gay desires or living the gay lifestyle.
But we all have our crosses to bear, in one form or another. The advantagers and the disadvantages. As I said earlier, white gay men have one of the highest per-capita incomes of any ethnic group. And I have no doubt there are disadvantages in some environments, as well as acceptance in others.
Maybe gays face discrimination in Topeka, Kansas or DeMoines, Iowa.
But they certainly don't in places like L.A., San Francisco, New York City, or in South Florida where I live, where there is an extremely large, visible and active gay culture. And the fact that I and others aren't fans of the gay lifestyle doesn't change their ability to enjoy that lifestyle one bit.



Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And I've consistently made this point repeatedly for 30 pages now, and gays like yourself consistently duck, weave, blunt, bypass, and plug your ears and hum, to avoid acknowledging that allowing gay marriage does affect me and my beliefs. It undermines my religious freedom to practice my Christian faith as it truly exists, and gay marriage would be the next step toward chipping away at that freedom, and working toward its complete annihilation in American culture and law.





It seems you're the one here with his ears plugged.
I'm not the one ducking and weaving here. I asked you HOW, in your day-to-day life, does it affect you? What burden does two men who love each other place upon YOU? I still didn't get an answer.


It undermines your freedom? HOW?




It does NOT undermine your freedom (your RIGHT) to practice your religion as it now exists. That has got to be one of the most useless statements I have heard out of you yet. How many marriages dissolved this last week because of the gay marriages in California? NONE.

*NO ONE is asking that you give up your belief in God.

*NO ONE is asking that you participate in a homosexual marriage.

*NO ONE is asking that you lower your standards of YOUR marriage. How is MY marriage going to diminish YOURS? That makes NO fucking sense.

*NO ONE is trying to snuff out your religion, or freedom to practice that religion. ON THE OTHER HAND - YOUR religion is constantly imposing it's beliefs onto ME, through government. How is that fair? How is that equal? You constantly pit homosexuality into the same categories as pedophilia, drug addiction, thievery, etc., based on your BELIEF. For a religion so full of "thou shall not judge" - full of it!


You keep making the statement that no one is considering YOUR rights, but as far as I can see here, your rights haven't been trampled on at ALL. You keep coming at the issue like someone is trying to run you over, to take something from you - when NO ONE is! I could care less what you think of me, and vice versa, when we are on EQUAL ground.


Some things in American culture NEED chipping-away at.

The majority of people didn't want inter-racial marriages. The majority of people didn't want women to vote. The majority of people didn't want to end slavery. The rights of people should not and must not be held hostage to the whim of the people. The issue of civil rights is an absolute.




Again, I did answer this question. And you simply didn't like the answer:

1) Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage as it exists in the Judao-Christian Bible.
Gay marriage, as it exists already in Canada, the netherlands and Belgium, as it is proposed to be legislated in the United States, outlaws reading of scripture that says homosexuality is sexual immorality and detestable (GENESIS chapter 18 and 19, Sodom and Gommorah, EXODUS, etc, as quoted earlier). So gay marriage would outlaw teaching of the Bible in its true form. Which tramples on the rights of Christians.

But marriage (Biblically) is a sacred bond between one man/one woman, bound in a ceremony before God.
Marriage is (Biblically) a physical bond, as well as a symbol of purity, loyalty and faith.
The Bible is clear in its perspective of homosexuality, which from Genesis 18-19 forward (Sodom and Gommorah) is described as fornication, abberration, and detestable in the eyes of God. And a precursor of a civilization's destruction and collapse.

Now, in a democratic society, you don't have to believe that. But you also don't have the right to tell me how to practice Christianity, and pass laws that force me and other Christians to ignore what the Bible says about marriage, homoosexuality and other key Biblical/spiritual concepts.
And if the State or Federal government endorses gay marriage, the State takes sides against Judao-Christian faith, and would say that the Bible is wrong, and again, would be a first step toward banning public reading of these and other verses from the Bible.
And again, stomping on my ability to practice my religion.

It would also force me to raise my children in an environment that forces the acceptance of gay marriage, where my children are exposed from birth to other children raised by gay "married" couples, and thus would make it extremely difficult to raise my children in an environment that would not corrupt the Biblical definition of marriage I would be trying to teach my children.

As I said, there is an alternative:
gay civil union, which would allow gays all spousal medical, insurance and legal benefits, WITHOUT corrupting the definition of marriage. Spousal benefits in a secular context, that doesn't re-define marriage, and thus avoids corrupting/undermining the sacred Biblical definition of marriage.

But again, at this point I hesitate in conceding any further recognition for gay rights, because it wouldn't end with civil union, gays would just use this as a stepping stone, toward steamrolling marriage as well, and undermining my religious freedom.

Again, gays already have the rights to live as gays, work as gays, and receive benefits as gays, without proposed gay marriage legislation that would deprive Christians of their right to peacefully practice their religion without harassment.




2) Gay marriage is not the end result, it is the FIRST STEP toward eroding and wiping out Christian freedom of religion
As I said, if gays push through all the changes they want, they will eradicate the ability to even quote the Bible regarding homosexuality and other related issues in a public forum.
They would label public speaking of these verses as a "hate crime".

Which is part of a larger battle the A.C.L.U. and other secularist groups are pushing, to wipe every last vestige of Judao-Christian biblical concepts from our culture and government.

Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
( And whether you like it or not, religious freedom is the foundation on which American government was formed, and was intended to preserve. Specifically, the freedom to practice Christianity in its Biblical form, not in the form imposed on Europe by the Anglican and Catholic churches. )





Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion. However, I am denied my right because of an imposing Christian belief - How's that for ducking and dodging?




To drive every last vestige of Bible reference from a government that was founded on Christian principles (as is being attempted by the A.C.L.U., gays and other secularists) would be a travesty that defies what founded our democracy in the first place.

Yes, you have the right to freedom FROM religion. That is consistent with the Biblical concept of free will, where one has the right to make an informed choice, whether or not to choose Christian faith.

But stacking the deck and driving every last reference to the Bible and biblical concepts from government and public thought is NOT what the signers of the Constitution and Declaration had in mind.


Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I just said in my previous post, legalizing gay marriage would not be the end of the gay rights issue, it's just the next step toward outlawing the practice of Christianity, as you and liberal schmucks like you slowly eradicate MY rights.





Aha! Finally, we're getting to the bottom of things. Fear.
We're not out to get your religion, believe it or not. You are allowed to practice any belief you want - as long as it does not impose on others!

No one is trying to snuff out Christianity or rid you of any right. We don't want you to remove Christianity from your life or Jesus from your heart. We just want you to pick it up and put it back into your own home. Stop putting it in everyone's faces as the ONLY truth. If I wanted or chose to worship some cow Goddess - THAT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. As long as I didn't do it in your house, it doesn't INFRINGE on any right you have. If Jesus lives in your yard - keep him there, and out of mine. THAT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.




Again, my quoted comments could have made the same point more gently, but I was responding to some pretty harsh rhetoric of yours.

It is not "Fear", it's reality, based on what gay activists have said is their ultimate goal.
Again, if all gays want is equal spousal rights, civil union would achieve that.
But in point of fact, the gay activist goal is to re-define the millenia-old concept of marriage itself, and undermine the literal and symbolic concepts that expand from marriage as defined in the Bible.

Whether or not you as one gay man agree with that gay agenda, THAT is where the gay activist agenda is going.

The objective of gay pressure on this issue is to maliciously undermine the Christian concept of marriage.
And urinate on the whole concept of Christian faith.

Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
All you care about is your rights. You guys give idealistic lip-service to the rights of all people, but you don't give a damn about my rights being trampled on, so long as you get to do what you want.




Nothing could be further from the truth. If the roles were reversed and it were CHRISTIANS who weren't allowed to marry, us liberals would have a lot to say about THAT, too. I would have a problem if you and I were born of the same earth yet you were held in lower regard because you didn't think the same as I.

Us liberal schmucks, we're less about the snuffing these days and more into fairness for EVERYONE. This here ain't Puritan Americana anymore, pahdna.




That is a selective omission of the facts. Christian faith, while the dominant religion of the U.S., is undermined every day, and no one but Christian advocacy groups pushes to legally preserve the religious freedoms our founding fathers intended (as is abundantly evident in their writings), that are being deliberately eroded by secularists.

Secularists are pushing to wipe away any Biblical reference from public institutions, and insure that, through liberal bias, a new generation is only subjected to a secularist perspective, insuring that a new generation is overwhelmingly secularist, and that Christianity is further marginalized through further deprivation of public representation in our culture.

And again, we see the fruit of that secularization:
Rampant teenage pregnancy, rampant drug use, group sex, kids shooting kids, kids shooting their parents, kids shooting teachers, gang violence, a huge spike in violent teenage crime, and on and on.

I think we were better off with the Ten Commandments and other Biblical concepts, and prayer, in our schools.


Quote:

KrazyXXXDJ said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

But the point of gay/liberal rights snuffing out conservative traditions and values, and raising the level of decadence, permissiveness and chaos in our culture has been abundantly been made here, by myself and others.




No harmful offense meant, Dave, because I don't know you. But the world IS changing, whether YOU like it or not.

If your belief helps you sleep better at night, then I am all the more for it. I could go into depth about how *I* believe in God, as well - the CHRISTIAN God - but how I see the Bible as flawed as it was written by man - afraid of what they did not understand- and men are known for power - and corruption - and changing things to their liking. For all the educated world knows, Jesus was just another Koresh. A delusional who had a strong power of persuasion. I don't believe that. But I do not believe that God put homosexuals on this earth to live unhappily, either.




I understand your suspicion about the origins of the Bible, which is ostensibly written by men.

I'd suggest the book He Walked Among Us: Evidence For the Historical Jesus, by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, for some insight on that.
It looks at not only the Bible, but also extra-biblical evidence, asking not just what his followers said, but also what did his enemies say, including the Rabbi writings of his time, and Roman historians of the time, as well as early writings of the Christian church leaders as Christianity spread after the death and resurrection of Christ.

The new testament says "all scripture is God-breathed", meaning that despite it being written by men, these writings are inspired directly by God.
And the consistent message from the many writers of the Bible's books over a 1500-year period (beginning with Moses in 1400 B.C., and concluding with the books and letters of the New Testament around 100 A.D.), with writers who ranged from uneducated nomadic shepherds to kings and scholars and prophets, rabbis, fishermen and (Luke) a physician, through many eras and many kings and empires and conquest.
And yet through all these vastly different political periods and writers, the Bible has a remarkably consistent theme of mercy and redemption, and of a God who loves his creations, and despite their flaws, works for their greater good and salvation.

There are many elements in the Bible, from its thematic consistency and structure, to fulfillment of prophecy, prophecy that continues to be fulfilled even into the modern era, that indicate a supernatural hand beyond the ability of the men who wrote the Bible's 66 books.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
300+ posts
Offline
300+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 342
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Not to single out your use of that argument, but just in general, every time I see it used. I find it a very unproductive and alienating stance.

What arrogance, to make a statement like that (again, the statement in general, not you personally).

In the history of the world, EVERY racial group has been oppressed, conquered or enslaved by another group.
So I wish we could dispense forever with that "You'll never know what it's like ..." crap.





It is only a teaspoon of the same arrogance that those of us not in the Christian majority must put up with EVERY day. Not just homosexuals - this includes those of different religion and immigrant origin. We are constantly having Christian belief shoved in our face, as obviously the ONLY and the RIGHT way, when it is NOT, and when that is not what this country is about.


Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
You again seem to say that because I don't advocate gay marriage or the gay lifestyle, that my opinion is invalid, and that I don't have the right to say that homosexuality is a choice.
Well too fricking bad.






This was my original problem with your post, and I still back what I said.

You have the right to say and believe whatever you want, but you don't have the right to toss it around as factual information when it is NOT. What is fact is that the nature of homosexuality is still unknown. Your majority sticks to the answer of choice because it is safe and makes homosexuality easy to dismiss, but the fact is that your majority has no answer based on fact or hard evidence.

This is the same majority that believes in a God that might not even exist - that bases so much in faith, it has forgotten what fact and hard evidence is. Since the majority believes it, it MUST be true? ANNKH.



Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
You are indoctrinated in a belief-system that says homosexuality is inborn, and that you have no control over it.

But you cannot disprove what I, and roughly 60% of the nation sees, that homosexuality is a choice. And you have no right to tell me I can't say that.





When you say it like THAT - when homosexuality as a choice is what 60% (only a LITTLE over half) of what the nation SEES, that is a completely different statement than saying homosexuality as a choice is what the nation KNOWS. That is the point I'm arguing.


Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There is no scientific proof to back your allegation that homosexuality is inborn, or to disprove what I've said: that homosexuality is a choice.





But, oh yes, there is just as much scientific proof that favors genetics as there is that favors choice. No, at this point, I can not prove my allegation, but neither can you prove yours. Because, like I said, the answer is unknown. There is no answer that is a fact.

We can sit here and exchange links all day, if you wish.




Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But in the context of this discussion, I fully deserved the giant bird you fired back at me. My apologies, the "can of S T F U" graphic was innappropriately placed in this more serious discussion.




And my apologies, as well, for the bird. Maybe I *am* oversensative sometimes on the issue - a result of living in the crosshair of the majority (smack-dead in the Biblebelt).






Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

Again, I did answer this question. And you simply didn't like the answer:

1) Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage as it exists in the Judao-Christian Bible. Marriage is a sacred bond between one man/one woman, bound in a ceremony before God.
Marriage is (Biblically) a physical bond, as well as a symbol of purity, loyalty and faith. The Bible is also clear in its perspective of homosexuality, which from Genesis 18-19 forward (Sodom and Gommorah) is described as fornication, abberration, and detestable in the eyes of God. And a precursor of a civilization's destruction and collapse.

Now, in a democratic society, you don't have to believe that. But you also don't have the right to tell me how to practice Christianity, and pass laws that force me and other Christians to ignore what the Bible says about marriage, homoosexuality and other key Biblical/spiritual concepts.
And if the State or Federal government endorses gay marriage, the State takes sides against Judao-Christian faith, and would say that the Bible is wrong, and again, would be a first step toward banning public reading of these and other verses from the Bible.
And again, stomping on my ability to practice my religion.






Ok....I can see that. But that's a big stretch to "infringing on your rights" and delves into a LOT of the separation of church and state. I'm almost suspicious that may be an excuse that beats around the real issue, but I'll trust your statement and go with it anyway.

So what it boils down to here, is a matter of inconvenience, and who's is worse.

At this point, I can see where you are coming from. However, the options must be weighed - denying a minority what they perceive to be a right as an American, or asking the majority to adjust to a right that they don't see as a right in the first place because they are Christian.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
As I said, there is an alternative: gay civil union, which would allow gays all spousal medical, insurance and legal benefits, WITHOUT corrupting the definition of marriage. Spousal benefits in a secular context, that doesn't re-define marriage, and thus avoids corrupting/undermining the sacred Biblical definition of marriage.




And you know what, I'll even give an inch here. Because to many of us, that is what this is about. Not all of us are activists who want to change your definition of marriage because of the bonds of love- I personally don't want your word (marriage). I want equal recognition in government - on paper and in the books- denying me nothing that every other man has. Any and all rights, with the liberties and benefits therein.


Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But again, at this point I hesitate in conceding any further recognition for gay rights, because it wouldn't end with civil union, gays would just use this as a stepping stone, toward steamrolling marriage as well, and undermining my religious freedom.

2) Gay marriage is not the end result, it is the FIRST STEP toward eroding and wiping out Christian freedom of religion
As I said, if gays push through all the changes they want, they will eradicate the ability to even quote the Bible regarding homosexuality and other related issues in a public forum.
They would label public speaking of these verses as a "hate crime".

Which is part of a larger battle the A.C.L.U. and other secularist groups are pushing, to wipe every last vestige of Judao-Christian biblical concepts from out culture and government.





As I doubt it would ever go that far, it's possible. We now live in a country where everyone and all are welcomed. You can blame it on liberals of the past, and that much is true. Mistakes of the past, perhaps. I nor this generation of homosexuals opened the door to being PC.
But you cannot create a government for all men, turn around and make exceptions for some, and then withhold those exceptions from others. That kind of government will fail. So, they must, in some way or the other, adjust. If it means going back and changing the basic foundation that creates a more fair government for everyone, then sorry, I'm for it, but I also do not view homosexuals in the same light you do. The way I see it: Different is NOT Equal. The CONSTITUTION as it now reads, says that everyone is to be treated equal. You cannot amend the Constitution to contradict itself.



Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
To drive every last vestige of Bible reference from a government that was founded on Christian principles (as is being attempted by the A.C.L.U., gays and other secularists) would be a travesty that defies what founded our democracy in the first place.

Yes, you have the right to freedom FROM religion. That is consistent with the Biblical concept of free will, where one has the right to make an informed choice, whether or not to choose Christian faith.

But stacking the deck and drivin every last reference to the Bible and biblical concepts from government and public thought is NOT what the signers of the Constitution and Declaration had in mind.





As I said above, if adjusting to serve ALL the people fairly involves removing antiquated principles, and further marginalizing Christiany in governemnt, then it is possible that it cannot be avoided if it causes discomfort to the minority. The world is changing - HAS changed - continues to change - since the days the Constitution was drafted. The original Constitution would not work in today's society.


Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
The goal of gay pressure on this issue is to maliciously undermine the Christian concept of marriage.
And urinate on the whole concept of Christian faith.





That's how you see it. Another angle on it is pursuing the same freedoms every man and woman is granted in this country - not an attack on Christianity itself, but an attack on the government to adjust and serve the minority as well. It just so happens that Christianity is a major factor in this, and unwilling to yield in favor to fairness to everyone. You do not have to be Christian to know what is right or wrong, or to observe discrimination.



Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I think we were better off the Ten Commandments and other Biblical concepts, and prayer, in our schools.






I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, as they personally do not call me out in front of God. Those commandments do not place me in the same category as drug addicts and thieves.

In fact, I think they are good mold - basic, moral code to live by. Right and wrong, plain as night and day. Prayer is a different issue - because again, not everyone that attends school is Christian. You have to draw the line at imposing on the minority somewhere. This is stepping on the freedom of religion of those who are not Christian.




Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

The new testament says "all scripture is God-breathed", meaning that despite it being written by men, these writings are inspired directly by God.





But that's another point of mine. Anyone with a majority of followers can say they received word from a higher power, and depending on the trust level, people will believe it.

Looking at that angle, the whole principle of Christian faith is the possible result of a mere powerful cult, and nothing more.

I do not believe that, but it is possible. And it is also possible that someone a little more homophobic than most wrote his whims into the Bible. Being that I believe that homosexuality is inborn, I do not believe that God placed homosexuals on this Earth to live unhappily.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
Dave TWB said: "There is no scientific proof to back your allegation that homosexuality is inborn, or to disprove what I've said: that homosexuality is a choice.
As I documented, there are still a number of psychologists who treat homosexuality as a treatable mental disorder, and think it is a mistake and a disservice to homosexuals who need treatment, to NOT treat homosexuality as a treatable disorder, as it was until 1973. (see pages 20 and 21 of this topic)."

Dave, unless you're a psychologist, with training to back it up, please stay away from psychological arguments, OK? It only makes you look foolish (more foolish?).

That there may be some clinicians who see homosexuality as a treatable "condition" does not add any scientific weight to your assertion that homosexuality (or bisexuality) is a choice.

The research into biological, physiological, and social-learning causes or origins or homosexuality continues, at a slow pace, which is the case for investigations into human behavior.

Regarding changes in attitude toward homosexuality by the clinical profession...there were times when no one would have questioned a white man's assertion that owning and controlling a black man was a legal, moral, and healthy thing to do. Nowadays, if a man had that attitude to the point that he was trying to act on it, we'd be insisting that he needed at some kind of psychological/psychiatric intervention.

The medical and psychological community's understanding of human health and behavior has evolved over the centuries. We no longer believe spirits make people sick. We may soon have evidence to say that people don't choose to be gay, too.

I mean, seriously, given the kind of invective you toss about, who'd WANT to be gay?

Jim


We all wear a green carnation.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
"1) Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage as it exists in the Judao-Christian Bible. Marriage is a sacred bond between one man/one woman, bound in a ceremony before God."

This is not the United States of Jesus or the United States of Yahweh.

Jim


We all wear a green carnation.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
In response to the stuff about people being born gay:

I don't have my source right now, but I noticed in an online article that a large majority of homosexuals who went into a type of rehab program were actually rehabilitated. There were other documents that went over the patients' lifestyles and how they were doing in the long run. Most had already been dating the opposite sex. This wouldn't have meant anything to me until I found out that these same homosexuals said they were BORN gay. It only takes one person to say that, then go straight and tip the balance of credibility.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
1) Gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage as it exists in the Judao-Christian Bible. Marriage is a sacred bond between one man/one woman, bound in a ceremony before God.




This is not the United States of Jesus or the United States of Yahweh.

Jim




I guess I should be sympathetic to the fact that you've clearly got some issues, and take it in stride that you find it so cathartic to vent on me.

This is the United States of America, whose form of government is clearly founded by Christians, and based on Christian principles, such as "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...".

They believed in the teaching of the Bible in schools, and only saw limitation of religion's part in government to prevent a state-imposed forcing of one form of Christianity on the nation, as occured in Europe under the Roman Catholic church, and under the Anglican church in England.

So in many ways it is the "United States of Yahweh", because without Biblical principles, our government would never have been formed by the men who strongly
believed in Yahweh, Jesus, and the Bible.



~

CrazyXXXDJ,

thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy response, I'm glad we were able to both clarify our positions, and I have a better idea where you're coming from.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Dave TWB said: "There is no scientific proof to back your allegation that homosexuality is inborn, or to disprove what I've said: that homosexuality is a choice.
As I documented, there are still a number of psychologists who treat homosexuality as a treatable mental disorder, and think it is a mistake and a disservice to homosexuals who need treatment, to NOT treat homosexuality as a treatable disorder, as it was until 1973. (see pages 22 thru 26 of this topic)."

Dave, unless you're a psychologist, with training to back it up, please stay away from psychological arguments, OK?

It only makes you look foolish (more foolish?).







I already gave a counter-response to this the first time you said this, on page 24 of this topic.
I don't have to be an attorney to know my rights under the law.

Regarding your attacks on my ability as a non-psychologist to understand the scientific counter-response to the gay argument, that says homosexuality is not a treatable illness, ( scientific evidence of the type that Pariah was just referring to, in his above post) :

I don't have to be a physician or a pharmacist to read usage directions for an anti-biotic.
I don't have to be a fisherman to know what a fish is.
And I don't have to be a historian or economist to read newspapers, books and studies of economic trends, and have a knowledge of recent history or the economy.

And similarly --and to the point-- I don't have to be a psychologist to read and understand a psychological study and its conclusions.

Your insults are not facts. And your pathological need to insult me and paint my opinion as "foolish" only makes you look foolish. And your comments go way beyond civility and reason, in what should be a simple discussion of the issue. If you could only refrain from bitterly personal remarks that only undermine your own credibility.


Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

That there may be some clinicians who see homosexuality as a treatable "condition" does not add any scientific weight to your assertion that homosexuality (or bisexuality) is a choice.




That is what you'd like people reading this to believe. Part of your holy war to slander all counter-argument to your own opinion.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:


The research into biological, physiological, and social-learning causes or origins or homosexuality continues, at a slow pace, which is the case for investigations into human behavior.




This is blather. When you have something conclusive to post, you can claim that I'm wrong.
But I'm confident that will never happen.

Many attempts by gay (and pro-gay) scientists to manufacture "proof" have been reported. The evidence doesn't exist, and I'm confident it never will.

If and until absolute proof to the contrary emerges (and it won't), the psychological studies I posted are just as valid as your own chosen beliefs on the nature of homosexuality.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:


Regarding changes in attitude toward homosexuality by the clinical profession...there were times when no one would have questioned a white man's assertion that owning and controlling a black man was a legal, moral, and healthy thing to do. Nowadays, if a man had that attitude to the point that he was trying to act on it, we'd be insisting that he needed at some kind of psychological/psychiatric intervention.

The medical and psychological community's understanding of human health and behavior has evolved over the centuries. We no longer believe spirits make people sick. We may soon have evidence to say that people don't choose to be gay, too.






That is a distorted argument.

Even black church and political groups have said they resent this comparison of denial of gay rights to discrimination against blacks.

Race is not gender-preference-lifestyle-choice.

The key word there being choice.

Being gay isn't visible on someone's face, they have to disclose their homosexuality for it to become an issue. And as I said, gays certainly don't suffer from wage discrimination.

Another distortion of the facts on your part to make an emotional, anger-inducing argument.


Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

I mean, seriously, given the kind of invective you toss about, who'd WANT to be gay?

Jim




More of your attempts to misrepresent me. I haven't launched any epithets or invectives or hate rhetoric. I've simply discussed the issue and offered counter-argument to your slanted propaganda that it's impossible to question that homosexuality is inborn.

There are certainly counter-arguments to the view held widely by gays, and I've simply offered them here, in as respectful a way as I've been permitted to.

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."


Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Offline
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,963
Likes: 29
Oops. Somehow, I had a duplicate post here, that I just omitted.

I'll inject a little comedy relief instead, some jokes told to me by a gay co-worker.

~

Why do girls run faster than boys?

Boys have stickshifts.


~

If two gay men and two lesbian women leave at the same time on a vacation, which will arrive first?

The women. They'll get there lickity split, while the men are still home packing their fudge.
.

~

And this one e-mailed to me by my best friend:




A Mississippi woodpecker and a Texas woodpecker were sitting on a tree in Mississippi. They were arguing about which state had the toughest trees to peck.
The Mississippi woodpecker said his state had a tree that no woodpecker could peck.
The Texas woodpecker challenged him, and they went to the tree, and the Texas woodpecker was able to peck it, no problem.

The Mississippi woodpecker was in awe.
The Texas woodpecker then challenged the Mississippi woodpecker to peck a tree in Texas, that no woodpecker there had been able to peck successfully.

But after both flew to Texas to find the tree, the Mississsippi woodpecker was able to peck the tree with no problem.

The two woodpeckers were now confused.
How is it that the Texas woodpecker was able to peck the Mississippi tree, and the Mississippi woodpecker was able to peck the Texas tree, when neither one was able to peck the tree in their own state?
After thinking for some time, they both came to the same conclusion:
Your pecker's always harder when you're away from home !



--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Quote:

Pariah said:
In response to the stuff about people being born gay:

I don't have my source right now, but I noticed in an online article that a large majority of homosexuals who went into a type of rehab program were actually rehabilitated. There were other documents that went over the patients' lifestyles and how they were doing in the long run. Most had already been dating the opposite sex. This wouldn't have meant anything to me until I found out that these same homosexuals said they were BORN gay. It only takes one person to say that, then go straight and tip the balance of credibility.




I'd be interested to hear where you saw this. I've never heard of a gay person being "rehabilitated"....nor have I ever heard of a program set up to rehabilitate gay people. Infact, I don't believe I've ever heard of a gay person referring to their sexual orientation as something in need of rehabilitation. Are we talking about homosexuals, or pederasts(people that are medically classified as being sick)?


MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Sigh, everytime this ventures into the science area, the antigays have the amazing power to twist facts & studies at the speed of light. Then tell us we're the ones twisting & misrepresenting. DTWB previously dismissed the VAST majority of psycholigists because evidently there was some study showing people in that profession have a higher suicide rate. Then he presents the few that share in his opinion as fact. It's not.

As for the recent study, keep in mind the people undergoing the therapy were people who desperately didn't want to be gay. Plus it only followed them for so long. (I think a 6 months to a year)

Other studies funded by people & organization with a clear agenda tend to keep no or bad records or are now living with their life partners.


Fair play!
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
Offline
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
Quote:

Animalman said:
I've never heard of a gay person being "rehabilitated"....nor have I ever heard of a program set up to rehabilitate gay people. Infact, I don't believe I've ever heard of a gay person referring to their sexual orientation as something in need of rehabilitation.




You should watch the independent film "But I'm a Cheerleader" then, which deals with this very subject.

You'll hear most evangelists from time to time bragging about their programs where they "cure" homosexuality. I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but the interviews I've read with the people who have been "saved" just makes them sound completely and utterly brainwashed. My theory is that they do an A Clockwork Orange job on them.

...just so I don't get dragged into the middle of this, I'm letting you all know that the last line was tongue-in-cheek.


And that's terrible.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Pariah said:
In response to the stuff about people being born gay:

I don't have my source right now, but I noticed in an online article that a large majority of homosexuals who went into a type of rehab program were actually rehabilitated. There were other documents that went over the patients' lifestyles and how they were doing in the long run. Most had already been dating the opposite sex. This wouldn't have meant anything to me until I found out that these same homosexuals said they were BORN gay. It only takes one person to say that, then go straight and tip the balance of credibility.




I'd be interested to hear where you saw this. I've never heard of a gay person being "rehabilitated"....nor have I ever heard of a program set up to rehabilitate gay people. Infact, I don't believe I've ever heard of a gay person referring to their sexual orientation as something in need of rehabilitation. Are we talking about homosexuals, or pederasts(people that are medically classified as being sick)?




I'm looking for it right now. And no, they weren't being classified as sick (not openly anyway). It was because gay people responded to the program with success that they called it "rehabilitation" I'm thinking. Of course gay people weren't referring to it as such either, I'm sure they were submitting themselves just to prove a point....Maybe get some scratch on the side.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Quote:

Kristogar Velo said:
I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but the interviews I've read with the people who have been "saved" just makes them sound completely and utterly brainwashed. My theory is that they do an A Clockwork Orange job on them.

...just so I don't get dragged into the middle of this, I'm letting you all know that the last line was tongue-in-cheek.




Heh, I was going to say something similar, but I thought it would be taken the wrong way. Thanks for saying it for me.


MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:


As for the recent study, keep in mind the people undergoing the therapy were people who desperately didn't want to be gay. Plus it only followed them for so long. (I think a 6 months to a year)

Other studies funded by people & organization with a clear agenda tend to keep no or bad records or are now living with their life partners.




This doesn't make a bit of difference MEM. If they're born gay based off of the reasoning being handed here, they're going to STAY that way.

Also...

There were interviews that noted their adamant voices in assuring that they were BORN gay. They weren't desperately trying to change anything.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Kristogar Velo said:
I don't know a whole lot about the subject, but the interviews I've read with the people who have been "saved" just makes them sound completely and utterly brainwashed. My theory is that they do an A Clockwork Orange job on them.

...just so I don't get dragged into the middle of this, I'm letting you all know that the last line was tongue-in-cheek.




Heh, I was going to say something similar, but I thought it would be taken the wrong way. Thanks for saying it for me.




Still shouldn't make any difference if they're born gay.

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
Offline
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
Quote:

Pariah said:
Still shouldn't make any difference if they're born gay.




....if they were brainwashed? Brainwashing could make an Irishman sober. Once you break a human being down, you could convince them they're anything.

I'm not saying that's what happened(and again, I would like to read more about this program you're talking about), but if it was brainwashing, being born a certain way wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.


MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
Well, I still don't exactly buy it....

I can't find it. I'll resume tomorrow. I'm too tired of working to work anymore.

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Offline
Fair Play!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,792
Likes: 40
Quote:

Pariah said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:


As for the recent study, keep in mind the people undergoing the therapy were people who desperately didn't want to be gay. Plus it only followed them for so long. (I think a 6 months to a year)

Other studies funded by people & organization with a clear agenda tend to keep no or bad records or are now living with their life partners.




This doesn't make a bit of difference MEM. If they're born gay based off of the reasoning being handed here, they're going to STAY that way.

Also...

There were interviews that noted their adamant voices in assuring that they were BORN gay. They weren't desperately trying to change anything.




You're reading a different article then me then. The one I read just last week certainly was made up of those who desperately wanted to change. Even then the "cure" rate was very low. Can't imagine why anyone would go into conversion therapy otherwise. If you find it & get the chance please post a link.

As for it not making a difference, not sure I follow you on that one but I'll give it a shot. You demand an absolute 0 percent conversion rate, even one proves it's not a genetic trait? Again any time I've read about this stuff, it's for gays who are intensley "cutting the wrist time" unhappy with their homosexuality. A common theme I've come across reading survivor stories after therapy, these people came from parents that would not accept their child being gay. Imagine a child growing up thinking they're damned & that their abhominations! Thats a pretty powerful incentive to want to be normal. If I had to guess the therapy might help these people fool themselves for a bit of time. That tiny success rate gets smaller as time goes by though. I suspect thats the reason we don't see records tracking patients for any length of time. The antigay groups that fund these things are not interested in that data.


Fair play!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
MEM, that's all nice and lovely, but I said before that the gay patients were proving a point. They KNEW they were gay, but ended up not being gay. That's exactly what the program targeted (if only I could find the fucking page).

If I'm wrong and you're factoring this in, then are you just saying that those kids who aren't accepted would become ungay in no time because they WANT to? I mean, to me, with all the reasoning being passed around about being naturally gay, it shouldn't make a difference. And going about explaining the conversion like it's psychosematic doesn't make much sense either considering that those kids were raised in a straight environment.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
Dave TWB: "This is the United States of America, whose form of government is clearly founded by Christians, and based on Christian principles"

I don't have evidence in front of me to debate your point about the founding fathers being Christian...and trust me, this is debatable point...but...these Christian principles you speak of are NOT made explicit in the US Constitution. The freedom of religion makes explict the fact that this is not a J-C theocracy. The Bible is not the US. Constitution.

Jim

PS. The reason I aim any of this at you is because you're the biggest mouth and potentially the narrowest mind on this subject in this forum.


We all wear a green carnation.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
Offline
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
""all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Got it. But he didn't say "Jesus," or "Yahweh," or "the God of Abraham." And he didn't say any names for a reason.


We all wear a green carnation.
Jim Jackson #224709 2004-02-27 4:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
I wasn't gonna jump in on this point, but I've seen a number of men leave the homosexual lifestyle and not go back and not be miserable for the rest of our lives. Our church assisted the Exodus Int'l organization in their programs for homosexuals who wanted to leave it behind. These guys came to us and announced they were sick of their lives, that they were going nowhere, that they felt empty, unfulfilled, sick of what they were doing.

We didn't throw the book at them - they already knew what they needed to know. What we did do is really the only thing that works - and possibly what the church has failed most embarrassingly to do until now. We didn't wait for them to miraculously totally 'clean up' to accept them. We accepted them just as they were and showed them the love and attention they hadn't gotten elsewhere.

Several families each took one of those men and 'adopted' them for a year, inviting them to come live in their homes, and basically treated them as part of the family. No big, drawn-out lectures about how it's an abomination or how they were going to hell or anything like that. (I seriously doubt there are any gay men who haven't heard that more times than they can count.)

No, they were just part of the family. Everyone in the church spent time with them, got to know them better, and we all basically did our best to show these guys that they were loved simply for who they were. At the end of that year, we let them decide what they were going to do, and kept in touch with those who couldn't stay in the area at least once a week. After five years, not one of those twenty men has gone back to the gay lifestyle.

I'm not concerned with whether or not gays are born with a tendency toward a certain lifestyle. I'm not concerned with how politicizers might disagree with what we're doing - or how churches might disagree with what we're doing (and quite a few do). All we're trying to do is prove that it's possible to find acceptance and love without being enslaved to tendencies toward a destructive lifestyle (which is what they called it, btw). We didn't pull a 'Clockwork Orange' move on them. We just made sure they experienced what they hadn't yet been given - a feeling of worth beyond the things they did, a realization that you do have control over what you do (even if that control only extends as far as going to get help) and you are more than the sum of the choices you make.

Say what you want about me or my church or our methods, but I know dozens of men who are leading fulfilled lives today, after leaving the gay lifestyle behind. It's entirely possible, no matter how un-PC or potentially 'offensive' it might be. It's just up to people to decide for themselves whether or not to give it a try.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Offline
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
""all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Got it. But he didn't say "Jesus," or "Yahweh," or "the God of Abraham." And he didn't say any names for a reason.




He said it because it was implicit, Jim. There was no PC movement back then, and even though there was a diversity of patterns of worship among the churches in the colonies (the preservation of which was one of the primary reasons for the founding of the colonies in the first place), they all ascribed worship to the same God. Even deists and Freemasons (the only 'religious minorities' of the day) completely understood this, and it wouldn't have been anything but representative to go ahead and say Yahweh (or Jehovah, the Roman-alphabet transliteration of Yahweh) or any other Judeo-Christian name for God.

Slightly different religious and political environment back then.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Page 19 of 50 1 2 17 18 19 20 21 49 50

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5