quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".
I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.
No. You can challenge the opinions of the gay/liberal community as much as you like, and you can do it in a valid, fair, intelligent and even compassionate way.

But when you deny someone the right to do the same thing you can do, simply because they like having sex with someone of their same gender, then you are a homophobe.
Name-calling isn't usually your style, Dave.
I think I haven't been clear, sorry, Dave. Its not my style. I wasn't name calling. I was calling it as I see it. You'll note I hadn't been involved in the Christian debate - it had no interest to me until I read Batwoman's post. The comment was directed against the comment that "tradition and policy" should stifle the right to a gay marriage.

Also, the use of the word "you" wasn't directed at anyone specifically, though, Dave: it was a generic "you".

It was not meant to be an attack on Christian beliefs.

I will however do that now.

quote:

I don't like being slapped with labels that undermine the logic of what I've said. I've quoted Biblical verses at length to show that the Bible and homosexuality are absolutely not compatible.
Gays have rights, up to the point that they choose to stomp on someone else's religion and lifestyle.
As I've said.
Repeatedly.

And after making my point logically, four posters ignoring the logic of what I've said come right back, ignoring the above, and call me a homophobe, or equivalent nonsense.

I already said, REPEATEDLY, as many here have ignored and forced me to repeat, that I support gays' right to have some kind of life-partner gay union equivalent of marriage, so long as they don't drape it in Christianity, and doing so attempt to pervert the meaning of Christianity and the Bible ITSELF.

Gays in a democratic society have a right to their lifestyle.
Christians in a democratic society have a right to their lifestyle.

But the concept of gay marriage interferes with that balance, and urinates on the basic teachings of Christianity. (and yes, yes, I know other religions and cultures have marriage traditions as well, and I already covered that as well, in detail, for those who will bother to read the last two topic pages.)

I don't expect insults and sweeping generalizations from you, Dave.

Although they're par for the course for OMEGA MAN (a.k.a. The SENSITIVE Gourmet, a.k.a. Wilder Midnight, a.k.a. Star-butted sneetch, a.k.a. Matt Kennedy.) His comments are, as usual, completely unworthy of response.

Matter Eater Man, and Danny, raise issues slightly less offensively, but still regurgitate the same sweeping statements about conservatives and Christians ( even as they bash Christians and conservatives with closed-minded "hate" stereotypes, for allegedly using the same type of sweeping generalizations they accuse Christians/conservatives of making about gays. The difference is, it has already been proven in this topic that gay ideology attempts to re-write and corrupt the Bible, and how this relates directly to the absurd concept of gay marriage, especially in a Christian mask)

I've answered those accusations in detail already, and disproven them.
As has Captain Sammitch in his posts.

I mean geez, why don't you guys actually read what we've said before making these kind of statements?
Perhaps I'm used to Christian perspectives being more tolerant of alternative lifestyles.

You see, one of the few attractions for Christianity to me is its tolerance. The Christianity I am used to in liberal Australia is broad-minded, intelligent, and flexible to change. My most recent exposure was not in fact that recent: quite a few years back now, I dated the daughter of the Anglican Archbishop of Perth for quite a while. Archbishop Carnley is an extremely intelligent man, and now the Australian primate (head of the Anglican Church in Australia). He has allowed women to be admitted as priests, and supports heroin trials. (I have no idea what his views on homosexuality are.)

I'm rapidly realising that the Christianity I've seen in practice and admired is radical Christianity.

A quick set of examples, to make my point:

If I was career criminal, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? Of course. Could I be married in a church? Sure.

If I was a drug abuser, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? You bet. Get married in a church? Yep.

If I was a disgraced politician, would the Church close its doors to me? No, it would not let me down. Could I get married in a church? No problem.

So, the Church will accept a sincere oath of marriage from criminals, drug addicts, and betrayers of the public trust, but it will not accept the same sincere oath from gays?

Homosexuality has no victims. It is on the same level as being black or white, a Pistons fan or a Lakers fan, a drinker of beer or of wine. You can choose to love a man, or a woman, or both. There is no harm to anyone. I know gays who have contributed to society in many positive ways, who are successful in their fields, who are leaders in the community.

Yet the Church will not allow that person to get married to the person of the same gender?

If reconsideration of this issue means "re-writing and corrupting the Bible" as you have said, Dave, then, like ignoring the passages condoning slavery which I have set out above, I'm all for it.

There is no place in a tolerant society for an intolerant Church. And especially a Christian church, which prides itself in this contemporary age on tolerance.