Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on June 28, 2006, 06:40:43 AM
-
I know this article will draw rolling eyes from some people, but I just felt compelled to share it anyway and get opinions. I'll go on record in saying that I agree with the author. What do you think?
From Homophobia to Homofascism
June 26, 2006
S. Michael Craven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that every day we are confronted with a new example of the homosexual agenda's press on American culture. Whether it is the ideology of popular TV programs such as Big Love and Will and Grace, "critically acclaimed" movies such as Brokeback Mountain or the concerted efforts to indoctrinate public school children against "homophobia;" radical homosexual activists have proven relentless in their attack upon traditional morality, family and religion.
For those of you familiar with my thoughts and writings on this subject you know that I am very cautious in regard to the manner in which Christians should express their opposition the homosexual agenda. I have always been very careful to distinguish between the "homosexual agenda," or the political movement, and the person, made in the image of God, who is trapped in the sin of homosexuality. I never want to be perceived as a "grace-less" Christian who opposes hurting people that desperately need the love of Christ. However, we are increasingly witnessing a subtle but dangerous transition from what was once supposedly an appeal for "equal and fair" treatment to what can now only be described as the tyrannical demand of submission to the homosexual agenda.
On June 15th Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. fired Robert J. Smith of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, after Smith, a Roman Catholic, referred to homosexual behavior as "deviant" on a talk show interview which was unrelated to his position on the Transit Authority board.
"Robert Smith's comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable," Gov. Ehrlich said in a statement. "They are in direct conflict to my administrations' commitment to inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity."
The governor said he was intolerant to any view that opposes the full social acceptance of homosexual behavior and its promotion in government, according to the American Family Association. Beyond the obvious contradictions, this is an elected government official who wields the authority of the State publicly stating (and demonstrating) that he will use his office to suppress those who oppose the "social acceptance of homosexual behavior!"
On April 26, students at Midway High School in Wilmington, N.C. participated in the Day of Silence that homosexual activists promote in the schools each year. They handed out flyers and remained silent for the day while the school condoned the activity. Yet the next day, when Christian activists participated in the Day of Truth, students were suspended for distributing cards that were pro-traditional morality.
Robert H. Knight of Concerned Women for America reported, "In Northbrook, Illinois, J. Matt Barber, a manager in Allstate's Corporate Security Division, wrote an article on December 17, 2004, for a conservative website that expressed his Christian views on homosexuality. Following a 'customer' complaint by the homosexual pressure group Human Rights Campaign, Barber was called to meet with two human resources officials. . . . Barber was suspended without pay and immediately escorted off company grounds. Three days later, Barber, who had worked for Allstate for five years, was fired 'for writing the article.'"
The faculty of Ohio State University voted unanimously on March 13 to find the school's head librarian guilty of sexual harassment. Scott Savage's crime? He [only] recommended four conservative books that included anti-homosexual messages as required reading for freshmen to balance the left-wing books others were suggesting.
More recently, Massachusetts' new anti-discrimination law forced Catholic Charities of Boston, universally lauded for doing an excellent job in getting foster children adopted, to cease adoption services because it refused to place kids with homosexual couples.
And of course I am reminded of the fact that today in countries such as Canada, Sweden, and Britain; it is now against the law to criticize homosexuality in public.
These are but a few of the growing examples of "homo-fascist" oppression against those who oppose the neo-pagan, anti-family, and anti-religious homosexual agenda. Homosexual activists have gone from an "oppressed minority" to vicious cultural tyrants determined to punish those who disagree with their chosen lifestyle.
Camille Paglia, the noted author and feminist intellectual, who describes herself as a bisexual "tending toward lesbianism" offered some interesting insight into the motivations of homosexual activists in an article she wrote on Salon.com, June 23, 1998:
"I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists. Gay crusading, I concluded, was their way of handling their own bitter misanthropy, which came from other sources. I found these men more spiritually twisted than anyone I have encountered in my life."
The American populace, it seems, continues to waffle in complacency and apathy in the face of this new tyranny. Many churches are confused, complacent, compromised or divided. It seems that the entire educational system (with encouragement from the NEA) is being exploited as a platform for indoctrination into accepting homosexual behavior and Hollywood conspires to always present homosexual characters in the most unrealistic and sympathetic terms. Corporations have taken up the homosexual "cause" with a passion that should instead be driving their businesses. There is no institution of culture in which the homosexual agenda has not infiltrated and changed.
The recent failure of the U.S. Senate to defend marriage and the natural family is just one more example of moral capitulation and compromise demonstrating the powerfully persuasive influence of the homosexual agenda. Americans should be outraged by this moral cowardice on the part of our elected officials!
Every act of tyranny in history was not without its warnings - so be warned! Tyranny is on the march and it is time for good men and women to rise up, speak out, and put a stop to this nonsense before the time for such freedom passes.
© S. Michael Craven 2006
-
do you have a cliff's notes version? It's a little to long, thanks.
-
do you have a cliff's notes version? It's a little to long, thanks.
LOL. :D
Sorry, bro. I don't. Basically, the guy is saying that the homosexual agenda is really running rampid right now, and he sites some great examples of how.
-
Good article. It is difficult, if not impossible, to talk about your objection to the homosexual lifestyle without being attacked as a "homophobe."
-
Hello,
Any person who states their beliefs in contrary to their job/boss should be able to do so on their free time.
What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business.
Any child that can be raised by two loving parents instead of growing up in foster care is a good thing.
In order for a legislation to change the law, people vote. The majority of the vote wins.
The gay/lesbian groups are a very powerful bloc. The politicians know who to butter up to for votes.
I believe that any groups "morals" shouldn't be forced down anyone's throat.
Morality of marriage? The divorce rate is over 50%. Where is the morality in that when you pledge until death do you part?
In the 21st century, you have many types of families. Step parents/step kids. Grand parents raising grandchilren. Single family homes( mom or dads only)
Morality and religion are two different things. If you believe in God and your neighbor believes in Allah, does that make your neighbor less moral than you?
You don't have to like gays, just don't discriminate against them.
Just my two cents.
Sandra
-
i have two gay fathers and 3 lesbian sisters,thats why im so screwed up i think
-
It seems that every day we are confronted with a new example of the homosexual agenda's press on American culture. Whether it is the ideology of popular TV programs such as Big Love and Will and Grace, "critically acclaimed" movies such as Brokeback Mountain or the concerted efforts to indoctrinate public school children against "homophobia;" radical homosexual activists have proven relentless in their attack upon traditional morality, family and religion.
The first paragraph says volumes:
- Homosexual's agenda press on American Culture? American Culture is what it is, not someone's perception of what it is and homosexuality is part of this culture like it or not.
- "...concerted efforts to indoctrinate public school children against "homophobia;" ? Homophobia leads to persecution in many forms. Teaching kids to be respectful and not to fear other people's life style is prudent for their maturity and development.
- "...radical homosexual activists have proven relentless in their attack upon traditional morality, family and religion." Does this author think that these radical homosexual activist's goal is to "wipe out" traditional morality? Com'on.
It's a lot like the civil rights movement in the 60's. To Bigots the civil rights agenda seemed excessive also.
-
It's nothing like the civil rights movement IMO. Discrimination on the basis of race violated the U.S. Constitution. Discrimination on the basis of lifestyle choices does not. No comparison.
This entire homosexual issue isn't about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms (which I don't care about). Like the article says, it's about trying to forcefeed this lifestyle choice down peoples throats.
-
It's nothing like the civil rights movement IMO. Discrimination on the basis of race violated the U.S. Constitution. Discrimination on the basis of lifestyle choices does not. No comparison.
This entire homosexual issue isn't about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms (which I don't care about). Like the article says, it's about trying to forcefeed this lifestyle choice down peoples throats.
I see it as a comaprison in the sense that you saw examples of the civil rights movement everywhere in the media. Like race issues and lessons themed in sitcom plots for example. Comparing it on the basis of constitional rights wasn't what i was getting at.
My question is then... How is it that you force feed a life style down people throats? How do you do that? What does force feeding a life style mean? Becuase to me all they are doing is removing fears and dispelling myths about homosexuals.
-
My opinion is that in some cases, big bodies are simply nature's way of compensating for very small minds.
Nuff said! ::)
-
My question is then... How is it that you force feed a life style down people throats? How do you do that? What does force feeding a life style mean? Becuase to me all they are doing is removing fears and dispelling myths about homosexuals.
We have taken an abnormal lifestyle choice and put it in the same category as race, gender, religion, and national origin. Not only that, but many attempt to stifle those who are opposed to this lifestyle choice by calling them "homophobes" and "hate mongers." I think that is nothing more than an attempt to silence anyone who is opposed to the lifestyle.
We are remaking the definition of marriage, which the country absolutely does not want, liberal, conservative, whatever. We are attempting to change the entire family dynamic by allowing homosexuals to adopt kids. (I see nothing but problems in that kind of arrangement.) No amount of education, information, "sensitivity training," etc. will make me and countless others suddenly believe homosexuality is a normal behavior and deserves special treatment under the law.
Like I said, I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I don't hate gays. Don't believe in the whole "God hates fags" rhetoric. I just don't like the fact I'm prohibited from talking about my objection to homosexuality in public. And I don't like the fact things like homosexual marriage is being pursued when it's plain as day the country doesn't want it. (Unless you live in Canada.)
-
We have taken an abnormal lifestyle choice and put it in the same category as race, gender, religion, and national origin. Not only that, but many attempt to stifle those who are opposed to this lifestyle choice by calling them "homophobes" and "hate mongers." I think that is nothing more than an attempt to silence anyone who is opposed to the lifestyle.
We are remaking the definition of marriage, which the country absolutely does not want, liberal, conservative, whatever. We are attempting to change the entire family dynamic by allowing homosexuals to adopt kids. (I see nothing but problems in that kind of arrangement.) No amount of education, information, "sensitivity training," etc. will make me and countless others suddenly believe homosexuality is a normal behavior and deserves special treatment under the law.
Like I said, I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I don't hate gays. Don't believe in the whole "God hates fags" rhetoric. I just don't like the fact I'm prohibited from talking about my objection to homosexuality in public. And I don't like the fact things like homosexual marriage is being pursued when it's plain as day the country doesn't want it. (Unless you live in Canada.)
Therein lies the challenge and the misunderstanding.
I could be wrong, but I think the only thing homosexuals have ever wanted is EQUAL treatment under the law.
-
Therein lies the challenge and the misunderstanding.
I could be wrong, but I think the only thing homosexuals have ever wanted is EQUAL treatment under the law.
That's what they say, but IMO what they really want is for homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transvestites to be considered a special class of people. No person in this country can be denied life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness without due process. This applies to you regardless of race, gender, religion, and national origin. Those are all innate qualities. BUT we do discriminate based on conduct and lifestyle choices. Homosexuality is not innate and is simply a lifestyle choice.
-
It's nothing like the civil rights movement IMO. Discrimination on the basis of race violated the U.S. Constitution. Discrimination on the basis of lifestyle choices does not. No comparison.
This entire homosexual issue isn't about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms (which I don't care about). Like the article says, it's about trying to forcefeed this lifestyle choice down peoples throats.
Homosexuality isn't a choice. I also agree that homosexuality, religion shouldn't be forced on anyone.
Sandra
-
We have taken an abnormal lifestyle choice and put it in the same category as race, gender, religion, and national origin. Not only that, but many attempt to stifle those who are opposed to this lifestyle choice by calling them "homophobes" and "hate mongers." I think that is nothing more than an attempt to silence anyone who is opposed to the lifestyle.
Again, homosexuality isn't a choice. Do you personally know all homosexuals and they told you that "yes, I choose to be gay. As for abnormal lifestyle. It is different, but if you believe in God, God did create these men and women. Are you saying God made a mistake?
We are remaking the definition of marriage, which the country absolutely does not want, liberal, conservative, whatever. We are attempting to change the entire family dynamic by allowing homosexuals to adopt kids. (I see nothing but problems in that kind of arrangement.) No amount of education, information, "sensitivity training," etc. will make me and countless others suddenly believe homosexuality is a normal behavior and deserves special treatment under the law.
It has nothing to do with what you "believe" what YOUR definition of marriage is. Again, look at the divorce rate. If you don't think that the family dynamic of this country hasn't changed, you should look at the census in your state to see how many family types there are. single parent, mixed races, adopted children, grandparents raising grandkids, etc.
I agree, no group should be given any special treatment. Just leave them alone to live their life. Being black, I know discrimination when I see and hear it. Being gay has it's own form of discrimination.....death by the mob being one of them. Those are the laws that need to be ENFORCED.
Like I said, I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I don't hate gays. Don't believe in the whole "God hates fags" rhetoric. I just don't like the fact I'm prohibited from talking about my objection to homosexuality in public. And I don't like the fact things like homosexual marriage is being pursued when it's plain as day the country doesn't want it. (Unless you live in Canada.)
You may not like the fact of gay marriage, but if a state like Massachussetts allows gay marriages then some Americans Do in fact want it.
Sandra
-
Homosexuality is not genetic. Bisexualism is not genetic. Cross-dressing is not genetic.
A few men and women in black robes forced gay marriage on Massachusetts. It was not a public vote. I'm pretty sure every single traditional marriage amendment/law has passed and every single in which it has come to a vote, including the very liberal Hawaii. Pretty clear that the public doesn't want this.
-
Homosexuality is not genetic. Bisexualism is not genetic. Cross-dressing is not genetic.
A few men and women in black robes forced gay marriage on Massachusetts. It was not a public vote. I'm pretty sure every single traditional marriage amendment/law has passed and every single in which it has come to a vote, including the very liberal Hawaii. Pretty clear that the public doesn't want this.
Sexuality is not genetic. Just because you have straight parents means that you will be straight. If you have one or two gay parents, that doesn't mean you will be gay.
There are desires in all of us when we are born. Some are acceptable to society, some aren't.
Some men love huge breasts on women. Some women love men with huge muscles. Those desires aren't genetic either. You are born with desires.
A few men in women in black robes. This would be justices appointed by the president. These justices interpert the law leaving out personal bias, which is a good thing.
Again, if traditional marriage was the be all to end all, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
Sandra
-
Sexuality is not genetic. Just because you have straight parents means that you will be straight. If you have one or two gay parents, that doesn't mean you will be gay.
There are desires in all of us when we are born. Some are acceptable to society, some aren't.
Some men love huge breasts on women. Some women love men with huge muscles. Those desires aren't genetic either. You are born with desires.
A few men in women in black robes. This would be justices appointed by the president. These justices interpert the law leaving out personal bias, which is a good thing.
Again, if traditional marriage was the be all to end all, the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
Sandra
There is no gene that forces a person to become gay, bisexual, or want to dress like the opposite sex.
Massachusetts state court judges are appointed by the governor.
The divorce rate really has nothing to do with whether we should permit abnormal marriages.
-
not permitting gay marriage goes on the very self flattering assumption that christianity IS the correct religion.
(islam and juidiasm <sp> does that also)
i say..live and friggin let live..
-
not permitting gay marriage goes on the very self flattering assumption that christianity IS the correct religion.
(islam and juidiasm <sp> does that also)
i say..live and friggin let live..
Heterosexuality is not genetic either.
Ask the daughter of Dick Cheney.
Supressed sexually eventually comes out into the light.
Gov. James McGreevy was the picture perfect example of an upper middleclass family.
Wife, kids, political position. His downfall? nepotism for his gay lover. Now he is moving into a multi million dollar home with his lover.
Who do you think he hurt more by his supression? I think if he were true to his sexuality, his wife and children wouldn't have to live thru this nightmare for the rest of their lives.
He lied to the people of New Jersey. Politicians lie. People get over that.
As for who selects judges....governor, president, etc were all elected by the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE knew of the gov/pres agenda when they campaigned and won that position.
So if the judges vote in one way or another is the will of the people.
Sandra
-
There is no gene that forces a person to become gay, bisexual, or want to dress like the opposite sex.
Massachusetts state court judges are appointed by the governor.
The divorce rate really has nothing to do with whether we should permit abnormal marriages.
OK, how about this? Beach Bum will never be forced to enter into a gay marriage against his will,
...and BayGBM should never be allowed to shrink away from a legal commitment made to his life partner,
and should he decide to do so, he'll be subjected to civil laws that make him live up to his responsibilities, just like everyone else in society.
Done! So what's the problem?
-
OK, how about this? Beach Bum will never be forced to enter into a gay marriage against his will,
...and BayGBM should never be allowed to shrink away from a legal commitment made to his life partner,
and should he decide to do so, he'll be subjected to civil laws that make him live up to his responsibilities, just like everyone else in society.
Done! So what's the problem?
One of the problems would be legitimizing abnormal behavior and creating a new class of protected behavior.
What happens when you do that? Among other things, you get legislation that redefines gender to be whatever a person thinks it is:
"Gender identity or expression‚ includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."
How confusing is that? That's the law in Hawaii. You cannot discriminate against someone who believes he is a man, but dresses like a woman. Sounds like a problem to me.
-
One of the problems would be legitimizing abnormal behavior and creating a new class of protected behavior.
There is strong evidence that Monogamy is not natural.....
"Isn't Monogamy the Normal Way for Humans to Relate?"
There is a growing body of research in evolutionary biology and anthropology that concludes that:
True "monogamy", formerly thought to be common in nature, is actually found in less than 5% of mammals.
While humans tend to be genetically "hard-wired" to pair-bond, both genders are equally just as "hard-wired" to be sexually non-exclusive, though for different reasons.
Of the 1,170 human societies cataloged in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, over 72% permit multi-spouse relationships.
So, in the statistical and possibly biological sense, one could say that it is our idealized western-European style monogamy that is "abnormal."
Don't All Major Religions Require Monogamy?
Judaism - Polygyny is widely and explicitly condoned and practiced throughout the Old Testament, and is still permitted to non-Ashkenazi Jews, who never accepted the decrees of Rabenu Gershom (965-1023?) ending polygamy. In certain rare cases even Ashkenazi Jews are religiously permitted polygamy. However, polygamy is rarely practiced, as there are few places welcoming to Jews where the civil laws will permit it.
Islam - Polygyny is expressly permitted in Islam, per the Koran, "...then marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, or four..."
Buddhism - The Buddhist sacred texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy. There are some statements of the Buddha that are interpreted to imply a preference for monogamy for the laity, based on his condemnation of adultery.
Hinduism - Modern Hinduism espouses monogamy, but there is a wealth of traditional references to polygyny [Visnusmrti 24:1,Manusmrti 7:216-226, 8:203-4] and at least one famous reference to polyandry in Hindu religious texts and commentaries. The practice of monogamy is believed to be a characteristic of the fourth yuga (age of man) the Kaliyuga, the result of an increasingly restrictive evolution of marital practices set forth in the Mahabharata. Indian law codifying monogamy in the civil realm naturally dates only to the 1950's/60's.
Christianity - Of course, all contemporary mainstream Christian denominations now prescribe monogamy as a matter of doctrine or dogma. However, with the exception of 1 Timothy 3, which is directed toward church "leaders" and "helpers", the New Testament does not address monogamy per se. The consensus among Biblical scholars is that the Book of Timothy was not authored by St. Paul, but rather added significantly later by other early church fathers. It can be strongly argued that neither Paul (whose real preference was for celibacy) nor the leaders of the early church who actually authored the passage in question, would have felt the need to specify monogamy for these individuals unless it were unusual among believers of the era.
Old Testament references frequently cited to justify monogamy, such as Genesis 2:24, obviously were not viewed as prohibitive by Judaism, which continued its historic sanction of polygamy for over a millennium after the time of Christ. Likewise the Seventh and Ninth Commandments, forbidding "adultery" and "coveting neighbors' wives" were both viewed as admonitions against transgressing on the property of others, i.e., the female "possessions" of men. Neither Commandment was interpreted by Hebrew scholars as forbidding polygyny, nor even relationships between men (married or not) and unmarried women.
It was not until the writings of Tertullian (A.D. 160?-220?), over two centuries after the death of Christ, that the "institutional" case for monogamy within what became the Catholic Church was set forth. This was in response to the "heresy" of the Psychics, who in part followed the same logic of a "strict constructionist" interpretation of Paul's writings noted above. Strangely enough, this doctrine was written by Tertullian after he became a heretic himself, having rejected his earlier Christian beliefs and having been excommunicated. Tertullian's "psychics" actually were the lineal ancestors of the Catholic Church he had abandoned. Marriage would not even be recognized as a sacrament for another 1,000 years; divorce would not be absolutely proscribed for another 500 years after that.
Isn't This Really Just About Commitment-Free Sleeping Around?
New relationship styles allow people to “love (another) without leaving,” ending the current societal demand that we abandon our existing partner if we want an intimate relationship with another. New approaches may therefore result in more long-term relationships. Far from discouraging commitment, the increased love and fulfillment of mutually self-designed relationships strengthen the incentives for maintaining ties between the original, committed partners that make these opportunities possible.
Commitment comes from the heart, not from external “rules.” Our current 40-70% rate of marital infidelity demonstrates that current relationship styles certainly do not eliminate the desire for intimate connection outside of marriage.
Renowned psychologist Albert Ellis prophetically noted in 1972, "The chances are good that if absolutely no extramarital adventures of any sort were allowed in a society such as our own, people would tend either to refrain from marrying in the first place or would insist much more quickly on getting divorces in the second place." Since those words were printed, we have witnessed a 7% rise in divorce rates (though at its peak the increase was nearly 21%) and a 17% increase in the age at first marriage for women and a 16% increase for men. This is but one unfortunate legacy of the well-meaning, but inflexible and restrictive, efforts since 1980 to "turn back the clock" on relationship structures to an idealized past.
Ellis concluded, "When an individual makes sure that he [sic] experiences wider-range involvements than he is ever likely to experience in conventional marriage he is attending to what is perhaps one of the most "normal" or healthiest aspects of adultery - especially when considered from the standpoint of those who want to aid or "save" marriage. ...Given the option of maintaining their marital arrangements but still engaging in outside affairs, they frequently pick this option over complete dissolution of stable arrangements."
The real danger to committed relationships is the mindset that translates any need for anything more than a single partner can provide into a requirement that the relationship be ended. It is almost certain that more otherwise acceptable relationships have ended on the ultimatum to "love (only) me or leave me" than for any other cause. What a terrible waste!
What happens when you do that? Among other things, you get legislation that redefines gender to be whatever a person thinks it is:
"Gender identity or expression‚ includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."
How confusing is that? That's the law in Hawaii. You cannot discriminate against someone who believes he is a man, but dresses like a woman. Sounds like a problem to me.
Actually, to me it isn't confusing at all. Just because you were born with male or female reproductive organs doesn't mean psychologically or emotionally you are that body part you are born with.
God doesn't make mistakes. That is what I believe.
Sandra
-
One of the problems would be legitimizing abnormal behavior and creating a new class of protected behavior.
What happens when you do that? Among other things, you get legislation that redefines gender to be whatever a person thinks it is:
"Gender identity or expression‚ includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."
How confusing is that? That's the law in Hawaii. You cannot discriminate against someone who believes he is a man, but dresses like a woman. Sounds like a problem to me.
Granted it can be confusing. But so what? So are Bollean Logic reductions at times. So are world politics and enviromentalist agendas.
-
I'm curious as to why a thread debating Homosexual rights is on the religion board?
-
For those of you familiar with my thoughts and writings on this subject you know that I am very cautious in regard to the manner in which Christians should express their opposition the homosexual agenda. I have always been very careful to distinguish between the "homosexual agenda," or the political movement, and the person, made in the image of God, who is trapped in the sin of homosexuality. I never want to be perceived as a "grace-less" Christian who opposes hurting people that desperately need the love of Christ. However, we are increasingly witnessing a subtle but dangerous transition from what was once supposedly an appeal for "equal and fair" treatment to what can now only be described as the tyrannical demand of submission to the homosexual agenda.
just my guess, jag
-
Homosexuality is not genetic. Bisexualism is not genetic. Cross-dressing is not genetic.
A few men and women in black robes forced gay marriage on Massachusetts. It was not a public vote. I'm pretty sure every single traditional marriage amendment/law has passed and every single in which it has come to a vote, including the very liberal Hawaii. Pretty clear that the public doesn't want this.
well said, bro!
-
One of the problems would be legitimizing abnormal behavior and creating a new class of protected behavior.
What happens when you do that? Among other things, you get legislation that redefines gender to be whatever a person thinks it is:
"Gender identity or expression‚ includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."
How confusing is that? That's the law in Hawaii. You cannot discriminate against someone who believes he is a man, but dresses like a woman. Sounds like a problem to me.
EXCELLENT POINT!!!
-
I'm curious as to why a thread debating Homosexual rights is on the religion board?
Jag, why don't you start a thread on the General board? I posted this question here because the nature of the article is from a religious perspective.
-
It's a lot like the civil rights movement in the 60's. To Bigots the civil rights agenda seemed excessive also.
OzmO, I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion the homosexuality debate is a civil rights issue. First off, there's not scientific evidence whatsover that you are born gay. I, however, had no choice when I was born as a black person. VERY DIFFERENT!
If the civil rights label should be aligned with homosexuality, then where were was the Ford Corporation when blacks were being burned and hung? Why didn't they speak out like they do for the homosexual agenda now, like many other big corporations across America.
Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue. Not even close.
-
OzmO, I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion the homosexuality debate is a civil rights issue. First off, there's not scientific evidence whatsover that you are born gay. I, however, had no choice when I was born as a black person. VERY DIFFERENT!
If the civil rights label should be aligned with homosexuality, then where were was the Ford Corporation when blacks were being burned and hung? Why didn't they speak out like they do for the homosexual agenda now, like many other big corporations across America.
Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue. Not even close.
I'm not saying it is, i'm only saying when you see stuff about homosexuals in the media the way you do these days it is similar to seeing things about civil rights in the media in the 60's and 70's, and the reaction from the racist is similar to that of people who do not support homosexuality.
Raicist complained that we all would be acting like black people and it was an attack on white culture... sounds similar to homosexual's attack on marriage life style.
That's my comparison. Not a civil rights thing based on race.
-
I'm not saying it is, i'm only saying when you see stuff about homosexuals in the media the way you do these days it is similar to seeing things about civil rights in the media in the 60's and 70's, and the reaction from the racist is similar to that of people who do not support homosexuality.
Raicist complained that we all would be acting like black people and it was an attack on white culture... sounds similar to homosexual's attack on marriage life style.
That's my comparison. Not a civil rights thing based on race.
I agree only in the sense that this is how the media is portraying the issue. They are the ones driving this agenda in my opinion. Racist people claimed that whites were superior to blacks. People who disagree with the lifestyle of homosexuality are not claiming that they are superior to gays. Their argument is that this is a destructive behavior or identity crisis caused by environment.
What bothers me most about how this agenda is being pushed is that if you don't agree with it, then, as Beach Bum has already stated, you are labeled as a hate mongerer or bigot. It's the same thing as some conservatives might say that God doesn't love you if you are a Democrat. We know this to be a purely asinine thought.
-
I agree only in the sense that this is how the media is portraying the issue. They are the ones driving this agenda in my opinion. Racist people claimed that whites were superior to blacks. People who disagree with the lifestyle of homosexuality are not claiming that they are superior to gays. Their argument is that this is a destructive behavior or identity crisis caused by environment.
What bothers me most about how this agenda is being pushed is that if you don't agree with it, then, as Beach Bum has already stated, you are labeled as a hate mongerer or bigot. It's the same thing as some conservatives might say that God doesn't love you if you are a Democrat. We know this to be a purely asinine thought.
Let's explore this a bit more...
I'm not for homosexuals getting special treatment.
What's is the homosexual agenda exactly?
-
the agenda is simply to be recognized as legitimate and to no longer be seen as taboo as has in the past.
-
the agenda is simply to be recognized as legitimate and to no longer be seen as taboo as has in the past.
Being recognized as legitamate would mean what?
-
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1856/2130/400/l5.jpg)
Is this what we are trying to prevent? ;D ;D ;D
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1856/2130/400/l2.jpg)
and keep it like this? ;D ;D ;D
-
lol.
simply put, bro. it's a behavior we should not be endorsing for all sorts of moral reasons. on the issue of gay marriage alone, if we can't define marriage, then the loner guy who can't even pay a girl to marry him and isn't gay, but loves his dog Fiona (or Fido, if you please) has every legitimate reason to argue that he should be able to marry his long-time "companion".
-
lol.
simply put, bro. it's a behavior we should not be endorsing for all sorts of moral reasons. on the issue of gay marriage alone, if we can't define marriage, then the loner guy who can't even pay a girl to marry him and isn't gay, but loves his dog Fiona (or Fido, if you please) has every legitimate reason to argue that he should be able to marry his long-time "companion".
Ok so recognizing it as legitimate would mean we are endorsing it?
I don't endorse the behavior. But i wouldn't do anything to prevent someone from doing what they want in the privacy of their own home. And if a TV show gets advertising revenue so what? If it didn't sell then it wouldn't ever be on TV. Money never recognizes morality.
I'm sorry i just don't understand it here. Please explain.
What do these people with their homosexual agenda want?
Do they want everyone to be gay? What is it?
-
Ok so recognizing it as legitimate would mean we are endorsing it?
I don't endorse the behavior. But i wouldn't do anything to prevent someone from doing what they want in the privacy of their own home. And if a TV show gets advertising revenue so what? If it didn't sell then it wouldn't ever be on TV. Money never recognizes morality.
I'm sorry i just don't understand it here. Please explain.
What do these people with their homosexual agenda want?
Do they want everyone to be gay? What is it?
If you want to get right down to it, I believe the agenda to be an attempt at the distruction of the moral fiber of this country. The rest of the world is already grey and not longer black and white when it comes to moral issues. The United States is beginning to look more and more like the rest of the world.
-
lol.
simply put, bro. it's a behavior we should not be endorsing for all sorts of moral reasons. on the issue of gay marriage alone, if we can't define marriage, then the loner guy who can't even pay a girl to marry him and isn't gay, but loves his dog Fiona (or Fido, if you please) has every legitimate reason to argue that he should be able to marry his long-time "companion".
Who's list of morals should the people as a whole subscribe to?
Comparing homosexuality to beastality is wrong. Two human beings...consenting adults. Animals can't give consent.
Sandra
-
If you want to get right down to it, I believe the agenda to be an attempt at the distruction of the moral fiber of this country. The rest of the world is already grey and not longer black and white when it comes to moral issues. The United States is beginning to look more and more like the rest of the world.
Don't you think the:
- Thousands of random acts of violence displayed on TV every day combined with the 7.2 hours a day the average family watches TV does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- High divorce rate helped by the graphic sex displayed on TV and in the movies does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Urge to escape and detatch reality via the use of drugs does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Rise of strip clubs all over the U.S. does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Advertising that pushes the accumilation of material wealth does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Recording industry has made it fashionalble to carry guns and become a gangster does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
Honestly, Colossus, those things i talked about have had a higher impact of destroying our moral fiber then the homosexual agenda looking for fair and equal treatment.
When you say destruction fo the moral fiber it's like saying the destruction of one's culture. Very similar to what racists were saying about the emergence of Black culture in the media. My point about that is, that it won't do anything to our moral fiber just as black culture didn't so anything to so called white culture. Just becuase poeple that are gay are not persecuted and enjoy equal and fair treatment will not cuase the average young hetersexual to become gay. He's either going to really dig women or really dig men. And some gay guy on TV is not make a person who loves tits want to give a guy a blow job. All it's going to do is diminish hate and fear.
-
If you want to get right down to it, I believe the agenda to be an attempt at the distruction of the moral fiber of this country. The rest of the world is already grey and not longer black and white when it comes to moral issues. The United States is beginning to look more and more like the rest of the world.
Moral Fiber? Please explain this in the sense of how the country as a whole follow one particular set of morals.
Seeing that the most of the world has been in existence thousands of years before the USA, it would seem that we are catching up.
Sandra
-
Don't you think the:
- Thousands of random acts of violence displayed on TV every day combined with the 7.2 hours a day the average family watches TV does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- High divorce rate helped by the graphic sex displayed on TV and in the movies does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Urge to escape and detatch reality via the use of drugs does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Rise of strip clubs all over the U.S. does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Advertising that pushes the accumilation of material wealth does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Recording industry has made it fashionalble to carry guns and become a gangster does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
Honestly, Colossus, those things i talked about have had a higher impact of destroying our moral fiber then the homosexual agenda looking for fair and equal treatment.
When you say destruction fo the moral fiber it's like saying the destruction of one's culture. Very similar to what racists were saying about the emergence of Black culture in the media. My point about that is, that it won't do anything to our moral fiber just as black culture didn't so anything to so called white culture. Just becuase poeple that are gay are not persecuted and enjoy equal and fair treatment will not cuase the average young hetersexual to become gay. He's either going to really dig women or really dig men. And some gay guy on TV is not make a person who loves tits want to give a guy a blow job. All it's going to do is diminish hate.
I totally agree with OzmO.
Fighting for basic human rights for a particular group is a civil rights issue. It doesn't mean special treatment for that segement of people.
And yes, I am a black person.
Sandra
-
Homosexuals, bisexuals, and transvestites already have basic human rights. They can vote, own land, live in any state they chose, start a business, go to school, file lawsuits, receive due process in court, etc., etc. They can't be targeted for violence based solely on their sexual practices.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is force the state to recognize an abnormal relationship by sanctioning a marriage between two men, like about 18 states have said loud and clear. If two men want to live together and have sex with each other, that is their business. When they ask the state to use my tax dollars to endorse their conduct, then it becomes my business.
I agree with everything Colossus has said, including that this is a moral issue. But we don't have to use morality to prevent the granting of special rights to people based on their sexual practices. When you get past the "equal rights," "human rights," "civil rights" smokescreen, we're really talking about legitimizing abnormal behavior. So, I see a definite correlation between things like bestiality, polygamy, and even incest. Ever heard of the Man-Boy Love Association (or something like that)?
From a religious standpoint, you have to be very concerned about this movement if you're a Christian. The Bible condemns homosexual conduct (not the person). It is unquestionably unacceptable behavior from a purely religious standpoint.
That said, my office hired a gay summer intern, partly with my approval, and I'm working with him. Gave him an assignment yesterday in fact. I have no problem working with him, communicating with him, joking around, etc., like we did yesterday and will do for the rest of the summer. I'm not afraid of him at all and don't hate or dislike him. He's actually a very nice kid.
-
Don't you think the:
- Thousands of random acts of violence displayed on TV every day combined with the 7.2 hours a day the average family watches TV does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- High divorce rate helped by the graphic sex displayed on TV and in the movies does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Urge to escape and detatch reality via the use of drugs does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Rise of strip clubs all over the U.S. does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Advertising that pushes the accumilation of material wealth does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
- Recording industry has made it fashionalble to carry guns and become a gangster does more to destroy the moral fiber of this country?
Honestly, Colossus, those things i talked about have had a higher impact of destroying our moral fiber then the homosexual agenda looking for fair and equal treatment.
When you say destruction fo the moral fiber it's like saying the destruction of one's culture. Very similar to what racists were saying about the emergence of Black culture in the media. My point about that is, that it won't do anything to our moral fiber just as black culture didn't so anything to so called white culture. Just becuase poeple that are gay are not persecuted and enjoy equal and fair treatment will not cuase the average young hetersexual to become gay. He's either going to really dig women or really dig men. And some gay guy on TV is not make a person who loves tits want to give a guy a blow job. All it's going to do is diminish hate and fear.
Ozmo, all of the things you mention are a result of us taking a "relaxed" approach to what is right and what is wrong. you know for a fact that none of these things were an issue not even some 40 years ago. And you keep bring up the arguments of the civil rights issues pertaining to blacks back in the day. You need to explain to me how the issue of homosexuality is the same, because clearly I'm not understand how you can link the two. I understand that the arguments that were made about blacks with respect to civil rights are like those that some would make about homosexuals. But I think a more legitimate connection with respect to the two would be back when there was a huge debate about gays being in the military. That's where I tend to agree with what you are arguing. But I fail to see where you can legitimize the notion that we will see that embracing homosexuality like most have come to embrace black people (or other minorities of other cultures, i have to include women's rights as well) as a similarity. It's nowhere near the same argument in my opinion. So, you have to articulate this a little more clearly for me, since I'm not understanding. Sorry for not getting where you coming from.
I guess what I'm trying to say, OzmO, is being black (or a minority) is not a sin, whereas being a homosexual is. Being that it is a sin, are you going to argue that a murderer or thief needs to have the same civil rights as that of a homosexual then too? Just as we shouldn't embrace all that you mention in your list of maladies in the post above, I'm saying we shouldn't embrace homosexuality as such. And I believe that all the things you mention have come to actualization or fruition because we have taken the very mentality that you are arguing about homosexuality.
-
Homosexuals, bisexuals, and transvestites already have basic human rights. They can vote, own land, live in any state they chose, start a business, go to school, file lawsuits, receive due process in court, etc., etc. They can't be targeted for violence based solely on their sexual practices.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is force the state to recognize an abnormal relationship by sanctioning a marriage between two men, like about 18 states have said loud and clear. If two men want to live together and have sex with each other, that is their business. When they ask the state to use my tax dollars to endorse their conduct, then it becomes my business.
I agree with everything Colossus has said, including that this is a moral issue. But we don't have to use morality to prevent the granting of special rights to people based on their sexual practices. When you get past the "equal rights," "human rights," "civil rights" smokescreen, we're really talking about legitimizing abnormal behavior. So, I see a definite correlation between things like bestiality, polygamy, and even incest. Ever heard of the Man-Boy Love Association (or something like that)?
From a religious standpoint, you have to be very concerned about this movement if you're a Christian. The Bible condemns homosexual conduct (not the person). It is unquestionably unacceptable behavior from a purely religious standpoint.
That said, my office hired a gay summer intern, partly with my approval, and I'm working with him. Gave him an assignment yesterday in fact. I have no problem working with him, communicating with him, joking around, etc., like we did yesterday and will do for the rest of the summer. I'm not afraid of him at all and don't hate or dislike him. He's actually a very nice kid.
Beach, I think you do a MUCH BETTER job of articulating the argument that I'm trying to make. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Beach, I think you do a MUCH BETTER job of articulating the argument that I'm trying to make. Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks Colossus, but you've done great. I'm just being an echo. :)
-
Ok, i think the 3 of us are much more in agreement about this issue than we are in disagreement.
Things we agree on:
- Homosexuals should have the same basic human rights afforded to others
- Homosexuals should not be persecuted or discriminated
- Homosexuals shouldn't get a tax break through marraige (i think we agree on this in this way)
- Homosexuals shouldn't get special rights for being homosexuals
- According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin
Things we don't agree on:
- Homosexuality is a sin
- Accepting homosexuality will help to destroy the moral fiber of America
I got both my Bosses here in this room while i'm typing this and i just told them both they are ass holes and to go pound salt. But they keep bugging me to do work... the nerve of these jerks ;D ;D ;D....so i need to go for now, but i think i covered most of it? please ad or subtract.
-
Also, i can totally see where you both are coming from if you believe what the bible says about homosexuality and i guess becuase of that it explains why you feel the way you do about the homosexual agenda.
The lego guys were pretty funny though huh? ;D
-
Jag, why don't you start a thread on the General board? I posted this question here because the nature of the article is from a religious perspective.
I have no desire to start a thread on the topic. For me it's pretty clear cut.
People are people, and deserve the same rights, priviledges and protections afforded to all citizens,
regardless of their lifestyle, (which can reasonably be argued falls under creed, and/or the pursuit of happiness.)
I just wanted to know why it was in Religion. Your explaination is a reasonable one and answered my question.
-
I have no desire to start a thread on the topic. For me it's pretty clear cut.
People are people, and deserve the same rights, priviledges and protections afforded to all citizens,
regardless of their lifestyle, (which can reasonably be argued falls under creed, and/or the pursuit of happiness.)
I just wanted to know why it was in Religion. Your explaination is a reasonable one and answered my question.
I can see an argument for lifestyle choices falling under the pursuit of happiness category. What's the reasonable argument that lifestyle choices fall under creed?
-
Belief.
-
Isn't creed a religious belief?
-
Isn't creed a religious belief?
"Religious" is an adjective or an adverb when the suffix "ly" is applied, therefore, those who (religiously) engage in hot, sweaty, man love, could be considered as having inaliable rights protected under the constitution.
Glad I could clarify, :-*
-
"Religious" is an adjective or an adverb when the suffix "ly" is applied, therefore, those who (religiously) engage in hot, sweaty, man love, could be considered as having inaliable rights protected under the constitution.
Glad I could clarify, :-*
Thanks? ???
-
Isn't creed a religious belief?
creed (krēd) pronunciation
n.
1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.
2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions: laws banning discrimination on the basis of race or creed; an architectural creed that demanded simple lines.
-
creed (krēd) pronunciation
n.
1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.
2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions: laws banning discrimination on the basis of race or creed; an architectural creed that demanded simple lines.
Thanks. I think that's the definition most reasonable people use.
-
Thanks. I think that's the definition most reasonable people use.
are you implying I'm not a reasonable person? :-\
-
are you implying I'm not a reasonable person? :-\
I for one think your reasonability is reasonably reasonable with in reason.
-
I for one think your reasonability is reasonably reasonable with in reason.
I s'pose that's a reasonable assessment of my reasonability, ...within reason ...but whadya really think? :D
-
are you implying I'm not a reasonable person? :-\
Sometimes. But hey, reasonable and unreasonable minds can disagree. ;D
-
So, I see a definite correlation between things like bestiality, polygamy, and even incest. Ever heard of the Man-Boy Love Association (or something like that)?
I OBJECT!!!! >:(
-
I OBJECT!!!! >:(
Overruled! ;D
-
I'm curious as to why a thread debating Homosexual rights is on the religion board?
1 Corinthians 6:9
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders"
Romans 1:26-27
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. That is detestable"
1 John 1:9
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."
Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
2 Corinthians 5:17
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"
-
Hello,
Any person who states their beliefs in contrary to their job/boss should be able to do so on their free time.
What two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business.
Any child that can be raised by two loving parents instead of growing up in foster care is a good thing.
In order for a legislation to change the law, people vote. The majority of the vote wins.
The gay/lesbian groups are a very powerful bloc. The politicians know who to butter up to for votes.
I believe that any groups "morals" shouldn't be forced down anyone's throat.
Morality of marriage? The divorce rate is over 50%. Where is the morality in that when you pledge until death do you part?
In the 21st century, you have many types of families. Step parents/step kids. Grand parents raising grandchilren. Single family homes( mom or dads only)
Morality and religion are two different things. If you believe in God and your neighbor believes in Allah, does that make your neighbor less moral than you?
You don't have to like gays, just don't discriminate against them.
Just my two cents.
Sandra
agree
psst...Allah is the arabic work for God...
other than that..agree! :)