TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
- Mar 30, 2013
- 50,381
- 13,750
- Thread starter
- #21
That in no way means that we should all suspend judgment.
Read the edit to my post.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That in no way means that we should all suspend judgment.
John 13:16That in no way means that we should all suspend judgment.
Read the edit to my post.
I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.
Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.
You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.
Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.
This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.
It's not normal, and marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.
So... what are you 'accepting', if not a demonstrable falsity, as truth?
Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.
Listen to yourself. Republicans like you champion the law, but only wish to apply it selectively when it comes to homosexuals. I've watched this go on for a long while. The law applies equally to all of us, not just to people who aren't gay or homosexual. Why can't you see that?
Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?
Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.
Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.
This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.
Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments
I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.
Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.
You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.
But will you defend children of legitimate marriage and the state's rights to incentivize that environment to include a father for sons and a mother for daughters? How deeply have you really looked into the matter on behalf of kids on the brand new social experiment. The folks below want to use them as lab rats to see how them playing "mom and dad" pans out for our collective future. Since it is a collective future we are tampering with by redacting the physical structure of the word "marriage", should it be up to just 5 people (2 of which are biased: Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 51 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ) or up to the majority within the sovereign states?
Who is more worth fighting for? All the children into time unknown, or these folks? Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone.
Standards are designed to discriminate
This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.
Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments
Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone. They do not unjustly discriminate against anyone. .
Because the only thing that Homosexuals are crying about, in terms of inequality, is that people of reason do not accept sexual deviancy as sexual abnormality.
Listen to yourself. Republicans like you champion the law, but only wish to apply it selectively when it comes to homosexuals. I've watched this go on for a long while. The law applies equally to all of us, not just to people who aren't gay or homosexual. Why can't you see that?
The subject to which you responded was sexual deviancy... not law.
Science, which is the objective study of the physical universe, holds that homosexuality deviates 180 degrees from the human physiological standard.
Like Science, Law also only works where such is objective. And objective science and objective law (Pardon the Redundancy) does not pretend that profound deviancy is equal to normality.
Marriage, is defined by the objectivity, intrinsic to NATURE... as the joining of one man and one woman.
What you're asking is that conclusions which were drawn from purely subjective inference, which is deceitfully advanced as science, alter the law... which would render the law SUBJECTIVE and in so doing delegitimizing the law... in that it causes such to serve the narrow interests of not just a tiny minority, but a tiny deceptive minority, which demands that deceit, be accepted as truth.
That's something which is well beyond foolish, and again it serves nothing but the destruction of the individual that holds it and the collective which is influenced by its fools.
Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?
You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?
Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.
Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.
Go read John 8
"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."
Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.
"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
Matthew 18:21-22
The cult members on the right won't attack you until they're certain they've lost you to the dark side.
ROFLMNAO!
Isn't it adorable when they mimic those they believe are making the most effective argument?
I just don't seem to be able to get my fill of watchin' 'em do it.
Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?
You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?
Straw reasoning? At this early stage? That's not a good sign TK.
Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone. Yet there you are implying that Americans who reject homosexual behavior, are by their position, treating homosexuals poorly.
Not good buddy.
Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.
So this is the Right's version of "Moral Equivalency."
Huh... false.
There is no moral equivalency. Sexual Deviancy is morally vacuous... .
Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.
Go read John 8
"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."
Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.
"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!
At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.
Now that you're up to speed... Feel free to revise and retract.
I had a tough go of it. No really, as a Christian I think homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong and patently sinful, thusly I don't condone either. I've really wrestled my conscience mightily over it. But after a mighty struggle and in a moment of clarity, it has dawned on me that gay people deserve rights like I do, and I will defend them, I won't force equality, I'll fight for it. America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom and free association.
Yes, the Republicans on this board can go ahead and get angry at me all they want, this position will not change. I really don't care how gay people become gay, they deserve to be treated equally. I don't have a problem with people holding true to their morals, but when they agree to serve people equally under the law, they should.
You can't just set aside a just law for the sole reason of your personal belief. You can serve people equally without ever personally condoning the lifestyle choices of others. Equality has no bias.
This stems off into a plethora of subsequent issues, with their demand that the culture shoudl reject the natural standard of marriage based again: upon the deceit, that sexual deviancy is normal.
Where did I say it was normal? Who said anything about "rejecting the natural standard?" I believe marriage is between a man and a woman myself, but where the law goes, it must be applied equally, it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I would appreciate you reading the OP before making your snap judgments
Marriage laws are equally enforced on everyone. They do not unjustly discriminate against anyone. .
Really? In a state where a man can marry a woman, but a woman could not marry the same women,
that's equal enforcement?
Ok... How does that require one accept thy neighbor's deceit, as truth?
You don't have to accept anything your neighbor does, just that you treat him with the same dignity that you require for yourself. What is so hard about that? Hmm?
Straw reasoning? At this early stage? That's not a good sign TK.
Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone. Yet there you are implying that Americans who reject homosexual behavior, are by their position, treating homosexuals poorly.
Not good buddy.
Just because the Left claims that rejecting their behavior equates to hate, does not actually make rejecting deviant behavior, hateful.
So this is the Right's version of "Moral Equivalency."
Huh... false.
There is no moral equivalency. Sexual Deviancy is morally vacuous... .
Using your reasoning we must accept the sin... when such is decidedly, forbidden, setting one on the fast track to eternal damnation.
Go read John 8
"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin."
Using your reasoning, Keys, we should automatically condemn the sinner, without so much as one iota of compassion or forgiveness. Right then, as if we have no sin in our lives to be forgiven.
"21 Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
Matthew 18:21-22
Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!
At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.
Now that you're up to speed... Feel free to revise and retract.
You invoke science in one breath, and religion in the next.
You need to pick a side, because the two are incompatible.
Nothing I've said invokes ill treatment of anyone.
Man that is some twisted crapola right there. Forgiving the sinner... GOOD. Accepting the SIN, OKA: SIN... BAD!
At the end of the day, that Prostitute is going to spend eternity in incomprehensible anguish, sent there by Christ, unless and until she admits to Christ that she is a sinner and TURNS FROM THAT SIN... . Accepting Christ as her Lord and Savior, thus his gift in providing God's grace.