Here is Buchanan's article on this subject. He seems to present a good case for why some of these Christian views make for sound culture.
You shouldn't have to use the words of a white supremacist to make your point. It's pretty safe to say that if Pat Buchanan has an opinion on something, the exact opposite is most likely the truth. Let me post something he wrote in his book:
America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. Only whites have the appropriate “genetic endowments” to keep America from collapsing.
So there's no point in you posting lies from an openly racist thug like Buchanan, and if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should probably stop, take a step back, and consider exactly where you went wrong.
You shouldn't have to use the words of a white supremacist to make your point.
So there's no point in you posting lies from an openly racist thug like Buchanan, and if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should probably stop, take a step back, and consider exactly where you went wrong.
I don't read him much ... this article was linked from something else on the marriage subject ... but I don't know that he is a white supremacist. Your isolated quote sounds that way, but we have black pride groups (Obama's church) and Hispanic pride ... do you have to be white to be a racist?
So you believe he is wrong on everything he says... because of your opinion about him ...
Maybe you could just address what he says in my quote or the article. If you think it is all lies, wouldn't that be better than just labeling him? Bill Cosby seems to think the break down of the family unit is a huge problem in the black community. Is he also a racist ... a white supremacist?
You shouldn't have to use the words of a white supremacist to make your point. It's pretty safe to say that if Pat Buchanan has an opinion on something, the exact opposite is most likely the truth. Let me post something he wrote in his book:
So there's no point in you posting lies from an openly racist thug like Buchanan, and if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should probably stop, take a step back, and consider exactly where you went wrong.
Sensitive subject obviously, but what if he's right? <_< Immigration always seems to move in one direction, whether in South Africa, Europe or North America, always where Christian white people have had a developed economy for decades. My experience over many years in Africa is very simple, there isn't an African I have met who doesn't want out of their ghetto neighborhood. Show me where black majority rule works and I'll reinvent the wheel!
Calling Pat a "thug" because he stands up for his race...well what about Jesse, Al, AIPAC, and all the other races standing up for their "rights"?
I guess if you're a "whitie" and support your own race, you is just a bigger badder racist?.
You shouldn't have to use the words of a white supremacist to make your point. It's pretty safe to say that if Pat Buchanan has an opinion on something, the exact opposite is most likely the truth. Let me post something he wrote in his book:
So there's no point in you posting lies from an openly racist thug like Buchanan, and if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should probably stop, take a step back, and consider exactly where you went wrong.
Spoken like a true libTARD! Why is Buchanan any more a thug than Obama, HITLERy or even YOU, for that matter? Why is their predjudice or your predjudice any more valid than his?
There is NOTHING on God's green earth more intolerant than an American liberal, and you just proved that with your statement. You need to consider where YOU went wrong.
Maybe you could just address what he says in my quote or the article.
Okie dokie
... Christianity is the cornerstone of Western Civilization. Since the fall of Rome to our own time, nations have believed and acted on the belief that marriage and traditional families are the cinderblocks on which a society must be built. When these cinderblocks crumble, the society collapses. The truth has been born out in our own time.
The first line is VERY debatable, if not just plain wrong... I won't get into that. He seems to think that congress and every other civilized nation have not proposed gay marriage because "traditional families" are the building block of society. Is a heterosexual marriage a "family"? No. Does every heterosexual couple get married to have kids, want kids, or are they all even capable of having kids? No. What of them?
This little bit also seems to imply once again that the official legalization of gay marriage is going to somehow cause the "traditional family" to "crumble." Perhaps you, Rhino, or anyone else, could explain the mechanics of this. How does this happen. Homosexuals get married and suddenly heterosexual marriages get more screwed up. How many times does it have to be pointed out that we've done a pretty damn good job of that all on our own. Please, though, explain the mechanics behind this idea.
With a third of all children born out of wedlock -- 50 percent of all Hispanic kids, 70 percent of black kids -- and half of all marriages ending in divorce, the social indicators have recorded explosions -- in crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, dropout rates, gang membership, and jail and prison populations.
And gays or gay marriage has contributed to this in what way? Completely unrelated to the topic. These are statistics about the failure of heterosexual marriages. Statistics that have been in a downward spiral long before gay marriage was on the table. I would also say this is less about marriage and more about economics. It takes more than just two parents being in a relationship to raise kids in a way that (hopefully) protects them from these things. Being Christian and/or white or straight has little to nothing to do with it.
The correlation between prison inmates and broken homes, or homes never created, is absolute. What armies of social scientists with six-figure salaries today tell us, 12-year-olds knew 50 years ago.
What a funny thing to say. With only 15 percent of the country making six figures I can't imagine that there are that many social scientists in that income bracket. lol Perhaps trying to make these social scientists seem elitist. I don't know. I would think that again economic standing would also have a huge effect on the prison to broken home link.
Setting aside the risibility of the court's conduct, consider what it says about us as a democratic republic.
We are supposed to be a self-governing people. "Here, sir, the people rule." Elected representatives write our laws.
Yet, no Congress or state legislature ever voted to declare homosexual unions a marriage. The idea has everywhere been rejected. Wherever it has been on the ballot, same-sex marriage has been voted down.
"Ah, hahaha, all laughing about these bozos aside here is the real reason we should be upset. It is not that us heteros have screwed up the sacred institution of marriage, it is that the courts did their job. God forbid. N-no, really, God forbid."
Rhino, explain to me where this genius makes the case that "these Christian views make for sound culture." I read the rest of the article and still didn't see it.
from you
This is different than a sodomy law ... it does nothing to interfere with what goes on in the bedroom. This is about changing the definition of marriage. You say things have changed ... in November we will see how much they have changed.
If they change the constitution, their decision will not be judged unconstitutional. But 3 of 7 judges disagreed with the current decision, as well as a majority of citizens it would seem.
It is different from the sodomy law, but that wasn't my point. The reasons for the sodomy laws and the wording in the legal definition of marriage came from the same world view, one in which homosexuality was not at all acceptable, much less so than today. So why would one expect to see a definition favorable towards homosexuals? Sodomy laws only started to be repealed in states since the late 60s (by illinois) and as late as 2003 three for some states. Again why were those laws in place? Threats to social order? You didn't answer that question. It relates to this subject. The personal views of those against the modification of this definition are also key to this discussion. You didn't answer that question either. Don't give me this projecting BS, just answer the question.
This new law is not going to change whether or not gay couples get "married".
They have already been doing that forever and a day, law or no law.
It's simply going to legitimize those "marriages" in a legal sense so they can lay claim to benefits that have heretofore been reserved for court sanctioned heterosexual "marriages".
In other words, it's not going to change a lifestyle that is already in existence, it's simply going to make it "official".
This little bit also seems to imply once again that the official legalization of gay marriage is going to somehow cause the "traditional family" to "crumble." Perhaps you, Rhino, or anyone else, could explain the mechanics of this. How does this happen. Homosexuals get married and suddenly heterosexual marriages get more screwed up. How many times does it have to be pointed out that we've done a pretty damn good job of that all on our own. Please, though, explain the mechanics behind this idea.
I think I said at the start .. the basic idea of marriage is family. No, not all heterosexual fam's bear and raise children ... still that is the basic idea of marriage and family. Simple
And gays or gay marriage has contributed to this in what way? Completely unrelated to the topic. These are statistics about the failure of heterosexual marriages.
Those stats are about the breakdown of the family .. redefining marriage to completely remove children as a component furthers that breakdown. He might be saying a lot of the current problems are from the leftward movement, and now this moves even further to the left.
What a funny thing to say. With only 15 percent of the country making six figures I can't imagine that there are that many social scientists in that income bracket. lol Perhaps trying to make these social scientists seem elitist. I don't know. I would think that again economic standing would also have a huge effect on the prison to broken home link.
Entry level social workers are not the one passing out dictates on how the rest of the masses should live. Whole families have a better chance of raising the kid. Do you have any point here really?
"Ah, hahaha, all laughing about these bozos aside here is the real reason we should be upset. It is not that us heteros have screwed up the sacred institution of marriage, it is that the courts did their job. God forbid. N-no, really, God forbid."
Well, did they do their job correctly? That can't be questioned? Judges can be removed.
It is different from the sodomy law, but that wasn't my point. The reasons for the sodomy laws and the wording in the legal definition of marriage came from the same world view, one in which homosexuality was not at all acceptable, much less so than today. So why would one expect to see a definition favorable towards homosexuals? Sodomy laws only started to be repealed in states since the late 60s (by illinois) and as late as 2003 three for some states. Again why were those laws in place?
Why were they overturned, but the marriage law is never overturned? Because this is different .. which is my point ... yes I know what your point was.
Threats to social order? You didn't answer that question. It relates to this subject. The personal views of those against the modification of this definition are also key to this discussion. You didn't answer that question either. Don't give me this projecting BS, just answer the question.
Hey, you said you were the homophobe and homosexual hater ... I don't think I ever was. I can give you any opinion I want, and I will answer the questions I want to answer. You have formed an image of the people that disagree with you ... homophobes, homosexual hating Christians .... but you don't know who they are ... I call them "the majority".
Hey, you said you were the homophobe and homosexual hater ... I don't think I ever was. I can give you any opinion I want, and I will answer the questions I want to answer. You have formed an image of the people that disagree with you ... homophobes, homosexual hating Christians .... but you don't know who they are ... I call them "the majority".
No I said I "acted" like one. I was in a cult. I was definitely leaning that way at times, but I was much more accepting than many I knew. Of course, back when I acted that way I always assured people that I most assuredly was not a homophobe or homosexual hater. Not projecting on you or anyone else, just the reality of how I felt at the time.
I guess I will continue to not know who the majority is as long as people continue to avoid the question. Majority or not if their belief is based on religious bigotry then they are the ones that are wrong and unless you can confirm that this is truly about religious folk with a hyper sensitivity to semantics (one word in particular) or explain how exactly this is going to make all marriages crumble then, without being hateful, without projecting, without being angry or upset, this looks like it is based on prejudice. Please prove me wrong.
Those stats are about the breakdown of the family .. redefining marriage to completely remove children as a component furthers that breakdown. He might be saying a lot of the current problems are from the leftward movement, and now this moves even further to the left.
This is the genius I am talking about. Adding gays to the definition of marriage removes children as a component? Are you serious? And this "furthers the breakdown?" We are talking about real life problems with kids and parents and life and death and poverty and you think a definition is going to further those problems?
I think I said at the start .. the basic idea of marriage is family. No, not all heterosexual fam's bear and raise children ... still that is the basic idea of marriage and family. Simple
All this talk about definitions and not adding anything to it because of the imposition but here you have added something to it. Kids aren't in the definition and clearly marriage is not required to have children, nor is it required to have healthy well adjusted children.
"NOT GOD BLESS CALIFORNIA! GOD DAMN CALIFORNIA! GOD DAMN CALIFORNIA!"
I keep hearing that in my head every time I come to this thread
My wit is lost on you once again. Sorry. I don't want to damn the voters of CA, but it seems some on this thread want to damn the state or the judges. Have you missed comments on this thread like this: "go ahead and have a party over this legal decision if you want... but don't expect God to bless california because of it!"
ummm, that would be my comment...
perhaps, you should go back and read the reasons why i said that...
you have twisted my words, and made quite the assumption...
i am not asking God to damn CA (i ask God to have mercy on them)...
the title of this thread is: "God bless california"...
and my point is that it is unreasonable to expect God to bless something that He is against...
God has already given His opinion about homosexuality (as previously noted in my post #28)
And now I'm supposed to assume everyone's problem with this is semantic?
my problem is not semantic...
i object to homosexuality on the grounds that it is an unbiblical practice...
i also object to adultery for the same reason, but no one calls me a religious bigot for that!
I think when you look back at some of the words used in this thread, some of the comparisons used, it is pretty clear what this is about. The definition argument is just the best thing one can come up with to make it not sound like they just don't like homosexuals or their "lifestyle" or that they think it is a sin. These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so the fundamentalist definition argument is what we get. I think any one not of that opinion can see that very clearly.
ummm, i guess i would be considered a fundamentalist christian...
and i refuse to apologize for my beliefs!
even though this term is used as if it is some kind of disease...
yes, i believe that homosexuality is a sin...
but it is not a matter of not liking homosexuals; it is the behavior i object to...
just as i have an objection to adulterous behavior... i do not object to people!
Jesus came to save people... but that doesn't mean that i whitewash sin...
everyone in the country is allowed to believe whatever they want...
and liberals would tolerateany belief system...
except for christian fundamentalism...
that the liberals can't tolerate...
i don't force my beliefs on others... but surely i should be allowed to express them!
i don't try to legislate my beliefs... although the homosexual lobby is definitely trying to legislate their belief system...
even to the point of "hate crimes/hate speech"...
which has the effect of silencing the expression of my belief system!
and thereby forcing their worldview down my throat!
but i'm sure you don't have a problem with that...
I guess I will continue to not know who the majority is as long as people continue to avoid the question.
It seems the only answer you will find acceptable is if Christians say yes, they are homophobes. My opinion is probably not representative ... jen-o is maybe closer ... but you keep trying to put this majority in a convenient box.
Majority or notif their belief is based on religious bigotry then they are the ones that are wrong and unless you can confirm that this is truly about religious folk with a hyper sensitivity to semantics (one word in particular) or explain how exactly this is going to make all marriages crumble then, without being hateful, without projecting, without being angry or upset, this looks like it is based on prejudice. Please prove me wrong.
So you are going to believe all those people are bigots because they disagree with you ... unless someone PROVES you wrong ... prove to me that doesn't make you bigoted.
This is the genius I am talking about. Adding gays to the definition of marriage removes children as a component? Are you serious? And this "furthers the breakdown?" We are talking about real life problems with kids and parents and life and death and poverty and you think a definition is going to further those problems?
Kids learn concepts ... this further removes the concept of marriage and family ... Many today feel there is no good reason to get married, UNLESS you are going to have kids.
But as Sudo's new thread points out, the standard now seems to just go ahead and have kids ... even in high school. It is not OK to "stigmatize" these kids .. so it is only acceptable to tell everyone how great it is that these young girls are having kids in high school. The concept that you get married then have kids has been removed. What are the schools teaching?
All this talk about definitions and not adding anything to it because of the imposition but here you have added something to it. Kids aren't in the definition and clearly marriage is not required to have children, nor is it required to have healthy well adjusted children.
I'm not adding to the legal definition. I'm saying it is part of the marriage picture. If you see people you haven't seen in 20 years what do you say? "So did you get married? Do you have kids?"
The concept is of the longer term commitment ... and hopefully the idea of being "fruitful" and multiplying ... It just doesn't seem being fruity was part of the mix.
This thread really started with a sort of dual subject.
Should married homosexaul couples be treated as a "marriage" and afforded all the same benefits an protections (and liabilities).
Does God bless this idea? Should Christians not believe what the Bible says about homosexual acts?
So this merged the religious belief and the state position. But the state is the people. We are not a theocracy, run by the pope or the church, but we are a republic, and people can express their views and they get injected into the state.
But I'll quote part of NIKA's intro ...
If they can't live life, find true love, settle down, and
raise a family
, then that's wrong. I'm not trying to start a fight on this site. I'm just expressing my opinion that discrimination of this sort is as bad as racism or sexism. It's about time that a big state has taken a stand on it.
This starts off assuming homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual. It is not axiomatic that because racism was wrong and sexism (depending on how that is defined) is wrong, that this is wrong.
Discrimination takes place all the time .... age, size, intelligence, blood alcohol content ... the idea is to have a reason to discriminate.
Either
God made them that way,
or
they're convinced in their hearts that He did; either way, they feel that
they have no choice
but to be the way that they are.
Again with the God thing ... the Bible God didn't make them that way as I recall, and how many homosexuals really believe any God did make them that way? I think mostly they are not religious people, which is fine.
I don't know that this "no choice" thing is established, but for most intents and purposes, say it is. They are in no case a couple that can marry and bear their own children. Is this a reason to discriminate against them in any way, when it comes to raising children or being married? Despite a few wealthy and high profile examples, I'm not sure we know even from the sociologist's viewpoint.
But every time it has been voted on, the people have voted against gay marriage. So the states have taken a stand on this issue time after time. This fall the state of California will vote on this issue again, and again they will take a stand on what they want.
It may be mostly Christian people that vote against this, that doesn't make them bigots or wrong. It seems the burden of proof is on those that want to make the change.
everyone in the country is allowed to believe whatever they want...
I for one am happy that in a country that claimes to 'fight' for the freedoms of all people and where in its foundational written documents it clearly states "all men are created equal" that a certain amount of freedom is finally being afforded to a group of people to whom it has been denied. Some would say that those people still had the 'freedom' to love whomever they wished and only denied the term 'marriage'. I would catagorically disagree with this assessment.
This country is the greatest country in the world of that I have no doubt. However many of the laws of this country can find their basis in the moral value system of the ruling order. Those moral values were formed by religion. And frankly I find some of their moral values just as repulsive as I find some of the Moslem moral values. On this issue of homosexuality I whole heartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality.
Just as most of us, while in TWI I spoke out against homosexuality and used those same tired verses to justify my narrowmindedness. Then a few years ago I was once again asked to show where it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I returned to those same verses...and we all fell flat. After much study and personal growth I have changed my views.
I dont know if God blesses Cali more or less or or just keeps score, but I for one give the Judges a kudos for doing their job despite public opposition. If the population of Cali wants to overturn the decision they are going to need to approach it legally, with a constitutional amendment. Until that happens I hope a million people get in there and get themselves married.
Just as most of us, while in TWI I spoke out against homosexuality and used those same tired verses to justify my narrowmindedness.
dear eyesopen,
i was not a part of the ranting, raving "homo" purge of twi... so i am not coming from that mindset... nor do i recall twi ever mentioning these verses... you have labeled yourself as having been "narrowminded", but it is dishonest to extrapolate that to include all those who disagree with your current position... i also find it noteworthy that you have labeled the scriptures that i listed in my post #28 as "tired"... do you really feel that certain scriptures are "tired"??
Then a few years ago I was once again asked to show where it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I returned to those same verses...and we all fell flat. After much study and personal growth I have changed my views.
and
On this issue of homosexuality I whole heartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality.
perhaps, you would like to expound on the reasons why you disagree with the interpretation (of the scriptures i listed) as being anything other that the rather clear and plain meaning that they have...
i would be interested in knowing how you have interpreted those scriptures...
i was not a part of the ranting, raving "homo" purge of twi... so i am not coming from that mindset... nor do i recall twi ever mentioning these verses... you have labeled yourself as having been "narrowminded", but it is dishonest to extrapolate that to include all those who disagree with your current position... i also find it noteworthy that you have labeled the scriptures that i listed in my post #28 as "tired"... do you really feel that certain scriptures are "tired"??
perhaps, you would like to expound on the reasons why you disagree with the interpretation (of the scriptures i listed) as being anything other that the rather clear and plain meaning that they have...
i would be interested in knowing how you have interpreted those scriptures...
peace,
jen-o
Wow Jen-o! Let me see if I can address your concerns.
I had already left TWI when the homo purge went on...where as I noticed in another thread that you were there at that time,
"i spent time in twi twice...(81-87 and 94-97)and i have long since rejected all twi teachings and doctrines (including "tree" structure & ritualistic practices)"
{Forgive me for crossing threads folks this is only used as a reference and nothing more also for reference the homo purge started sometime in the early 90's and ended when LCM left}
You (Jeno-o) may not have partook of the teaching but you were there, I was not nor did I address it in my post. I never even suggested that you or anyone else was 'ranting or raving' about anything. Neither did I extrapolate anything, nor did I even mention your post (any of them) in fact I did not address you at all. As far as labeling myself as 'narrow minded' frankly I was when I was in TWI. Anything that I was taught was gospel for quite some time. Including the 'homo' thing for a time. But eventually I woke up and began to think and study for myself.
I'm sure that you would like to know how or the reasons why I disagree with the scriptures used to prove the sin nature of homosexuality but I will not do that here, for three reasons; 1 this is the "Open" forum not the "Doctrinal" forum and 2. The amount of research that was done on these scriptures would take up way too much space and last but not least, this thread is about homosexual marriage which by the way I did address in my original post.
Basically Jen-o I was neither talking to you nor about you and I fail to see why you have taken my post personally.
Basically Jen-o I was neither talking to you nor about you and I fail to see why you have taken my post personally.
eyesopen, the reason why i thought it was necessary for me to address your post is because i am the one who stated that God is against homosexuality, i am the one who listed scriptures in support of my position, and i am the only person on this thread who has flat out stated that homosexuality is a sin...
these are the points that your post addressed... further, i am the only one here who has stated that God is not gonna "bless" california because of this...
so if you are not talking to me personally (or someone like me who holds the same perspective as i do), then who are you talking about when you say that you "wholeheartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality"...
who are you disagreeing with, if not me??
(and why are you so surprised that i would respond to your post?)
yes, i spent time in twi from 94-97...
and you say that the "homo" purge started in the early 90's & ended when lcm left...
i'll have to take your word for that because i was unaware of the specifics of the timeframe for the "homo" purge...
this may come as a surprise to you, but in my little twig, we never talked about homosexuals...
nor did anyone ever bring up scriptural references about them...
just because i was officially "in" twi does not mean that i was privy to lcm's rantings and ravings...
(i've never met the man... nor have i spent time at HQ, etc.)
since you have noticed the years i was "in" twi,
you must have also noticed that i never climbed the ladder of the hierarchy, but remained a lowly leaf the whole time i was in...
so maybe this info was reserved for the way corps... i dunno, but i know i wasn't in on it...
and to assume that i was is quite a leap...
the whole reason i mentioned that i was not a part of it was to let you know that i am not coming from that mindset!
since you had assumed that most of us had "spoken out against homosexuality while using "tired" verses to justify our narrow mindedness"...
I'm sure that you would like to know how or the reasons why I disagree with the scriptures used to prove the sin nature of homosexuality but I will not do that here, for three reasons; 1 this is the "Open" forum not the "Doctrinal" forum and 2. The amount of research that was done on these scriptures would take up way too much space and last but not least, this thread is about homosexual marriage which by the way I did address in my original post.
actually, eyesopen, i am far more interested in seeing you support your position...
it is one thing to make a blanket statement that you disagree with something,
and quite another to support that statement...
if someone has done a great deal of research on the topic,
they should be able to briefly and succinctly state the reasons why they believe the way they do...
i fail to see why this would "take up way too much space"...
nor do i think that every time a biblical thought crosses someone's mind,
that they should have to go to the "doctrinal" section in order to post a statement or sentence...
(i think that is a cop out)
and third, this thread may be about homosexual marriage, but it's also about "God Blessing california" for it...
and as rhino has pointed out, the thread has a dual subject...
with one of the subjects being: should God bless this idea based upon what the bible says about homosexual acts...
(so i think that this is quite "on topic")
evidently, you think that you have some special information on how to interpret what the bible means when it talks about homosexual acts,
We are gathered?... here together in the "sight" (another one of those vp orientalisms) of WHO...? Billy Bob and Johnny Jump Up!!
I mean really, someone else can fill in the rest. Is there anything new here that hasn't been played out for centuries? Romans had a go at the issue, no?
I think God has nothing to do with man's perversions no matter how crazy the liberal courts become?
I havent followed every post in this thread. I really dont get the "God thinks such and such " arguments, as if someone could be presumptuous enough to assume to know exactly what an infinite and timeless God thinks.
Various denominations,--old respected denominations--that have proven their worth-- who are no less God seekers than the most ardent fundamentalists, have had no problem marrying gays (Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, some Episcopalian churches, as well as the Unitarians and Reformed Judaism--there may be others Im too lazy to look them up--) in spiritual ceremonies to seal and confirm their sacred vows.
If the Church sees fit to perform the ceremony and join two in matrimony.-- is it somehow right for the state to recognize and honor some churches practices and not recognize others?
If thats the case it becomes dangerously close to having a State religion that dictates matters of doctrine and practice
I doubt that there is anyone here on either side of the argument who advocates that
I would agree with jen-o ... it would be simple enough to briefly summarize why Eyes' would disagree with what seem to be obvious verses on the subject. Or if her views are even based on the Bible. The book seems based on many sources.
As I recall, that topic of her book was not much on the book, but more on "buy my book". I just read the blurbs on it in Amazon and her own page ... and I saw no evidence of Teresa having any real background in Biblical research or any research, and actually there is evidence of problems with grammar. To do a fly by here, and spend a lot of time saying why she won't support her position, when just a little time supporting it would do, does seem evasive.
OK city WOW ... don't you love homophobes too? God Bless Homophobes ... But really, the "God Bless Homosexuality" portion of this thread can be questioned. People may decide they don't want "marriage" to be allowed for homosexual mates, and they have ... it is that simple.
Their vote may be partly or largely based on their interpretation of the Bible. It does not make them homophobes. It means they discriminate based on their belief that marriage is a man and woman. They do have history on their side as well.
That is one problem I have with the "God bless California" lead in. What reason is given for saying "hey people, you can still believe adultery is wrong, but you need to change to the liberal university mandated dogma when it comes to homosexuality, or you are wrong."
I would not want children taken from a Mom just because she lived with her lesbian lover, though Dad has rights also. And certainly lcm's rants sound pretty insane. I'd be in favor of some "equality", but not in favor of changing the "sacrament of marriage".
If the Church sees fit to perform the ceremony and join two in matrimony.-- is it somehow right for the state to recognize and honor some churches practices and not recognize others?
If thats the case it becomes dangerously close to having a State religion that dictates matters of doctrine and practice
I doubt that there is anyone here on either side of the argument who advocates that
No, and that is why it has nothing to do with the positions of the various churches, but on the vote of the majority.
There will always be judgment calls. Adultery is grounds for divorce ... but I thought it was no business of the state, what goes on in people's bedrooms.
What is wrong with polygamy? This "union between any two of age people" is bigoted ...
There are lines drawn somewhere, and the majority have overwhelmingly said male/female marriage is what they want. The minority should respect that instead of calling them bigots, haters, close minded, etc.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
Mister P-Mosh
You shouldn't have to use the words of a white supremacist to make your point. It's pretty safe to say that if Pat Buchanan has an opinion on something, the exact opposite is most likely the truth. Let me post something he wrote in his book:
So there's no point in you posting lies from an openly racist thug like Buchanan, and if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should probably stop, take a step back, and consider exactly where you went wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I don't read him much ... this article was linked from something else on the marriage subject ... but I don't know that he is a white supremacist. Your isolated quote sounds that way, but we have black pride groups (Obama's church) and Hispanic pride ... do you have to be white to be a racist?
So you believe he is wrong on everything he says... because of your opinion about him ...
Maybe you could just address what he says in my quote or the article. If you think it is all lies, wouldn't that be better than just labeling him? Bill Cosby seems to think the break down of the family unit is a huge problem in the black community. Is he also a racist ... a white supremacist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Sensitive subject obviously, but what if he's right? <_< Immigration always seems to move in one direction, whether in South Africa, Europe or North America, always where Christian white people have had a developed economy for decades. My experience over many years in Africa is very simple, there isn't an African I have met who doesn't want out of their ghetto neighborhood. Show me where black majority rule works and I'll reinvent the wheel!
Calling Pat a "thug" because he stands up for his race...well what about Jesse, Al, AIPAC, and all the other races standing up for their "rights"?
I guess if you're a "whitie" and support your own race, you is just a bigger badder racist?.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Hey Bumpy one ... welcome back to the fray ...
Glad you made it out of Africa ...
time for a little wine ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Spoken like a true libTARD! Why is Buchanan any more a thug than Obama, HITLERy or even YOU, for that matter? Why is their predjudice or your predjudice any more valid than his?
There is NOTHING on God's green earth more intolerant than an American liberal, and you just proved that with your statement. You need to consider where YOU went wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
The first line is VERY debatable, if not just plain wrong... I won't get into that. He seems to think that congress and every other civilized nation have not proposed gay marriage because "traditional families" are the building block of society. Is a heterosexual marriage a "family"? No. Does every heterosexual couple get married to have kids, want kids, or are they all even capable of having kids? No. What of them?
This little bit also seems to imply once again that the official legalization of gay marriage is going to somehow cause the "traditional family" to "crumble." Perhaps you, Rhino, or anyone else, could explain the mechanics of this. How does this happen. Homosexuals get married and suddenly heterosexual marriages get more screwed up. How many times does it have to be pointed out that we've done a pretty damn good job of that all on our own. Please, though, explain the mechanics behind this idea.
And gays or gay marriage has contributed to this in what way? Completely unrelated to the topic. These are statistics about the failure of heterosexual marriages. Statistics that have been in a downward spiral long before gay marriage was on the table. I would also say this is less about marriage and more about economics. It takes more than just two parents being in a relationship to raise kids in a way that (hopefully) protects them from these things. Being Christian and/or white or straight has little to nothing to do with it.What a funny thing to say. With only 15 percent of the country making six figures I can't imagine that there are that many social scientists in that income bracket. lol Perhaps trying to make these social scientists seem elitist. I don't know. I would think that again economic standing would also have a huge effect on the prison to broken home link.
"Ah, hahaha, all laughing about these bozos aside here is the real reason we should be upset. It is not that us heteros have screwed up the sacred institution of marriage, it is that the courts did their job. God forbid. N-no, really, God forbid."Rhino, explain to me where this genius makes the case that "these Christian views make for sound culture." I read the rest of the article and still didn't see it.
from you
It is different from the sodomy law, but that wasn't my point. The reasons for the sodomy laws and the wording in the legal definition of marriage came from the same world view, one in which homosexuality was not at all acceptable, much less so than today. So why would one expect to see a definition favorable towards homosexuals? Sodomy laws only started to be repealed in states since the late 60s (by illinois) and as late as 2003 three for some states. Again why were those laws in place? Threats to social order? You didn't answer that question. It relates to this subject. The personal views of those against the modification of this definition are also key to this discussion. You didn't answer that question either. Don't give me this projecting BS, just answer the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This new law is not going to change whether or not gay couples get "married".
They have already been doing that forever and a day, law or no law.
It's simply going to legitimize those "marriages" in a legal sense so they can lay claim to benefits that have heretofore been reserved for court sanctioned heterosexual "marriages".
In other words, it's not going to change a lifestyle that is already in existence, it's simply going to make it "official".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think I said at the start .. the basic idea of marriage is family. No, not all heterosexual fam's bear and raise children ... still that is the basic idea of marriage and family. Simple
Those stats are about the breakdown of the family .. redefining marriage to completely remove children as a component furthers that breakdown. He might be saying a lot of the current problems are from the leftward movement, and now this moves even further to the left.Entry level social workers are not the one passing out dictates on how the rest of the masses should live. Whole families have a better chance of raising the kid. Do you have any point here really?
Well, did they do their job correctly? That can't be questioned? Judges can be removed.Why were they overturned, but the marriage law is never overturned? Because this is different .. which is my point ... yes I know what your point was.
Hey, you said you were the homophobe and homosexual hater ... I don't think I ever was. I can give you any opinion I want, and I will answer the questions I want to answer. You have formed an image of the people that disagree with you ... homophobes, homosexual hating Christians .... but you don't know who they are ... I call them "the majority".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I guess I will continue to not know who the majority is as long as people continue to avoid the question. Majority or not if their belief is based on religious bigotry then they are the ones that are wrong and unless you can confirm that this is truly about religious folk with a hyper sensitivity to semantics (one word in particular) or explain how exactly this is going to make all marriages crumble then, without being hateful, without projecting, without being angry or upset, this looks like it is based on prejudice. Please prove me wrong.
This is the genius I am talking about. Adding gays to the definition of marriage removes children as a component? Are you serious? And this "furthers the breakdown?" We are talking about real life problems with kids and parents and life and death and poverty and you think a definition is going to further those problems?
All this talk about definitions and not adding anything to it because of the imposition but here you have added something to it. Kids aren't in the definition and clearly marriage is not required to have children, nor is it required to have healthy well adjusted children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
perhaps, you should go back and read the reasons why i said that...
you have twisted my words, and made quite the assumption...
i am not asking God to damn CA (i ask God to have mercy on them)...
the title of this thread is: "God bless california"...
and my point is that it is unreasonable to expect God to bless something that He is against...
God has already given His opinion about homosexuality (as previously noted in my post #28)
my problem is not semantic...i object to homosexuality on the grounds that it is an unbiblical practice...
i also object to adultery for the same reason, but no one calls me a religious bigot for that!
ummm, i guess i would be considered a fundamentalist christian...and i refuse to apologize for my beliefs!
even though this term is used as if it is some kind of disease...
yes, i believe that homosexuality is a sin...
but it is not a matter of not liking homosexuals; it is the behavior i object to...
just as i have an objection to adulterous behavior... i do not object to people!
Jesus came to save people... but that doesn't mean that i whitewash sin...
everyone in the country is allowed to believe whatever they want...
and liberals would tolerate any belief system...
except for christian fundamentalism...
that the liberals can't tolerate...
i don't force my beliefs on others... but surely i should be allowed to express them!
i don't try to legislate my beliefs... although the homosexual lobby is definitely trying to legislate their belief system...
even to the point of "hate crimes/hate speech"...
which has the effect of silencing the expression of my belief system!
and thereby forcing their worldview down my throat!
but i'm sure you don't have a problem with that...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It seems the only answer you will find acceptable is if Christians say yes, they are homophobes. My opinion is probably not representative ... jen-o is maybe closer ... but you keep trying to put this majority in a convenient box.
So you are going to believe all those people are bigots because they disagree with you ... unless someone PROVES you wrong ... prove to me that doesn't make you bigoted.
Kids learn concepts ... this further removes the concept of marriage and family ... Many today feel there is no good reason to get married, UNLESS you are going to have kids.But as Sudo's new thread points out, the standard now seems to just go ahead and have kids ... even in high school. It is not OK to "stigmatize" these kids .. so it is only acceptable to tell everyone how great it is that these young girls are having kids in high school. The concept that you get married then have kids has been removed. What are the schools teaching?
I'm not adding to the legal definition. I'm saying it is part of the marriage picture. If you see people you haven't seen in 20 years what do you say? "So did you get married? Do you have kids?"
The concept is of the longer term commitment ... and hopefully the idea of being "fruitful" and multiplying ... It just doesn't seem being fruity was part of the mix.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This thread really started with a sort of dual subject.
So this merged the religious belief and the state position. But the state is the people. We are not a theocracy, run by the pope or the church, but we are a republic, and people can express their views and they get injected into the state.
But I'll quote part of NIKA's intro ...
This starts off assuming homosexual couples are the same as heterosexual. It is not axiomatic that because racism was wrong and sexism (depending on how that is defined) is wrong, that this is wrong.
Discrimination takes place all the time .... age, size, intelligence, blood alcohol content ... the idea is to have a reason to discriminate.
Again with the God thing ... the Bible God didn't make them that way as I recall, and how many homosexuals really believe any God did make them that way? I think mostly they are not religious people, which is fine.
I don't know that this "no choice" thing is established, but for most intents and purposes, say it is. They are in no case a couple that can marry and bear their own children. Is this a reason to discriminate against them in any way, when it comes to raising children or being married? Despite a few wealthy and high profile examples, I'm not sure we know even from the sociologist's viewpoint.
But every time it has been voted on, the people have voted against gay marriage. So the states have taken a stand on this issue time after time. This fall the state of California will vote on this issue again, and again they will take a stand on what they want.
It may be mostly Christian people that vote against this, that doesn't make them bigots or wrong. It seems the burden of proof is on those that want to make the change.
But maybe jen-o said it better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
i dunno, rhino, i think you said that QUITE well!
and that, my friend, was an EXCELLENT analysis, and sorting out of the issues involved!
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I for one am happy that in a country that claimes to 'fight' for the freedoms of all people and where in its foundational written documents it clearly states "all men are created equal" that a certain amount of freedom is finally being afforded to a group of people to whom it has been denied. Some would say that those people still had the 'freedom' to love whomever they wished and only denied the term 'marriage'. I would catagorically disagree with this assessment.
This country is the greatest country in the world of that I have no doubt. However many of the laws of this country can find their basis in the moral value system of the ruling order. Those moral values were formed by religion. And frankly I find some of their moral values just as repulsive as I find some of the Moslem moral values. On this issue of homosexuality I whole heartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality.
Just as most of us, while in TWI I spoke out against homosexuality and used those same tired verses to justify my narrowmindedness. Then a few years ago I was once again asked to show where it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I returned to those same verses...and we all fell flat. After much study and personal growth I have changed my views.
I dont know if God blesses Cali more or less or or just keeps score, but I for one give the Judges a kudos for doing their job despite public opposition. If the population of Cali wants to overturn the decision they are going to need to approach it legally, with a constitutional amendment. Until that happens I hope a million people get in there and get themselves married.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
dear eyesopen,
i was not a part of the ranting, raving "homo" purge of twi... so i am not coming from that mindset... nor do i recall twi ever mentioning these verses... you have labeled yourself as having been "narrowminded", but it is dishonest to extrapolate that to include all those who disagree with your current position... i also find it noteworthy that you have labeled the scriptures that i listed in my post #28 as "tired"... do you really feel that certain scriptures are "tired"??
perhaps, you would like to expound on the reasons why you disagree with the interpretation (of the scriptures i listed) as being anything other that the rather clear and plain meaning that they have...
i would be interested in knowing how you have interpreted those scriptures...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Wow Jen-o! Let me see if I can address your concerns.
I had already left TWI when the homo purge went on...where as I noticed in another thread that you were there at that time,
{Forgive me for crossing threads folks this is only used as a reference and nothing more also for reference the homo purge started sometime in the early 90's and ended when LCM left}You (Jeno-o) may not have partook of the teaching but you were there, I was not nor did I address it in my post. I never even suggested that you or anyone else was 'ranting or raving' about anything. Neither did I extrapolate anything, nor did I even mention your post (any of them) in fact I did not address you at all. As far as labeling myself as 'narrow minded' frankly I was when I was in TWI. Anything that I was taught was gospel for quite some time. Including the 'homo' thing for a time. But eventually I woke up and began to think and study for myself.
I'm sure that you would like to know how or the reasons why I disagree with the scriptures used to prove the sin nature of homosexuality but I will not do that here, for three reasons; 1 this is the "Open" forum not the "Doctrinal" forum and 2. The amount of research that was done on these scriptures would take up way too much space and last but not least, this thread is about homosexual marriage which by the way I did address in my original post.
Basically Jen-o I was neither talking to you nor about you and I fail to see why you have taken my post personally.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
these are the points that your post addressed... further, i am the only one here who has stated that God is not gonna "bless" california because of this...
so if you are not talking to me personally (or someone like me who holds the same perspective as i do), then who are you talking about when you say that you "wholeheartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality"...
who are you disagreeing with, if not me??
(and why are you so surprised that i would respond to your post?)
yes, i spent time in twi from 94-97...
and you say that the "homo" purge started in the early 90's & ended when lcm left...
i'll have to take your word for that because i was unaware of the specifics of the timeframe for the "homo" purge...
this may come as a surprise to you, but in my little twig, we never talked about homosexuals...
nor did anyone ever bring up scriptural references about them...
just because i was officially "in" twi does not mean that i was privy to lcm's rantings and ravings...
(i've never met the man... nor have i spent time at HQ, etc.)
since you have noticed the years i was "in" twi,
you must have also noticed that i never climbed the ladder of the hierarchy, but remained a lowly leaf the whole time i was in...
so maybe this info was reserved for the way corps... i dunno, but i know i wasn't in on it...
and to assume that i was is quite a leap...
the whole reason i mentioned that i was not a part of it was to let you know that i am not coming from that mindset!
since you had assumed that most of us had "spoken out against homosexuality while using "tired" verses to justify our narrow mindedness"...
actually, eyesopen, i am far more interested in seeing you support your position...it is one thing to make a blanket statement that you disagree with something,
and quite another to support that statement...
if someone has done a great deal of research on the topic,
they should be able to briefly and succinctly state the reasons why they believe the way they do...
i fail to see why this would "take up way too much space"...
nor do i think that every time a biblical thought crosses someone's mind,
that they should have to go to the "doctrinal" section in order to post a statement or sentence...
(i think that is a cop out)
and third, this thread may be about homosexual marriage, but it's also about "God Blessing california" for it...
and as rhino has pointed out, the thread has a dual subject...
with one of the subjects being: should God bless this idea based upon what the bible says about homosexual acts...
(so i think that this is quite "on topic")
evidently, you think that you have some special information on how to interpret what the bible means when it talks about homosexual acts,
but you don't want to share it??
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I am putting this link here because it sheds some light on Eyesopen's position that the subject may be too broad for a cursory examination.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...mp;#entry403975
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Now how would you address the homos at the alter in LA??
http://www.weddingplanninglinks.com/planni...eddingvows.html
"Dear Queer(s)",
We are gathered?... here together in the "sight" (another one of those vp orientalisms) of WHO...? Billy Bob and Johnny Jump Up!!
I mean really, someone else can fill in the rest. Is there anything new here that hasn't been played out for centuries? Romans had a go at the issue, no?
I think God has nothing to do with man's perversions no matter how crazy the liberal courts become?
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/watercool...e4-2cd6e1c31b37
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
God does not hate anyone, God is LOVE. and all you homo
phobic people out their have no idea how many are in our
military and how many other fields of profession that may
have saved YOUR life!
Don't be hating,next it'll be God bless our military and all
the Gay people in it..that can't say they are.
Grow up America..God bless EVERYONE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I havent followed every post in this thread. I really dont get the "God thinks such and such " arguments, as if someone could be presumptuous enough to assume to know exactly what an infinite and timeless God thinks.
Various denominations,--old respected denominations--that have proven their worth-- who are no less God seekers than the most ardent fundamentalists, have had no problem marrying gays (Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, some Episcopalian churches, as well as the Unitarians and Reformed Judaism--there may be others Im too lazy to look them up--) in spiritual ceremonies to seal and confirm their sacred vows.
If the Church sees fit to perform the ceremony and join two in matrimony.-- is it somehow right for the state to recognize and honor some churches practices and not recognize others?
If thats the case it becomes dangerously close to having a State religion that dictates matters of doctrine and practice
I doubt that there is anyone here on either side of the argument who advocates that
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I would agree with jen-o ... it would be simple enough to briefly summarize why Eyes' would disagree with what seem to be obvious verses on the subject. Or if her views are even based on the Bible. The book seems based on many sources.
As I recall, that topic of her book was not much on the book, but more on "buy my book". I just read the blurbs on it in Amazon and her own page ... and I saw no evidence of Teresa having any real background in Biblical research or any research, and actually there is evidence of problems with grammar. To do a fly by here, and spend a lot of time saying why she won't support her position, when just a little time supporting it would do, does seem evasive.
OK city WOW ... don't you love homophobes too? God Bless Homophobes ...
But really, the "God Bless Homosexuality" portion of this thread can be questioned. People may decide they don't want "marriage" to be allowed for homosexual mates, and they have ... it is that simple.
Their vote may be partly or largely based on their interpretation of the Bible. It does not make them homophobes. It means they discriminate based on their belief that marriage is a man and woman. They do have history on their side as well.
That is one problem I have with the "God bless California" lead in. What reason is given for saying "hey people, you can still believe adultery is wrong, but you need to change to the liberal university mandated dogma when it comes to homosexuality, or you are wrong."
I would not want children taken from a Mom just because she lived with her lesbian lover, though Dad has rights also. And certainly lcm's rants sound pretty insane. I'd be in favor of some "equality", but not in favor of changing the "sacrament of marriage".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
No, and that is why it has nothing to do with the positions of the various churches, but on the vote of the majority.
There will always be judgment calls. Adultery is grounds for divorce ... but I thought it was no business of the state, what goes on in people's bedrooms.
What is wrong with polygamy? This "union between any two of age people" is bigoted ...
There are lines drawn somewhere, and the majority have overwhelmingly said male/female marriage is what they want. The minority should respect that instead of calling them bigots, haters, close minded, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You left out calling them "FEARFUL"- as in -phobic.
Now,
an arachnophobe is AFRAID of spiders.
Bring a spider into the room, walk up to them with it, and they will RUN out of the room.
(I knew someone who did Psych experiments where this exact thing happened.)
An ophidophobe is AFRAID of lizards and snakes.
They can have trouble READING about them.
(Again, I knew someone who this happened to.)
I'm not aware of anyone who can't even READ about homosexuals,
or who has to run out of the room when one enters the room, even if one approached them.
Why is it, then, that many people I know would be labelled "homoPHOBES"?
How did "I disagree" become "that means this FILLS YOU WITH FEAR?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.