Does allowing for diversity include parents having no voice in what their children are forced to be taught and have to accept?
Do Christians and the many other cultures and belief systems opposed to homosexuality have the right to have their culture and religious views respected in society when it comes to decent and natural sexual behavior in the education system and in public?
Are homosexuals demanding accesss to children under the label of diversity and anti-hate legislation?
This seems the number one issue between average and normal "family" people and the homosexual agenda.
Can there be laws passed that keeps homosexuality from becoming forced on children and families that oppose it, without the homosexual community and homosexual action organizations crying discrimination?
Is there such a thing anymore as heterosexual rights?
Sodom, Greece, Rome and homosexuality.
Moderator: Moderators
Post #131
From Chimp: "I am still unclear what you mean, Al. How is the gay agenda taught in schools? I understand you are offended by gay people
and find everything they do repulsive, however, you still haven't stated
explicitly what they are doing to teach the gay agenda."
///
Sexual acts should be a private matter. I am offended by indeceny. Gays and lesbians for example, hise what they do behind a facade of lies. They have same sex sex.
Normalizing same sex sex, is not logical in the education system, anymore than one religion being promoted as being better than another, in the education setting. Once that is done, then challenges can and should be made. Goofy perspectives like most atheists have, is that Christians do not want to be challenged. Exactly the opposite is true. It is precisely because Christians have done an excellent job in defining what is and what isn't Christian, that those that are caught being liars or worse, have just silenced it all together.
I empower Christians all over the country to put their Bibles in their back pockets, and go after the issues with empiricism!
Atheists and secularists and evolutionists demand science be given the ONLY voice in schools and so do I. Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic. Anything else is faith-based beliefs. And we all know that is a big no-no. Why, I don't know, except that non-godians are afriad of being "judged," and we just can't have that. But, if you see what Atheists like Lotan post time and again, it is sound judgements made by "experts." yet, when anyone thinks that the digestive tract is part of the sexual organs, it is laughable when they are protected by people who demand science be the final say in all matters of faith.
Yet, homosexuality is faith based, because it goes against observable facts.
My only point to the opposition I have of homosexuality, is not that they can do whatever they want to do, just don't cross the line of trying to rationalize the "behavior" as anything but choice. Even if they were born to have sexual feelings for same sex peopel, it is clearly observable by facts as wrong actions when acted out.
Lotan, in a wierd way, proves this point by using "Christians" that are sexual deviants. It is well established what Christians should do sexually.
By observable facts.
They are eiother erring or they are not.
Which again points to sexually deviant and unnatural behavior as being wrong.
God is not afraid of facts.
Lotan listed how many sexual fiends make it into Churches and other places where they can have power over children, without a clue that that is exactly MY point!
I will judge what a person DOES! I do not judge their souls. That is for Christ Jesus alone. He is the judge of the universe. I can make assertions about what I see and will remanin silent onn what I cannot.
The rules I go by a clearly defined and setled long ago. I truly encourage skepticism if it is not just Anti-Christ ranting. Skeptics have made Christ far more Holy than they have demotedf Him. Then I get to make a few points. Like anatomy and physiology. No way there can be an argumant abnout those branches of science on sexual issues. Why fear the truth unless you are afraid of it?
I have not one time given my statement of what I do sexually.
Why would I? We are discussing what is and what isn't proper social behavior. I am not an evangelist so I am not concerned with a person's choice behavior UNLESS they want to insult and denigrate my beliefs and my rights to live free and uninsulted. Obviously that is a pipe dream and not realistic BUT the homosexual agenda is not going to ever be normalized because it is indecent to label yourself by what should be a private sexual preference.
Note that "sexual preference" and "lifestyle choice" that were once used by sexual hedonists, is no longer effective. Now, homosexuality is a congenital condition. Which by the way, completely defines homosexuality as wrong and as a birth defect.
I'd rather just view people by their right to choose what they want to do as long as they don't pass it off as decent if it is not.
Does anyone like to hear two guys at a market talking about the sexual acts they "performed" on or with a woman?
No.
and find everything they do repulsive, however, you still haven't stated
explicitly what they are doing to teach the gay agenda."
///
Sexual acts should be a private matter. I am offended by indeceny. Gays and lesbians for example, hise what they do behind a facade of lies. They have same sex sex.
Normalizing same sex sex, is not logical in the education system, anymore than one religion being promoted as being better than another, in the education setting. Once that is done, then challenges can and should be made. Goofy perspectives like most atheists have, is that Christians do not want to be challenged. Exactly the opposite is true. It is precisely because Christians have done an excellent job in defining what is and what isn't Christian, that those that are caught being liars or worse, have just silenced it all together.
I empower Christians all over the country to put their Bibles in their back pockets, and go after the issues with empiricism!
Atheists and secularists and evolutionists demand science be given the ONLY voice in schools and so do I. Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic. Anything else is faith-based beliefs. And we all know that is a big no-no. Why, I don't know, except that non-godians are afriad of being "judged," and we just can't have that. But, if you see what Atheists like Lotan post time and again, it is sound judgements made by "experts." yet, when anyone thinks that the digestive tract is part of the sexual organs, it is laughable when they are protected by people who demand science be the final say in all matters of faith.
Yet, homosexuality is faith based, because it goes against observable facts.
My only point to the opposition I have of homosexuality, is not that they can do whatever they want to do, just don't cross the line of trying to rationalize the "behavior" as anything but choice. Even if they were born to have sexual feelings for same sex peopel, it is clearly observable by facts as wrong actions when acted out.
Lotan, in a wierd way, proves this point by using "Christians" that are sexual deviants. It is well established what Christians should do sexually.
By observable facts.
They are eiother erring or they are not.
Which again points to sexually deviant and unnatural behavior as being wrong.
God is not afraid of facts.
Lotan listed how many sexual fiends make it into Churches and other places where they can have power over children, without a clue that that is exactly MY point!
I will judge what a person DOES! I do not judge their souls. That is for Christ Jesus alone. He is the judge of the universe. I can make assertions about what I see and will remanin silent onn what I cannot.
The rules I go by a clearly defined and setled long ago. I truly encourage skepticism if it is not just Anti-Christ ranting. Skeptics have made Christ far more Holy than they have demotedf Him. Then I get to make a few points. Like anatomy and physiology. No way there can be an argumant abnout those branches of science on sexual issues. Why fear the truth unless you are afraid of it?
I have not one time given my statement of what I do sexually.
Why would I? We are discussing what is and what isn't proper social behavior. I am not an evangelist so I am not concerned with a person's choice behavior UNLESS they want to insult and denigrate my beliefs and my rights to live free and uninsulted. Obviously that is a pipe dream and not realistic BUT the homosexual agenda is not going to ever be normalized because it is indecent to label yourself by what should be a private sexual preference.
Note that "sexual preference" and "lifestyle choice" that were once used by sexual hedonists, is no longer effective. Now, homosexuality is a congenital condition. Which by the way, completely defines homosexuality as wrong and as a birth defect.
I'd rather just view people by their right to choose what they want to do as long as they don't pass it off as decent if it is not.
Does anyone like to hear two guys at a market talking about the sexual acts they "performed" on or with a woman?
No.
Post #132
This causes me concern. I am Christian. I fully endorse the varieties of humanity, be they color, sexuality, or religion. Since when does being Christian mean passing our own judgement on LGBT's lifestyle as wrong: pawning it off as the word of God doesn't cut it either. To do so is a best hipocricy and at worst devaluing your Christian brethren and sisters who do not agree with your limited view of the Bible, and indeed of all the other religions out there you claim to be adamantly against homosexuality.It is precisely because Christians have done an excellent job in defining what is and what isn't Christian, that those that are caught being liars or worse, have just silenced it all together
you are right in that schools do not teach "the" gay agenda, but rather a heterosexual agenda. further, you voiced concern that there is a call by others to make science the only voice heard in schools. But if your argument is that Christian doctrine should be taught in schools such as the creation of humankind along with evolutionary theory, then every creation story believed to be true by the various peoples of America, be they Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Muslim etc.. should also be taught, for all of these represent the beliefs of American families who send their children through our public school system. To raise the Christian standard above all others, for whatever reason, is a) not Christian and b) following other dangerous precedents throughout history in which one religious viewpoint is held true above all others. One can make the argument that science is that religion, and that this precedent is currently being played out in our society today: but, like music, math, and literature, science gives education a common ground, regardless of religion, ethnicity etc... we may all learn through a curriculum in which one's religion is not tested.
In what way are right and wrong observable facts. Morality is not a fact. right does not equal correct and wrong equal incorrect in the manner in which you speak. Morality is relative to conditions of time, place, and culture. Arguing that there are and have always been defined Right and Wrong cannot account for the whole of human history, of human morality which has changed and altered throughout the course of time. An observable fact must not be relegated into the realm of morality and beliefs- one of the most famous examples of that happening is the Holocaust.Yet, homosexuality is faith based, because it goes against observable facts.
My only point to the opposition I have of homosexuality, is not that they can do whatever they want to do, just don't cross the line of trying to rationalize the "behavior" as anything but choice. Even if they were born to have sexual feelings for same sex peopel, it is clearly observable by facts as wrong actions when acted out.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #133
palmera wrote:
the person you quoted
Quote:
Taking people out and burning them and there writings because they don't agree with you is an abomination. As far as Any other sexual life style
I would have to agree with Ronald Regan(not something I normaly do)
It dosn't matter as long as they "don't scare the horses". I think that could be good advice for hetrosexuals too. lol
This causes me concern. I am Christian. I fully endorse the varieties of humanity, be they color, sexuality, or religion. Since when does being Christian mean passing our own judgement on LGBT's lifestyle as wrong: pawning it off as the word of God doesn't cut it either. To do so is a best hipocricy and at worst devaluing your Christian brethren and sisters who do not agree with your limited view of the Bible, and indeed of all the other religions out there you claim to be adamantly against homosexuality.
Oh the beautiful voice of reason. I have often wondered which view of creation should be taught. Even the one about the universe rests on the back of a turtle. Which is a lovely story.But if your argument is that Christian doctrine should be taught in schools such as the creation of humankind along with evolutionary theory, then every creation story believed to be true by the various peoples of America, be they Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, Muslim etc.. should also be taught, for all of these represent the beliefs of American families who send their children through our public school system. To raise the Christian standard above all others, for whatever reason, is a) not Christian and b) following other dangerous precedents throughout history in which one religious viewpoint is held true above all others.
the person you quoted
Quote:
has expressed my fears as well as yours that to much of that has been done. The early Church did a fine job of "weeding out" both people and writings much to humanities loss. I don't want to see more of it.It is precisely because Christians have done an excellent job in defining what is and what isn't Christian, that those that are caught being liars or worse, have just silenced it all together
Taking people out and burning them and there writings because they don't agree with you is an abomination. As far as Any other sexual life style
I would have to agree with Ronald Regan(not something I normaly do)
It dosn't matter as long as they "don't scare the horses". I think that could be good advice for hetrosexuals too. lol
Post #134
It causes me concern when a "Christian" endorses the varieties of humanity, be they color, sexuality or religion.
"I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except by me."
Not exactly "endorsing" many paths or "cultures."
Anatomy only endorses one kind of sexuality. No need to pick a Bible on that one. Physiology has a very limited view of sexuality.
You are wrong if you think I wrote that the schools are NOT teaching the homosexual (gay) agenda.
I am absolutely OK with "every kind of creation story" being taught in schools. Wow! Diversity taught in public schools instead of the convoluted and myoppic secular-atheist-freethinker-humanist bobblehead version.
It is obvious that it is time for you "as a Christian" to read the Bible you have heard so much about. Then "morality" will make sense. when you get to the part about the wheat and the tares, look in the mirror.
"I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except by me."
Not exactly "endorsing" many paths or "cultures."
Anatomy only endorses one kind of sexuality. No need to pick a Bible on that one. Physiology has a very limited view of sexuality.
You are wrong if you think I wrote that the schools are NOT teaching the homosexual (gay) agenda.
I am absolutely OK with "every kind of creation story" being taught in schools. Wow! Diversity taught in public schools instead of the convoluted and myoppic secular-atheist-freethinker-humanist bobblehead version.
It is obvious that it is time for you "as a Christian" to read the Bible you have heard so much about. Then "morality" will make sense. when you get to the part about the wheat and the tares, look in the mirror.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #135
AlAyeti wrote:
We use our fingers to pick our noses it wasn't created for that we are just inventive and creative.
Next time I am on the street I am going ask a few school kids "Hey kid they teaching you to be queer?"
I am not familiar with that theory.
And what am I suppose to see in the mirror? If I were you I wouldn't look in the mirror. I am not into the
I just bet it does. Nothing worse then human diversity.It causes me concern when a "Christian" endorses the varieties of humanity, be they color, sexuality or religion.
I question that those are his words and that he ever said that. That would be a much later Christology like the Gospel of John. A good 60 to 100 years after his death. It is only endorsing the church and it's leader against precived heresies."I am the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except by me."
Anatomy doesn't endorse anything it just makes some stuff easier.Anatomy only endorses one kind of sexuality
We use our fingers to pick our noses it wasn't created for that we are just inventive and creative.
No I am not! What gay agenda is being taught?You are wrong if you think I wrote that the schools are NOT teaching the homosexual (gay) agenda.
Next time I am on the street I am going ask a few school kids "Hey kid they teaching you to be queer?"
.instead of the convoluted and myoppic secular-atheist-freethinker-humanist bobblehead version
I am not familiar with that theory.
I belive I have read it a few times at least, But I can't belive what I an hearing. Morality can make sense but I am not sure you do.It is obvious that it is time for you "as a Christian" to read the Bible you have heard so much about. Then "morality" will make sense. when you get to the part about the wheat and the tares, look in the mirror.
And what am I suppose to see in the mirror? If I were you I wouldn't look in the mirror. I am not into the
I like where he spits some out of his mouth and eats the others.wheat and the tares
Post #136
The problem with this statement is that it is ignorant. Please do not take this as a personal attack; I realize you are not stupid, but merely ignorant of a few facts and assuming much. First, to claim that physiology/anatomy alone "endorses" a sexuality is to assume that the mental faculties of the human play no part in one's sexuality, which it has been proven they do. Secondly, you fail to recognize that so far at least 8 different genders have been recognized. If anatomy defines one's sexuality, then what sexuality is a person with both male and female reproductive organs? what of a person with partial reproductive organs? what of the unfortunate individual with no reproductive organs? The "limited" view of sexuality broadens in scope into areas of gray not easily definable, indeed inherently undefinable when coupled with the complexities of the human mind and chemical balances of the human body.Anatomy only endorses one kind of sexuality. No need to pick a Bible on that one. Physiology has a very limited view of sexuality.
This doesn't make sense- both myopic and freethinking... oxymoron.myoppic secular-atheist-freethinker-humanist bobblehead version.
Again, you assume and patronize much. I've from a southern university with a degree in religious studies (my focus by the way was Old and New Testament Biblical analysis (in Hebrew,Greek and English) and this fall head to Harvard to continue my studies as a work towards a PhD.. But perhaps I should finally read this Bible you speak of.It is obvious that it is time for you "as a Christian" to read the Bible you have heard so much about. Then "morality" will make sense. when you get to the part about the wheat and the tares, look in the mirror.
The central tenet of Jesus' teachings is not that he is the only way (refer back to an educated comment on this from Cathar1950) but rather the golden rule. Those who would reject others for their sexuality based on their own judgements while proclaiming Chrisitian morality and righteousness should quickly heed this most important teaching.
Post #137
No one is saying one is better than the other...just that it exists andAlAyeti wrote:
Normalizing same sex sex, is not logical in the education system, anymore than one religion being promoted as being better than another, in the education setting.
should be acknowledged.
by extension of (your) logic, if it were proved that there was a geneticAlAyeti wrote: Sexuality can only be defined by anatomy. That is perfect logic.
component to homosexuality, you must accept homosexuality as
anatomical.
Careful, Al...you don't want gays saying they are a religion...then you'd neverAlAyeti wrote: Yet, homosexuality is faith based, because it goes against observable facts.
get rid of them, and they would have a lot more protections.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #138
A religion of homosexuality.
The first church of The homosexual.
I see a money maker. Tax free too.
Has any one approached Gays and Lesbians on this?
would they let others in that were not like them Or would they more open?
How come everything secular is suppose to faith based but when it comes to religion it is fact? Is something upside down here?
I think they should let them in the military too. They have a long history of service. An open society should be practiced not just praised.
Freedom should be experienced not just a slogan for war.
The first church of The homosexual.
I see a money maker. Tax free too.
Has any one approached Gays and Lesbians on this?
would they let others in that were not like them Or would they more open?
How come everything secular is suppose to faith based but when it comes to religion it is fact? Is something upside down here?
I think they should let them in the military too. They have a long history of service. An open society should be practiced not just praised.
Freedom should be experienced not just a slogan for war.
Post #139
"by extension of (your) logic, if it were proved that there was a genetic
component to homosexuality, you must accept homosexuality as
anatomical."
///
No, logically. they would be born with a birth defect. Proven by anatomy and physiology.
///
"Careful, Al...you don't want gays saying they are a religion...then you'd never
get rid of them, and they would have a lot more protections."
///
Actually, that is exactly what I would like to see. They certainly believe in things that are challenged by science. Then they would leave Christianity alone, and exist in the light of what they are, the kingdom of the cults. Or, they could repent and follow "you know who."
///
Now on that statement about more than two sexes. Whoa.
Please. Aberrations are aberrations and deformity is an abnormality. But, of the only two sexes humans come in are male and female. Please someone let facts support this argument for once. Paint me as a right-wing fanatic on something else. But on sexuality, the proof is all too easy to see, and science pats me on the back for letting rationality rule this topic. Closed-minded, I am far from.
component to homosexuality, you must accept homosexuality as
anatomical."
///
No, logically. they would be born with a birth defect. Proven by anatomy and physiology.
///
"Careful, Al...you don't want gays saying they are a religion...then you'd never
get rid of them, and they would have a lot more protections."
///
Actually, that is exactly what I would like to see. They certainly believe in things that are challenged by science. Then they would leave Christianity alone, and exist in the light of what they are, the kingdom of the cults. Or, they could repent and follow "you know who."
///
Now on that statement about more than two sexes. Whoa.
Please. Aberrations are aberrations and deformity is an abnormality. But, of the only two sexes humans come in are male and female. Please someone let facts support this argument for once. Paint me as a right-wing fanatic on something else. But on sexuality, the proof is all too easy to see, and science pats me on the back for letting rationality rule this topic. Closed-minded, I am far from.
Post #140
The fact is humans do not simply come in two sexes- not phisically or mentally. Perhaps this frightens you into relegating some humans into categories of abnormality, giving yourself a pat on the back for your superior knowledge and logic. It is interesting that you find flaws in that which differs from the norm; that, because it is different it is inherently deformed. And yet, taken out of the realm of sexuality, certain deformities cn be life saving, such as having a natural immunity to certain diseases which would kill most other human beings. You treat alternative physiological sexual construction as a deformity in a way that likens it to a retardation, a birth defect. This is indeed close minded.Please. Aberrations are aberrations and deformity is an abnormality. But, of the only two sexes humans come in are male and female. Please someone let facts support this argument for once. Paint me as a right-wing fanatic on something else. But on sexuality, the proof is all too easy to see, and science pats me on the back for letting rationality rule this topic. Closed-minded, I am far from.
I can't tell if you're joking around or not. Not only does your response not make any sense, but it's ignorance certainly concerns me in so far as it is the response of one who claims to be Christian. Furthrmore- I did have a friend who came into this forum and pulled everyone's leg for a while; he's an idiot."Careful, Al...you don't want gays saying they are a religion...then you'd never
get rid of them, and they would have a lot more protections."
///
Actually, that is exactly what I would like to see. They certainly believe in things that are challenged by science. Then they would leave Christianity alone, and exist in the light of what they are, the kingdom of the cults. Or, they could repent and follow "you know who."
