The Gay agenda

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Tue May 24, 2011 7:46 pm

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN

The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

Question Everything · Post by **Question Everything** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:39 am

lastcallhall wrote:I believe we were a christian nation and still are christian leaning and yes I look forward to heaven very much.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

4th day of November 1796

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, " as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, " and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:33 pm

We've been over this time and time again... defending irrationality with random bible quotes only makes your entire position look weaker. Are you trying to propose now that you are alright with oppressing others because you are totally fine with being oppressed yourself?

I don't feel like I am oppressing anyone. I am against changing marriage but I don't care who lives with who. If you reject the Bible it is your business and you can live any lifestyle you wish. I am against being forced to accept gay marriage.

Again man, not really trying to convince you of anything. This is all for the silent masses. I will keep it up as long as you do.

Fair enough

What does me 'rejecting' a non-existent fictional character have to do with the Theory of Evolution? There is nothing wrong with ignorance, but spitting in the face of a man who offers to educate you on a matter you admit to be lacking in, is not a good way to learn more. Perhaps you simply need to call me a 'fool' so that you can (much as with the whole 'you're a liberal' thing) rationalize it to yourself that you don't have to listen to me?

Believe it or not I have had many people try to educate me on evolution and I still don't see it, I would not call you a fool just misguided. You think I am horribly misguided so in the end we just totally disagree.

Notice what you've done there. Limited your child's options. Oh sure, Liberty will work fine... as long as she wants to go into the ministry or get a business degree.

What if she wants to be an Engineer? An Astronaut? An Ambassador? A Doctor?

Only limited in your mind, forgive me if I don't change my future plans because you think I am limiting my kids future. If they want me to pay for it I will have a say in where they go. If they want to go to a secular university fine but they won't get a nickle from me.

If I was a parent, I would want my child to have a whole *world* of options and every advantage I could give to help them make their dreams into reality. By saying, 'oh, they will be able to get into one of these small handful of average schools and pursue a moderately okay degree, but not get exposed to the gays or evolution' is not that attitude. I respect your ability to make that decision, I am just trying to point out the inherent flaws in it.

And I am pointing out that the greatest victory in life they can have is to accept Jesus, everything else does not really matter. I hope you see that I do not measure success by your job or checkbook size, I measure success by if you know Jesus.

Well, any business in the world would care a great deal. Your children might care if they are competing for a job and the other person has Harvard on their resume, while they have Liberty University.

If I was hiring at my company bring in the guy from Liberty!!!

That's an Appeal to Tradition.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ition.html

What worked for you doesn't always work for your children. You again profess wanting what is the *best* for *them*, when it sounds like you are trying to force upon them what was *best* for *you*.

So what if it is an appeal to tradition, and how can you say I don't know what is best for my children? That is a bold statement.

You protested that your children could 'never' be homosexual. People with your religious beliefs and anti-homosexual convictions are caught acting in homosexual manners all the time. It proves that it happens, and points out the ridiculousness of your bold faced statement that your children are immune for some unknown reason.

People fall that is a part of life but if they have a solid foundation built on Jesus they will not fall into the homosexual lifestyle. Let's pretend that I thought dudes were attractive with my beliefs I would be celibate at worst case, being gay is not a sin the lifestyle is.

The fact that you function in life is purely your opinion, and not something I expect you to prove to my satisfaction.

And the fact you think I don't means nothing to me

You are just horribly concerned that your children (who you have in a Christian Fundamentalist Bubble) will get exposed to sin by the outside world.

Totally false, they could not be around me and my wife then because I sin and so does she.

Assuming they don't stay inside the bubble for the rest of their lives, they are going to be theoretically ill equipped to handle the temptation. Perhaps you, for one, have simply stayed within the bubble yourself. I cannot know.

Your opinion with nothing to back it up other than what you think

Oops! Looks like I caught you. Doesn't *appear* as if what you were quoting actually matches what is on the link you helpfully provided. Let me guess... you realized that you were pulling it from an obviously biased news source and I'd call you on it? And that they were *maybe* just maybe twisting the details of the story to suit an agenda... your agenda?

No not really couldn't find the same website I had found before just Googled it

Other than the fact that you are clearly drawing your first article from a biased sort and trying to cover that up, I'd say that there are some high degrees of difference between the details of the first article and the second. For one thing, exactly what was involved in the lessons. It seems *almost* as if the anonymous people in the first article were... oh I don't want to say *lying*... let's call it... exaggerating?

BULL they both say they were forced to pray muslim prayers and THAT IS NEVER acceptable not ever!

I'd also like to say though, that... just so that you know... Allah means God and is God, just in a different language

.

Jehovah is God, Allah was a pagan moon God. The word means the same but they are not that same God, there is one God and his name is Jehovah

The big difference between them and you is they have a prophet after Jesus and don't accept your Jesus' divinity. So saying, 'God is Great' in Arabic is about as blasphemous as saying, 'Go Jesus' in Chinese.

That difference makes all the difference in the world, we worship Jesus as God they see him as a prophet, BIG BIG difference and they are not compatable.

Well, don't hold back or be bashful. Link to where it happened? Describe it a bit more? He changed your view on abortion very slightly how?

I said I could se in very very limited cases where there was NO other option and the mother was close to death that an abortion could be seen as a justifiable killing. Not a big change but a change.

I get it. Any one who isn't an ultra-conservative republican who is a god fearing fundamentalist Christian *HAS* to be a liberal. Is that it? If I am not with you I am against you?

Didn't say that you just come across as liberal, sorry if that offends you

Lastcallhall, you were very clearly laying a lot of really hefty accusations against the Liberals. For example, you accused them of having both a Gay and an Evolutionary Conspiracy. So accusing them of trying to manipulate the whole world. You were quite clearly then trying to label me as a liberal. I could dig up the whole line of quotes if you like?

Sure, but why? I am not shy about saying what I think so what question do you wish to clarify?

Did you read my links? You see, 97%... is pretty settled. It doesn't get much more settled than that. Also now you don't care about it either way?! You sure seemed to care about it in previous posts?

I did read them and I will look into it more but it is far from as settled as you and your links say it is.

It is difficult sometimes admitting fault, but it is the honorable thing to do, and deserving of respect. I am going to assume by your relative silence that you were referencing Sen. James M. Inhofe's list?

I have seen a few lists and honestly I don't know to which I was referring. I do not keep good notes on things I really don't care about but I will look up his list.

Oh... I see. You don't want to sacrifice your lifestyle so are choosing to ignore the evidence and count on God to wave his magic wand and make the CO2 go away.

Bingo, I love my truck and won't litter on purpose but won't change anything either. I believe the Bible so I don't have much to worry about.

You spoke with Slopeshoulder a bit about the Evolution thing, and it sounds like you are more willing to be open and polite about it.

I would like to make clear that no, I do not think you are dumb. I think it is inappropriate for anyone though to dismiss out of hand something they do not take the time to try and learn about.

I am always willing to listen but again I am no expert on evolution for the simple fact that Genesis 1:1 tells me the story but I will listen to you and take part in a thread.

I will try and help. It is long and involved, but will get you started. The answers to the above are here, and if you can define them in your own words you will make me eat crow.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html

What exactly would you like me to define?

You see, lastcallhall, if the only places where you can find information supporting your narrow fringe fundamentalist bigoted opinions are from narrow fringe fundamentalist bigots with poor educations (talking about subjects out of their area of expertise), agendas, and financial incentives... it just might be that your opinions are... wrong.

And if you only get yours from secular, God hating people you may be wrong.

At the very least, your opinions are irrational.

If you think so it works for me.

Also, side note. What is bad about being intellectual? An intellectual is a person who uses their brain and critical thinking in a professional or personal capacity. I'm not sure I'd want to listen to anyone who didn't do that. I can't imagine why anyone would.

The majority I have spoke to do not believe in God and put down anyone who does. In my opinion they look down on average people and I guess they just are not my crowd, plus they wouldn't like an evangelical like me anyways.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:36 pm

I snipped the rest because 1. i don't want to presume to tell you what to do with your kids any more than I already have, and that was in the context of this thread and also more from anger, so I was wrong. And 2. I am moving 3000 miles tomorrow and won't be able to be really present to a thread, much less one I start, for a while. But I do appreciate the invitation.

Thanks for the kind words my friend, safe travels

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:40 pm

I'm not rejecting any study. You haven't cited one. Do you know what a study is? You linked to an article, not a study. The article does not refer to a single study that shows heterosexual parents do better than lesbian parents. Not one.

I will search further and post more articles/studies from christians that you can reject.

Follow me here:
1. You have no evidence whatsoever that children of heterosexual parents turn out better than children of lesbian parents. [That includes the article you linked, which contains no evidence of this.]
2. You claim that they do.

From my experience and a little work with Exodus I believe it is true so I am not lying. You can say I am but I'm not.

3. I am happy to cite hundreds of studies--reputable, scientific, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, that show that children of lesbian parents do as well as, and in some ways better than, children of heterosexual parents, as well as statements from child welfare and health organizations based on those studies.
4. It is therefore fair to conclude that your claim is false.

From secular people that reject God? I don't buy into those studies and would say they are misleading people.

Yet you keep making it.
When someone makes a claim that has been shown to be false, what do you call it?

Spreading slander about groups of people is wrong. It's immoral. Please stop doing it. Thank you.

I speak the truth and am sorry if it offends you

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:43 pm

Are you saying that these people are not Christians?

I am not that bold, all I am saying is they must take a large portion of the Bible and set it aside. I will let God make that call but the Bible says the homosexual lifestyle is a sin and leads to destruction.

Revelation 21:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:01 pm

Question Everything wrote:
lastcallhall wrote:I believe we were a christian nation and still are christian leaning and yes I look forward to heaven very much.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

4th day of November 1796

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, " as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, " and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

quotes James Madison as saying:

We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments

Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee." George Washington's prayer at Valley Forge
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained." -- George Washington in his Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, better husbands... the Bible makes the best people in the world." President Thomas Jefferson

Andrew Jackson,

"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests." President Andrew Jackson

George Washington said: "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:21 pm

lastcallhall wrote:
We've been over this time and time again... defending irrationality with random bible quotes only makes your entire position look weaker. Are you trying to propose now that you are alright with oppressing others because you are totally fine with being oppressed yourself?

I don't feel like I am oppressing anyone. I am against changing marriage but I don't care who lives with who. If you reject the Bible it is your business and you can live any lifestyle you wish. I am against being forced to accept gay marriage.
You're not being forced to do anything. Like it or hate it, it's up to you. Just don't prevent me from doing it.

Again man, not really trying to convince you of anything. This is all for the silent masses. I will keep it up as long as you do.
Fair enough

What does me 'rejecting' a non-existent fictional character have to do with the Theory of Evolution? There is nothing wrong with ignorance, but spitting in the face of a man who offers to educate you on a matter you admit to be lacking in, is not a good way to learn more. Perhaps you simply need to call me a 'fool' so that you can (much as with the whole 'you're a liberal' thing) rationalize it to yourself that you don't have to listen to me?
Believe it or not I have had many people try to educate me on evolution and I still don't see it, I would not call you a fool just misguided. You think I am horribly misguided so in the end we just totally disagree.
Again, OT of this thread. You have no idea what the Theory of Evolution is. None. Until you understand what it is, do you think it's wise to reject it? How can you reject if if you don't know what it is?

People fall that is a part of life but if they have a solid foundation built on Jesus they will not fall into the homosexual lifestyle. Let's pretend that I thought dudes were attractive with my beliefs I would be celibate at worst case, being gay is not a sin the lifestyle is.
Again, this is not based in fact. There are many Gay people who were raised in homes just like yours.
And if you only get yours from secular, God hating people you may be wrong.
This is what I mean by slandering people. Atheists don't hate God; we don't believe there is any such thing. Wouldn't it be silly of me to hate something that doesn't exist?

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:29 pm

lastcallhall wrote:
I'm not rejecting any study. You haven't cited one. Do you know what a study is? You linked to an article, not a study. The article does not refer to a single study that shows heterosexual parents do better than lesbian parents. Not one.

I will search further and post more articles/studies from christians that you can reject.
I haven't rejected any studies, because you haven't presented any. I would appreciate it if you would not make false statements about me. Thank you.
Here's what you need: A double-blind study that compares children who grow up with two moms vs. children who grow up with a mom and a dad, and finds that the former group does worse than the latter. If you cannot find any such study, and continue to claim that this is the case, you would be less than honest, don't you agree?

Follow me here:
1. You have no evidence whatsoever that children of heterosexual parents turn out better than children of lesbian parents. [That includes the article you linked, which contains no evidence of this.]
2. You claim that they do.
From my experience and a little work with Exodus I believe it is true so I am not lying. You can say I am but I'm not.
From your experience? That's so interesting. How many lesbian families do you know? I know a hundred or so, and on the whole our children are doing wonderfully, including my own three. On the other hand, I also know dozens of careless, irresponsible heterosexuals who have children they are not able, willing or prepared to care for. Of course, that doesn't happen to lesbians. In fact, like me, many of my lesbian friends are raising those very children.

3. I am happy to cite hundreds of studies--reputable, scientific, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, that show that children of lesbian parents do as well as, and in some ways better than, children of heterosexual parents, as well as statements from child welfare and health organizations based on those studies.
4. It is therefore fair to conclude that your claim is false.
From secular people that reject God? I don't buy into those studies and would say they are misleading people.
How on earth would I know the religion of the people doing the studies? Science works regardless of the religion of the scientist. I don't prejudge the person doing the study, I just look at their methodology. If the methodology is sound, than I accept the results. Why? Because that's the only honest approach.

Yet you keep making it.
When someone makes a claim that has been shown to be false, what do you call it?

Spreading slander about groups of people is wrong. It's immoral. Please stop doing it. Thank you.
I speak the truth and am sorry if it offends you

No, you don't. All of your statements are false, and I can prove them false. Making derogatory false statements about entire groups of people you know nothing about is morally wrong. Speaking as a member of that group, I would appreciate it if you stop spreading vicious slander about me; thank you.

Autodidact · Post by **Autodidact** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:36 pm

lastcallhall wrote:
Are you saying that these people are not Christians?
I am not that bold, all I am saying is they must take a large portion of the Bible and set it aside. I will let God make that call but the Bible says the homosexual lifestyle is a sin and leads to destruction.

Revelation 21:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

O.K., so, as I said, there are thousands of Gay Christians. Most Gay Americans, like most straight Americans, are Christian. I understand that you may disagree with their interpretation of the Bible, but then they disagree with yours, and believe you are setting aside large portions of your Bible.

Deadclown · Post by **Deadclown** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:18 am

lastcallhall wrote: I don't feel like I am oppressing anyone. I am against changing marriage but I don't care who lives with who. If you reject the Bible it is your business and you can live any lifestyle you wish. I am against being forced to accept gay marriage.

Maybe you do not understand the essential essence of debate, but your feelings again, count for nothing. You are offering opinions that are unsupported statements that infringe upon the rights of a minority group. You vote in the direction of restricting the rights of that group with woefully poor justification. You are therefore oppressing them. Argue against my logic or just go ahead and cop to it. Everyone who reads what you write I am sure has already figured you out.

If you want to think that gays are 'bad', go right ahead. Just keep your bigoted poorly supported opinions to yourself and out of my secular government.

Believe it or not I have had many people try to educate me on evolution and I still don't see it, I would not call you a fool just misguided. You think I am horribly misguided so in the end we just totally disagree.

I'd expect any high school graduate to at least make an attempt to educate you on your obvious misunderstandings of the basic level essentials of biology when confronted with your obvious glaring misunderstandings. Your bible quote called me a 'fool'. At least have the gumption to admit to insults you directed at me. Perhaps you need to just keep them all backhanded so that you can feel morally superior?

You see, the difference between my position, and yours, is I am able to base mine on evidence. You base yours on irrationality, bible interpretations, and the opinions of people who (shocker) already believe exactly as you do. Have you ever heard the tale of the Emperor with no Clothes? Your position is like that, except instead of being naked, you simply have no rational basis for your slanderous opinions. I am the guy telling you that you're naked when in your day to day life nobody else does.

Only limited in your mind, forgive me if I don't change my future plans because you think I am limiting my kids future. If they want me to pay for it I will have a say in where they go. If they want to go to a secular university fine but they won't get a nickle from me.

Only limited in the minds of the vast majority. You absolutely are limiting your children's potential future options, but if you want to keep your children from becoming whatever they might dream of (like scientists, doctors, astronauts, whatever), then that's your right. I just pity your children to a great degree. I pity them for having a father who wouldn't give them 10 cents if they (by some miracle, given the crippling position you've put them in) got into MIT or Harvard.

And I am pointing out that the greatest victory in life they can have is to accept Jesus, everything else does not really matter. I hope you see that I do not measure success by your job or checkbook size, I measure success by if you know Jesus.

1) You can have a happy fulfilling career and accept Jesus. My boss does.
2) Success should be measured by personal fulfillment. Your children might not ever be personally fulfilled because of the position you have put them into.
3) Your yardstick of success runs far more strictly than knowing Jesus, since you are limiting your children's options far more than simply instilling Christianity into them.

If I was hiring at my company bring in the guy from Liberty!!!

Maybe you still don't understand what I meant by 'limited options'. I recommend you look up both words in a dictionary. I am not using hidden or extra meanings. You are limiting the options of your children and the choices they have towards a future, while being completely unsupportive of options that are outside of those you deem acceptable. If you are 'alright' with that, then continue. I merely hold you up as an example for others, so that maybe their children will have a better shot at life while simultaneously having great sympathy for your children.

Regardless, I have defended my statement, and your continued protestations of details only serve to further validate my words.

lascallhall wrote: So what if it is an appeal to tradition, and how can you say I don't know what is best for my children? That is a bold statement.

Deadclown wrote: What worked for you doesn't always work for your children. You again profess wanting what is the *best* for *them*, when it sounds like you are trying to force upon them what was *best* for *you*.

So what? So you are being completely irrational. Making statements that are predicated on logical fallacies just shows you are being illogical in your decision making. If you are alright with being irrational, then go for it.

Also, I didn't say that (strawman and word twisting, try to cut them out though please). I said that you keep saying that you want the best for your children while simultaneously assuming that what was best for you is automatically best for them. It might not necessarily be so.

People fall that is a part of life but if they have a solid foundation built on Jesus they will not fall into the homosexual lifestyle. Let's pretend that I thought dudes were attractive with my beliefs I would be celibate at worst case, being gay is not a sin the lifestyle is.

So, you concede that is conceivable that your children could be homosexual?

My impression was that the act of sodomy specifically was sinful. Can you explain the difference between the act of committing homosexual relations and living a homosexual lifestyle from your viewpoint please?

Totally false, they could not be around me and my wife then because I sin and so does she.

Stop trying to change the subject. We are talking about homosexuality insofar as you and your religious beliefs regard it as amoral. You want to cloister your children away from the 'sin' when ultimately that could do them more harm than exposure.

Deadclown wrote: Assuming they don't stay inside the bubble for the rest of their lives, they are going to be theoretically ill equipped to handle the temptation. Perhaps you, for one, have simply stayed within the bubble yourself. I cannot know.

lastcallhall wrote: Your opinion with nothing to back it up other than what you think

My opinion with nothing to back it up, is in fact, meaningless. I, however (unlike you) was careful to keep it within the framework of sheer opinion and supposition. Notice I used works like 'assuming', 'perhaps', and phrases like 'I cannot know'.

Deadclown wrote: Oops! Looks like I caught you. Doesn't *appear* as if what you were quoting actually matches what is on the link you helpfully provided. Let me guess... you realized that you were pulling it from an obviously biased news source and I'd call you on it? And that they were *maybe* just maybe twisting the details of the story to suit an agenda... your agenda?

lastcallhall wrote: No not really couldn't find the same website I had found before just Googled it

So, your defense for offering completely different evidence in support of your obviously biased words is to state that you couldn't find the article you originally cited?

I suppose we are left to assume you couldn't use the 'History' tab at the top of your web browser. You could have noted that you were citing a different source (despite my challenge to back up the out of context quote). You could have also simply made some sort of reference to the website where you got it from, or spent more time trying to find it. Come now lastcallhall, I caught you in redhanded dishonesty. At *least* have the honor to admit it.

I of course still notice you fail to cite where the original quote comes from.

I can just make up stuff too lastcallhall, or cite undocumented links saying all sorts of things.

BULL they both say they were forced to pray muslim prayers and THAT IS NEVER acceptable not ever!

Yes... because that is all your original article was claiming in a completely unbiased manner. /sarcasm

I don't give a rat's hairy rear end if you cite an article (peer reviewed and well cited by an educated individual in the field he is discussing) that is counter to my point. I'll argue it as it comes. You are just being horribly obviously glaringly dishonest in your portrayal of 'evidence'. Your argument is weak to the point of being pitiable.

Jehovah is God, Allah was a pagan moon God. The word means the same but they are not that same God, there is one God and his name is Jehovah

Your ignorance is showing, again, lastcallhall. Prove it.

That difference makes all the difference in the world, we worship Jesus as God they see him as a prophet, BIG BIG difference and they are not compatable.

I am *sure* all of the children understand the delicate intricacies of your trinity concepts and why when they say God in one language, it is totally different from saying God in a different language.

I said I could se in very very limited cases where there was NO other option and the mother was close to death that an abortion could be seen as a justifiable killing. Not a big change but a change.

Bravo. You are willing to abort a fetus when you are absolutely forced to choose the mother's life over the fetus. You are a paragon of open minded position changing and I am sure that with sufficient evidence and logic I can change your stance on anything you've set your beliefs towards.

Your original position then was that there was utterly no situation, ever, that a fetus should ever be aborted? You had obviously pondered the complex issue a great deal and done much research so as to avoid a black/white logical fallacy. I am sure that you approach all such complex issues with the same diligence.

Didn't say that you just come across as liberal, sorry if that offends you

People making unevidenced assumptions about me in order to marginalize me offends me, yes. You are extremely and consistently offensive in this manner.

Deadclown wrote: Lastcallhall, you were very clearly laying a lot of really hefty accusations against the Liberals. For example, you accused them of having both a Gay and an Evolutionary Conspiracy. So accusing them of trying to manipulate the whole world. You were quite clearly then trying to label me as a liberal. I could dig up the whole line of quotes if you like?

lastcallhall wrote: Sure, but why? I am not shy about saying what I think so what question do you wish to clarify?

No clarification necessary. You were attempting to paint me in the light of a 'liberal', a group who you were clearly demonizing with unevidenced conspiracy theories. I simply wish to demonstrate not only your paranoid slanderous statements, but also your attempts to paint your opponent as belonging to the group you slander in order to belittle him, not his argument. That's an ad hominem fallacy, by the way. At the end of our debate, I might compile a list of your top ten fallacies.

In regards to global warming...

I did read them and I will look into it more but it is far from as settled as you and your links say it is.

Whatever. Concede or provide evidence. Saying 'you are wrong, but I can't prove it at all or offer any reasonable arguments', is just a really sad way of admitting defeat.

I have seen a few lists and honestly I don't know to which I was referring. I do not keep good notes on things I really don't care about but I will look up his list.

You are fond of making vague references to evidence, that when pressed, you have no way of supporting. It is a recurring pattern that seems to hold firm whether we are discussing evolution, gay marriage, liberals, or seemingly anything you offer an opinion on.

I only seek to highlight this increasingly obvious fact, for the world to see.

Bingo, I love my truck and won't litter on purpose but won't change anything either. I believe the Bible so I don't have much to worry about.

Fine. Don't worry. Don't change your truck. But don't spout biased unevidenced words that you can't even support with the most sparse of evidence. Or if you are going to spout your ignorant stance, don't do so in a forum where better informed people (like myself) can call a spade a spade.

I am always willing to listen but again I am no expert on evolution for the simple fact that Genesis 1:1 tells me the story but I will listen to you and take part in a thread.

You are seemingly willing to listen to the Theory of Evolution, like my cats are. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

What exactly would you like me to define?

I didn't make that obvious enough?

Deadclown wrote: 1) Describe the Theory of Evolution (how it operates).
2) Explain Natural Selection.
3) Explain Random Mutation.

Deadclown wrote: You see, lastcallhall, if the only places where you can find information supporting your narrow fringe fundamentalist bigoted opinions are from narrow fringe fundamentalist bigots with poor educations (talking about subjects out of their area of expertise), agendas, and financial incentives... it just might be that your opinions are... wrong.

lastcallhall wrote: And if you only get yours from secular, God hating people you may be wrong.

I suppose that you make it quite clear that you wouldn't know a good source of evidence if it shook your hand and asked to marry one of your daughters.

I evaluate all sources on the merits intrinsic to them. If yours had been written by a guy who published it in a peer reviewed manner, had an adequate education for making evaluations of psychological studies, and had a reason for offering unbiased opinions, I would have taken him more seriously than any random youtube or blog I can google. Maybe your 101 college classes involving anything resembling research didn't cover this very basic and incredibly rudimentary idea.

Deadclown wrote: At the very least, your opinions are irrational.

lastcallhall wrote: If you think so it works for me.

If you want to just cop to basing all of your topical opinions on irrationality (like you seemingly do here), then my work is done. I don't care what opinions you have, lastcallhall, but don't pretend like they have any basis you can defend rationally.

Deadclown wrote: Also, side note. What is bad about being intellectual? An intellectual is a person who uses their brain and critical thinking in a professional or personal capacity. I'm not sure I'd want to listen to anyone who didn't do that. I can't imagine why anyone would.

lastcallhall wrote: The majority I have spoke to do not believe in God and put down anyone who does. In my opinion they look down on average people and I guess they just are not my crowd, plus they wouldn't like an evangelical like me anyways.

Do your discriminatory and bigoted statements end at some point? Now you want to try and marginalize anyone who uses critical thinking, to look like some sort of elitist atheist trying to subjugate you. Maybe you have a persecution complex, lastcallhall?

Your opinion means nothing. I recommend that you either support your slanderous opinions, or you keep your words to yourself.