Have Gays never been disenfranchised?East of Eden wrote: To quote Dr. ML King's daughter, no one is enslaving homosexuals...or making them sit in the back of the bus. Gays have never been disenfranchised as a group.
Have Gays never been disenfranchised?
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Have Gays never been disenfranchised?
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #41
OK, just don't claim they represent evangelicals.keithprosser3 wrote:Also known as the Fellowship, it has a wikipedia article and typing - for example - 'family uganda' into google will bring up history on this issue going back several years.I've never heard of the Family,
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #43
If they are really calling for gays to be executed I would call them a fringe group just like the Westboro Baptists or those who kill abortion doctors. They aren't representative of Christianity anymore than Stalin represents atheists.keithprosser3 wrote: Thanks for the correction.
Reading up, I see that 'Evangelical' is indeed too broad a term, but I am not sure what term I should use for them. Suggestions?
If we killed everyone who sins we'd all be dead.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #44
Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #45
You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were. The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with. Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?Goat wrote: Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #46
East of Eden wrote:You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were. The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with. Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?Goat wrote: Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/
How is that moving goalposts. They are not getting a 'mother and father', .. they are getting 'single parents'...
It's disenfranchisement.. plain and simple. To whine otherwise is just being a hateful bigot
It is being threatened to have your very own children taken away from you, because you are gay. That is prejudice and bigotry of the highest order
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Post #47
It may not fit your definition of disenfranchisement, but it is an egregious injustice nevertheless. This judge should be ashamed of himself and probably be removed from the bench.East of Eden wrote:You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were.Goat wrote: Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/
Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.
Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?
Yes or no. Do you think every child should be compelled to live with a heterosexual couple? Would you enforce taking children away from single parents to give to heterosexual couples?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is and exceedingly hypocritical argument to even bring up this question.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #48
micatala wrote:Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.
I've been noticing this a lot from all Apologists:
It's the argument:
1. X is some moral rule that "I" agree with
2. X is commanded by my religion.
3. Therefore, X is true, divine and everyone should agree.
I think the atheist movement has exposed how subjective religious beliefs are. The veil has been lifted. Religious beliefs are a dime a dozen and baseless.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #49
You're moving from voting to adoption, which is not automatically granted to just anybody.Goat wrote:East of Eden wrote:You're moving the goalposts, I've already said earlier when I said disenfranchise I meant the common usage of not being allowed to vote as blacks and women were. The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with. Which parent don't you think kids need, a mom or dad?Goat wrote: Yet another case of Gays being disenfranchised... from Texas
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/18/r ... -children/
How is that moving goalposts.
I can see you're out of arguments, since you've descended to name-calling.They are not getting a 'mother and father', .. they are getting 'single parents'...
It's disenfranchisement.. plain and simple. To whine otherwise is just being a hateful bigot
It is being threatened to have your very own children taken away from you, because you are gay. That is prejudice and bigotry of the highest order
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
-
East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #50
And atheists say:Ooberman wrote:micatala wrote:Your agreement is not legally relevant. Until such time as we require all children to live with a mother and a father, enforcing this rule reflects a clear and unjustifiable bias, and a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. This action is morally and legally indefensible.The judge thinks children need a mother and father, which I agree with.
I've been noticing this a lot from all Apologists:
It's the argument:
1. X is some moral rule that "I" agree with
2. X is commanded by my religion.
3. Therefore, X is true, divine and everyone should agree.
I think the atheist movement has exposed how subjective religious beliefs are. The veil has been lifted. Religious beliefs are a dime a dozen and baseless.
1. X is some moral rule that "I" agree with.
2. X is commanded by my belief system.
3. Therefore, X is true, and everyone should agree.
Only you can evangelize?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
