Will Christians be protected from Gay social goals?

[Mere_Christian]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

[East of Eden]

I think we're done. You advocate imposing your religious beliefs on everyone, while protesting that it's wrong to have others impose theirs on you; you can't even admit, let alone deal with, the fact that school prayer is already legal and common; you can't show how gay marriage being legal affects you in any way; and you can't even acknowledge a simple translation issue from the New Testament.

I've shown why gay marriage has affected society adversely but you've ignored it.

That would be correct; but the "you" addressed above was East of Eden, not you.

1)It entices our children who might be tempted to indulge in homosexuality to experiment with it.

2) It confuses our children on why they need a male and female role model in the home

3) It teaches our children that their highest value is their lust. Homosexuals don't care what God or anyone else thinks about their behavior. Their lust is more important than anything else, including what their behavior does to their "children."

4) It breeds families where none of the people are related to each other.

5) It teaches our children that humans are the highest power on earth which increases pride and arrogance

6) It fosters an entitlement mentality in our children which is being reflected in today's society to an ever-increasing degree.

7) it doesn't propagate the species

8) It causes more std's since the anus was meant for feces, not sexual union and is thus, the most bacteria-ridden area of the body

9) It teaches our children that sex is nothing more than an animal instinct rather than represents our union with God and the way he designed it to be used.

10) It discourages disciplined behavior, adopting values higher than bodily gratification and leads our children straight on the path to hell by fostering the above traits in them.

For starters.

I don't see a single one of those that isn't a matter of unsupported personal opinion and/or stereotype and prejudice and/or irrelevance.

Which is why I ignored them.

That's funny, above you said this: "Ignoring points and ducking questions isn't debate."

[East of Eden]

As do I. Instead of a discussion you throw out cute little 'non-sequiter' charges etc.

Every single charge of dodging, deleting or ducking the question was absolutely accurate. Every non sequitur that I remarked upon was in fact unrelated to the question under discussion.

My points were cogent, on point and backed up by either Scripture or logic. You obviously failed to respond to them. You are the one substituting dodging and ducking for discussion, not me.

I'll stand by every word I've said.

I can see why you're dancing, you have completely failed to show how a voluntary non-sectarian prayer constitutes the Federal government establishing a religion.

From a few pages back:

CN: "That it establishes religion at all, which government-mandated prayer inarguably does, makes it unconstitutional."

EoE: "Which religion is thereby established?"

CN: "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs."

In other words, that issue has already been settled, as has the "voluntary" issue. My point has not been refuted by your refusal to acknowledge or address it.

Further, you have also refused to address my (absolutely true and notably undisputed) assertion that voluntary prayer is already legal and available in the public schools, and always has been - which of course invalidates your entire argument here.

So: This is, apparently, the only point you can dispute among the many I have made; and your means of disputing it is, shall we say, disingenuous. I can't even call that "dancing." It doesn't quite qualify as competent stumbling.

Ignoring points and ducking questions isn't debate. When you're ready to actually engage in debate, let me know. I'll be not holding my breath.

Why don't you list the questions I allegedly am 'ducking'. Your changing the subject to flagpole prayer is one of your many red herrings.

BTW, this is ducking my question: CN: "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs." What you propose is a prohibition of free excercise of religion.

Counter to your claim that the 1A doesn't apply to Congress or the Courts, Wikipedia says "Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches." Can't you see the idiocy of saying it is not unconstitutional for Congress and the Supreme Court to start the day with an invocation but it is for public schools?

[cnorman18]

Why don't you list the questions I allegedly am 'ducking'.

Look at my last post and compare it to my previous one. I don't think those who are reading this thread will have any problem seeing them.


If you profess not to - well, your disingenuousness isn't my problem, nor is it my responsibility to to keep chasing you down and repeating myself.

Your changing the subject to flagpole prayer is one of your many red herrings.

YOU brought up prayer in the public schools.

BTW, this is ducking my question: CN: "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs."

What you propose is a prohibition of free exercise of religion.

Since students are free to pray in public school all they want, no, it isn't. You still can't acknowledge that fact, can you?

Counter to your claim that the 1A doesn't apply to Congress or the Courts, Wikipedia says "Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches." Can't you see the idiocy of saying it is not unconstitutional for Congress and the Supreme Court to start the day with an invocation but it is for public schools?

Okay. Maybe it is. Why don't you file a lawsuit so the Court can rule on that? That's how the system works. Good luck.

If school prayer is a change of subject, why did you bring it up, and why do you keep talking about it?

More to the point, since students can pray in school voluntarily already, and in fact do, every day, I ask again; where is the problem here?

[East of Eden]

YOU brought up prayer in the public schools.

No I didn't, it was used as an example in a response to a question by you, I believe. You're the one who has expanded it to take over the thread.

Since students are free to pray in public school all they want, no, it isn't. You still can't acknowledge that fact, can you?

The ones who want an in-class invocation as was done for most of our history can't do it.

If school prayer is a change of subject, why did you bring it up, and why do you keep talking about it?

Answered above.

More to the point, since students can pray in school voluntarily already, and in fact do, every day, I ask again; where is the problem here?

Answered above.

[cnorman18]

YOU brought up prayer in the public schools.

No I didn't, it was used as an example in a response to a question by you, I believe. You're the one who has expanded it to take over the thread.

Okay. Here's a debating tip, though; if you really think something is an irrelevant "red herring," you say so and then you ignore it. You don't keep chasing it through the woods in post after post.

You seem to be enthusiastically debating this same "red herring" on the Pledge of Allegiance thread. Strange coincidence.

Since students are free to pray in public school all they want, no, it isn't. You still can't acknowledge that fact, can you?

The ones who want an in-class invocation as was done for most of our history can't do it.

And, of course, neither can those who want a benediction at the end of school, grace before each shift in the lunchroom, or altar calls. Previous practices are irrelevant; when I was in elementary school, it was a common and accepted practice to paddle students with a board in front of the whole class - and there were no black students. Those have been abandoned, too.

As it stands, those who desire to pray, can pray. Those who don't, don't have to deal with the subject at all.

That's fair, and that's legal. No government official has to try to concoct a contentless prayer that will keep everybody happy, and those who want to pray to Jesus or the Trinity or Allah or Krishna can do so as explicitly as they like - and don't have to feel that their God is being neglected or disrespected by not being mentioned, which of course would be the next area of concern.

[East of Eden]

Okay. Here's a debating tip, though; if you really think something is an irrelevant "red herring," you say so and then you ignore it. You don't keep chasing it through the woods in post after post.

Keep the tip; I don't think I called it a red herring, I was countering the claim I brought it up. Had I ignored it, I no doubt would have been hassled by you for not answering a question.

You seem to be enthusiastically debating this same "red herring" on the Pledge of Allegiance thread. Strange coincidence.

Its not a red herring there, its the thread topic. See the difference?

[cnorman18]

Okay. Here's a debating tip, though; if you really think something is an irrelevant "red herring," you say so and then you ignore it. You don't keep chasing it through the woods in post after post.

Keep the tip; I don't think I called it a red herring, I was countering the claim I brought it up.

Not only did you call it that, you did so twice:

From your post #204:

Since voluntary prayer is already legal and available for every student who wishes to participate, what possible point is there to compulsory prayer for ALL students other than compelling the participation of students who do NOT want to participate?

A red herring, no reason to not have both if those in a particular district want to.

From your post #222:

Your changing the subject to flagpole prayer is one of your many red herrings.

Had I ignored it, I no doubt would have been hassled by you for not answering a question.

Don't anticipate my arguments. You can't read my mind.

You seem to be enthusiastically debating this same "red herring" on the Pledge of Allegiance thread. Strange coincidence.

Its not a red herring there, its the thread topic. See the difference?

School prayer is the topic of a "Pledge of Allegiance" thread?

And as usual, you deleted and refused to respond to my major point, to wit:

As it stands, those who desire to pray, can pray. Those who don't, don't have to deal with the subject at all.

That's fair, and that's legal. No government official has to try to concoct a contentless prayer that will keep everybody happy, and those who want to pray to Jesus or the Trinity or Allah or Krishna can do so as explicitly as they like - and don't have to feel that their God is being neglected or disrespected by not being mentioned, which of course would be the next area of concern.

Prayer is already legal in public school, and there's more real, i.e., sincere and truly voluntary, prayer going on now than there was in the 50s.

[East of Eden]

Not only did you call it that, you did so twice:

From your post #204:

A red herring, no reason to not have both if those in a particular district want to.

From your post #222:

Your changing the subject to flagpole prayer is one of your many red herrings.

The red herring is you changing the subject from classroom prayer that the court dealt with to flagpole prayer. Its saying let's take away someone's rights here, but they can still excercise those rights over there. I call it the 'Ghettoization' of religion.

And as usual, you deleted and refused to respond to my major point, to wit:

As it stands, those who desire to pray, can pray. Those who don't, don't have to deal with the subject at all.

That's fair, and that's legal. No government official has to try to concoct a contentless prayer that will keep everybody happy, and those who want to pray to Jesus or the Trinity or Allah or Krishna can do so as explicitly as they like - and don't have to feel that their God is being neglected or disrespected by not being mentioned, which of course would be the next area of concern.

And you've ignored my answer to that, which is those who want the invocation are having their free excercise of religion rights impinged on.

[JoeyKnothead]

And you've ignored my answer to that, which is those who want the invocation are having their free excercise of religion rights impinged on.

1 a: the act or process of petitioning for help or support ; specifically often capitalized : a prayer of entreaty (as at the beginning of a service of worship) b: a calling upon for authority or justification2: a formula for conjuring : incantation3: an act of legal or moral implementation : enforcement

As invocation relates to prayer, one is fully within their rights to pray "on their own time", and need not force a prayer onto those who reject such.

I would contend here we must balance the rights and wishes of the majority with the rights and wishes of the minority. As there is nothing that can prevent one from praying silently in their own way, then I contend it is less oppressive to have officials refrain from making pronouncements on behalf of folks who disagree with such pronouncements.
"Pray all ya want, but not in my name."

[Cathar1950]

And you've ignored my answer to that, which is those who want the invocation are having their free excercise of religion rights impinged on.

Why can't they pray in a closet?
Why the need for a publicly recognized prayer?
How is setting through someone's insisted upon invocation like two consenting adults getting married?