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?

[JoeyKnothead]

That's why homosexuals feel threatened by Christians and need the approval of society to feel good about their behavior. I don't stand on street corners and demand that anyone approve of my sex life. Homosexuals feel the tremendous need to demand that others approve of their sex lives. That shows a knowledge of inner guilt right there.

They feel threatened because there are folks like the Phelps' actually standing on street corners and hurling all sorts of invective at them. When you holler for condemnation long enough, some nut job is liable to act on it, and therein lies the rub. To deny that there are some to many theists who speak about homosexuals in some really harsh, brutal language is just lunacy.
Here in the southern US, it is not unusual to hear some really violent words in regards to homosexuals, to the point of calls for death. When asked about the reasoning behind such, one will invariably hear a religious based rationale to support these calls for harms against other people.
As an atheist I've had the label "homosexual" placed on me simply because I rejected belief in God. Let me tell you, when a backwater little town knows you are an atheist - and of course this "must mean" you are also a homosexual, you don't sleep well. You get the hell beat out of you. You get your tires slashed. You get your dog killed. You get all sorts of "little" incidents happening that have no other explanation, save "divine" <read that to be "no proof some idiot did something stupid".
I, an atheist - presumed homosexual because I didn't believe in God - am well aware of what happens to those who go against a domineering Christian culture, and there is just no getting around it.
Only by moving to a more moderate area of this state was I ever free of the torment of those who will advance their "loving God" at the end of a fist, or bat, or some other pain inducing object.
If we allow this primitive, violence inducing belief to go unchecked we risk stepping backwards into a pile of our own making.
"God don't like it" is far too often followed by "Well that's just Satan's doings right there". This is often followed by "Wage war with Satan". Followed then by war with our own fellow human beings.

[East of Eden]

No. I mean exactly what you did; imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?

The last I heard, we live in a democracy where people can express their opinions. I, as a Christian don't feel that the secular world is imposing its beliefs on me. Yet non-Christians feel we are imposing our beliefs on them. That's called conviction. (An inner knowledge of guilt.)

That's why homosexuals feel threatened by Christians and need the approval of society to feel good about their behavior. I don't stand on street corners and demand that anyone approve of my sex life. Homosexuals feel the tremendous need to demand that others approve of their sex lives. That shows a knowledge of inner guilt right there.

You nailed it. They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

[JoeyKnothead]

They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

Thank you for an example of the language I refer to in my post prior to this one.

[East of Eden]

Unless all the students in the school are in the same classroom at the same time, how would anyone know who's in the other sections?

You're quibbling. Signing up for a class isn't a public declaration.

Who said they signed up? It was part of the regular cirriculum.

Dissenting opinions don't have the force of law, now do they?

Another straw-man, never said they did. Just saying Justince Stewart's argument is a serious one. IMHO the the court does whatever the elite's of the country want, regardless of the Constitution. They acquiesed in slavery in Dred Scott, in segregation in Plessy, in the 1962 prayer case, and in Roe v. Wade.

There is, of course, litigation on that matter ongoing as we speak.

Why does it not surprise me some crank is saying the Pledge is an establishment of religion?

And the problem with that would be what?

If a person wishes his or her child to be taught in a particular manner, from a particular religious point of view, that parent has that right;

A non-sectarian prayer is not espousing a particular religious view. It is unfair to parents who pay taxes to support public schools to have to pay again for private schools. We need school choice badly.

But you are okay with the tyranny of the majority? What's wrong with this picture?

The fact you haven't demonstrated any tyranny of the majority?

More to the point, why did you delete and ignore my remarks proving that voluntary prayer IS legal and available in public school, and my question as to why that isn't enough?

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.

Non-Christians don't teach their children that Christians are going to Hell;

Telling the truth of that isn't despising someone, it is love, especially when you consider the ridicule gotten by doing so. Look what happened to Jesus.

Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does
not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?

This isn't a Muslim or atheist nation, irrelevant question. Yes, the Muslim thing has happened, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=25997

How about in a school (and there are some) where the majority of students are Muslims?

Why would they be offended by a non-sectarian prayer?

That is not a response; that is a distractor. There is no evidence that the rise in violence has anything to do with the issue of school prayer. As a veteran educator, I can tell you that it has more to do with the lack of effective discipline. Further, when I was a kid, we had compulsory prayer and Bible reading every day, but voluntary prayer groups in the schools did not exist. I would bet that there is more actual prayer, as opposed to pro forma rote recitation, in the schools today than there was then.

Would reminding students there is a God (most Americans believe that) with all that entails, i.e. moral standards, reward and punishment, etc., help reduce such violent behavior? I think so.

Very well; I will ask you the same question. In light of all that, why are you so concerned with the absence of prayer in the public schools - especially since it is not absent?

It's one of many issues I'm concerned with.

Considering that the California court is the most liberal circuit in the nation, and has the highest percentage of rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, it seems a reasonable explanation to me.

I think you're referring to the 9th Circuit, not the CA Supreme Court.

Who's talking about Jesus?

I am, this is a religion forum.

I'm a Jew; I don't give a rat's tail about anything Jesus did or didn't do.

That's obvious.

I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in.

You can ask God on Judgement Day. Interesting Christianity was the first religion to ban slavery. Has Islam yet?

God is much more concerned with whether or not a person is reconciled to Him or not than what that person's temporary earthly status is. I would rather be a slave on my way to heaven than Bill Gates on his way to hell.

Jesus didn't; he declared divorce absent adultery to be adultery itself.

In other words, He strengthened the moral law. Strange some think He would be OK with weakening the moral law on homosexual sin.

Also, if Paul thought slavery itself was sinful, why did he advise slaves to be obedient to their masters?

You omit the part of masters to be kind to their slaves, and that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. That was a revolutionary thought in ancient Rome.

The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

Yes, slavetrading.

Sorry. Any fair reading of the Bible will show that slavery was accepted and endorsed by it.

William Wilberforce and the Christian abolitionists got it wrong, huh?

No. I mean exactly what you did; imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?

No idea what you're talking about.

[East of Eden]

They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

Thank you for an example of the language I refer to in my post prior to this one.

Straight out of the Bible, Joey.

[JoeyKnothead]

They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

Thank you for an example of the language I refer to in my post prior to this one.

Straight out of the Bible, Joey.

Obviously, seems that's all some theists know about is what the Bible tells them to think, say, and do.

[cnorman18]

You're quibbling. Signing up for a class isn't a public declaration.

Who said they signed up? It was part of the regular cirriculum.

Dodging the question. Opting out doesn't require a public declaration, and that was the point.

Dissenting opinions don't have the force of law, now do they?

Another straw-man, never said they did. Just saying Justince Stewart's argument is a serious one. IMHO the the court does whatever the elite's of the country want, regardless of the Constitution. They acquiesed in slavery in Dred Scott, in segregation in Plessy, in the 1962 prayer case, and in Roe v. Wade.

Non sequitur.

And the problem with that would be what?

If a person wishes his or her child to be taught in a particular manner, from a particular religious point of view, that parent has that right;

A non-sectarian prayer is not espousing a particular religious view.

Deleting the point and dodging the question; the nonsectarian prayer issue was dealt with earlier.

It is unfair to parents who pay taxes to support public schools to have to pay again for private schools. We need school choice badly.

As it happens, I support school vouchers; but this is still dodging the question.

But you are okay with the tyranny of the majority? What's wrong with this picture?

The fact you haven't demonstrated any tyranny of the majority?

Imposing your religious beliefs upon all, and justifying it because you are in the majority, as you have been advocating, IS tyranny of the majority.

More to the point, why did you delete and ignore my remarks proving that voluntary prayer IS legal and available in public school, and my question as to why that isn't enough?

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.

Blatantly ducking the question.

Non-Christians don't teach their children that Christians are going to Hell;

Telling the truth of that isn't despising someone, it is love, especially when you consider the ridicule gotten by doing so. Look what happened to Jesus.

Non sequitur.

Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does
not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?

This isn't a Muslim or atheist nation, irrelevant question. Yes, the Muslim thing has happened, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=25997

Dodging the question.

How about in a school (and there are some) where the majority of students are Muslims?

Why would they be offended by a non-sectarian prayer?

Blatantly dodging the question, which was: Would you be OK with a Christian child being required to publicly refuse to participate in a Muslim prayer if he were surrounded by Muslim children?

That is not a response; that is a distractor. There is no evidence that the rise in violence has anything to do with the issue of school prayer. As a veteran educator, I can tell you that it has more to do with the lack of effective discipline. Further, when I was a kid, we had compulsory prayer and Bible reading every day, but voluntary prayer groups in the schools did not exist. I would bet that there is more actual prayer, as opposed to pro forma rote recitation, in the schools today than there was then.

Would reminding students there is a God (most Americans believe that) with all that entails, i.e. moral standards, reward and punishment, etc., help reduce such violent behavior? I think so.

Nonresponsive and begging the question.

Very well; I will ask you the same question. In light of all that, why are you so concerned with the absence of prayer in the public schools - especially since it is not absent?

It's one of many issues I'm concerned with.

Nonresponsive. I could say the same thing, couldn't I?

Considering that the California court is the most liberal circuit in the nation, and has the highest percentage of rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, it seems a reasonable explanation to me.

I think you're referring to the 9th Circuit, not the CA Supreme Court.

I stand corrected. The explanation is still a reasonable guess.

I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in.

You can ask God on Judgement Day. Interesting Christianity was the first religion to ban slavery. Has Islam yet?

Blatantly nonresponsive, ducking the question, with a distractor thrown in.

God is much more concerned with whether or not a person is reconciled to Him or not than what that person's temporary earthly status is. I would rather be a slave on my way to heaven than Bill Gates on his way to hell.

Non sequitur.

Jesus didn't; he declared divorce absent adultery to be adultery itself.

In other words, He strengthened the moral law. Strange some think He would be OK with weakening the moral law on homosexual sin.

Deletiing and dodging the question.

Also, if Paul thought slavery itself was sinful, why did he advise slaves to be obedient to their masters?

You omit the part of masters to be kind to their slaves, and that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. That was a revolutionary thought in ancient Rome.

Non sequitur. He didn't declare slavery wrong there, did he?

The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

Yes, slavetrading.

Ridiculously and transparently ignoring the point.

Sorry. Any fair reading of the Bible will show that slavery was accepted and endorsed by it.

William Wilberforce and the Christian abolitionists got it wrong, huh?

Slavery is WRONG; you just can't prove it directly from the BIBLE.

No. I mean exactly what you did; imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?

No idea what you're talking about.

LOL!

I'm sure that's true. You have consistently refused to call your advocacy what it is - an effort to impose your own sectarian beliefs on everyone by the force of secular law.

You haven't responded to anything I've said here; you've ducked and dodged and refused to address my points, when you didn't just delete and ignore them.

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.

All you can do is keep repeating points that have already been refuted and refusing to respond to points that others have made. Debate has ended here, and all that's left is dodging and preaching.

Have a nice day. I have better things to do.

[Carico]

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 Testamen

t.

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

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. So there's nothing good about homosexual marriages because they're destructive to everybody, including to homosexuals themselves, and especially to our children. So even though secular society doesn't understand why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, those who have values higher than bodily gratification understand why.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 21 Post 208:

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

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

So let's end heterosexual marriage and be done with all this "temptation".

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

Let's stamp out heterosexual marriage, so we can stamp out heterosexual divorce.

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."

Can you offer verifiable evidence God has any thoughts on this issue?

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

We must now end adoption.

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

Can you offer verifiable evidence there is a "higher power" than the attractions of folks to one another?

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

What "entitlement" are you referring to?

7) it doesn't propagate the species

Thus we end all heterosexual marriages that don't produce children.

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

LOL. Married folks, them condoms ain't helping.

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.

Can you offer verifiable evidence for this "union with God"?

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.

Can you offer verifiable evidence this Hell exists, and folks might go there?

>quote mining<

So even though secular society doesn't understand why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah...

Can you offer verifiable evidence God did this?

You offer a lot of opinion based on unverified claims. I contend that until your claims can be verified, there is no reason to base our decisions on what amounts to fear of the unknown.

[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 Testamen

t.

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

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. So there's nothing good about homosexual marriages because they're destructive to everybody, including to homosexuals themselves, and especially to our children. So even though secular society doesn't understand why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, those who have values higher than bodily gratification understand why.

Carico nails it again!