liberal definition

Discussion in 'Politics' started by El_Guero, Jan 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Instead of hi-jacking more threads, here is the opportunity for our liberal brethren:

    What is the liberal definition of "homosexual oppression"
     
  2. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? I don't understand where you're coming from with this.

    Every human being deserves to be treated fairly by every other human being. When the government, through overt or covert means, deals injustice to a set of individuals, that injustice must be addressed by Christians.

    If heterosexual couples get tax breaks and survivor's rights from the government, then all couples should - must - be afforded those same benefits.


    Beyond this, you;re gonna have to be a little less "stealth" in your approach if you want a discussion.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36459

    The same question was asked twice in that thread without an answer. I, too, would like to have a response although it may not be fair to ask anyone other than Galation.
     
  4. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galatian is a libertarian, not a liberal, as far as I know.
     
  5. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many of the liberals I know would define homosexual oppression as disagreeing with the behavior. They call it homophobia (or something like that). They are rather silly if you ask me. :rolleyes:
     
  6. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    So a man and woman living together should get the same benefits even though they are not married? How long do they (fornicators or homosexuals) have to be a couple before they get these "equal" benefits? Who has the right to make that decision?
     
  7. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference is a heterosexual couple can choose to forego marriage and forfeit those benefits. Homosexual couples are offered no choice at all.

    If we're going to argue terminologies, let's argue apples and apples, shall we?
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,080
    Likes Received:
    217
    Tragic Pizza,
    You sound like you are predguice to me!

    What about a Momorn ( or anyone else) who has 5 wives and 8 children. Should he not be allowed a total of 14 deductions?

    Should a man be barred from using the womens restrooms?

    Why isnt a ten year old allowed to have a drivers license?

    If a blind person can take a (service dog) into a reastruant, then why cant a sighted person do so.

    The list can go on and on and on. BTW, these are not facieous statements. Like you said, ALL must be afforded the same opportunity

    Salty

    PS I'm still fuming over the fact that when I was laid off my job, I wasnt elegible for unemployment becasue I had a part time job working six hours a week!:BangHead: :tonofbricks: :tonofbricks:
     
  9. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not surprised.

    Mormons no longer practice bigamy.

    Define the circumstances.

    Because they're ten. Again, apples to apples.

    A sighted person doesn't need a service dog.
     
  10. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    The problem with same sex unions is they are not "marriage" in the eyes of God or the state.

    If they want to be recognized as a legal entity, they should make an effort to change the laws concerning the recognition of thier union and bind it with a legal document other than a "marriage" license. They can't change the "eyes of God".

    What they really want is to force the recognition of their aberrant lifestyle on all of us by malappropriating the term, "marriage".

    Since God only recognizes marriage between a male and a female, that's the definition I wiil continue to recognize, and none other.
     
  11. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    The eyes of God are a separate argument.

    Why? If the state, which is most decidedly not God, terms a legally binding union between a man and a woman as "marriage," then the state, which is most decidedly not God, should term a similar union between individuals of the same sex as "marriage." In any case, what matters is equity, not terminology.

    What they really want is equal treatment under the law.

    That's on you, then. You aren't God, and you aren't the State.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    Tragic, it looks to me like you only want God in your life when it's convenient and matches your worldview. That truly is...

    Tragic.:tear: Especially for a Christian.:tear:
     
  13. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds like you only want a God who conforms to your own definition of "right" and "wrong."

    You still don't get that I am not advocating for gay marriages in church. You still don;t get that i am not advocating churches doing anything at all differently in regards to said church's stance on homosexuality.


    No, but by all means stand superior over me in judgement, O Pharisee. Stew in your righteous arrogance.
     
  14. snrsvdbygrc

    snrsvdbygrc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is all just another symptom or result of taking God out of our culture. You will no doubt see much more of this and and worse in the future. To have to define marriage to another Christian who claims to know the Bible is ludicrous. Marriage, Church and Family all represent our relationship to God. To throw something in there that He has clearly condemed is bascially Burger Kng Christianity where you can "have it your way!"
     
  15. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, I am not talking about Christian marriage, but State-sanctioned marriage.

    Once, just once, I'd like a FundieCon to argue apples-to-apples. It never happens.
     
  16. snrsvdbygrc

    snrsvdbygrc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who authorized the state to sanction marriage? God maybe?
     
  17. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    There is no difference to a Bible believing Christian.
     
  18. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    The state authorized the state to sanction marriage. The church, apparently, didn't argue the point at the time, and now it's too late.
     
  19. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Church does not charge taxes. The Church does not determine probate. Thus the so-called "Bible believing Christian" who thinks it's OK to support state-sponsored injustice isn't believing their Bible.
     
  20. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==What Biblical basis do homosexuals have to have a choice (ie...marriage)? Marriage was created by God and not society. So what "right" does society have to re-define it? Marriage, btw, is not a right. Only people who qualify can marry. Homosexuals have never been allowed to marry in America. The American government has only recognized Biblical marriage.
     
    #20 Martin, Jan 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...