Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Jul 27, 2002.
The rest of the link:
The Boy Scouts have a “right” to be homophobic and even the right to even exclude Blacks, Chicanos or Arab-American from their ranks. Because private groups and memberships don’t represent the average real American.
But Judges have an "obligation" to have nothing to do with such right winged bigoted organizations. Because Judges have to respect and represent the average real American.
Who here would like for judges to be part of a “group” that would not allow Christians in there secret meetings and basically hate Christians for being “unclean” and “unfit” to be Americans?
3 Cheers for our judicial system in California!
If they were deciding on just racial issues, then I whole heartedly agree with you.
But we are talking about a life style that goes against nature itself, not to mention that God considers it an abomination!
And for you to stand behind these types of decissions, shows your chacater and the ability to reject what God's Word has to say about certain lifestyles, which are queers, perverts, and as far as the Bible says that these people are to be loved and prayed for their salvation, but to CONDEMN their SINS!
As Jushua said: As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!
This is a decission that these perverts made and have rejected nature and rejected God long before!
I can see your Christian love for homosexuals pouring through your words... "queers and perverts".
Yes, I'm sure they will listen to what you have to say about the subject now. I think you left out the word "fag". That really helps them understand your Christian love.
Post-it, homophobic means to be afraid of homosexuals. One need not be afraid of them to know their choices in life are immoral and unclean and forbidden by God. I am not afraid of THEM; I hate what they DO.
And, by the way, the homosexuals I have met, with one major exception, I think very highly of in many other ways. The ones I know are intelligent, talented, and accomplished individuals, but they have chosen a way that is not only rebellion against God but rebellion against themselves as they were created to be. It's a sad thing.
In the meantime, any private organization is entitled to set its own rules. Our family has its own rules that are different from other families. Do you want the courts of the United States (or any subdivision thereof) to define your family rules for you? The Boy Scouts have defined their terms and stated their rules and they are private. If the judges in San Francisco, who are known to be liable to do just about anything weird (which is why weird suits get filed there!), choose to disenfranchise themselves from a private organization which has its own private rules, that is up to them, but it is really no different than a lot of their other really weird stuff. Weird gets publicity, that's all.
Why, Thank You! and fagots!
Justfied, I am wondering where you think name-calling will get you?
I caught an addres to a group at UC-Davis MLK Law School Saturday night on C-SPAN. The speaker (a self described leftist, feminist, atheistic, lesbian....activist.) spoke on the is very topic the demonizing of the unconforming by the "left wing". Her thesis is that the casual use of words like "homophobe", "racist", and "sexist" to close off debate undermines the the very foundations of our country. The US was built on the premise of a lively debate between conflicting postions.
I look back and see historically, the shutting off of debate has been viewed as "not a good thing" (eg the Jeffersonian Alien and Sedition Acts).
Justified, how can you speak in a hurtful manner like that?
I see your very well made point Squire and agree that words such as these do "cut off". However, on the other side of the table, we have words such as "choice" and "life-style" being used that effectivly cut off debate.
Does a heterosexual say that they are living a heterosexual lifestyle? No because that would mean that they are not really heterosexual and that they are living a different than normal lifestyle than they were born to live. So a homosexual can't live a homosexual lifestyle, they can only live a heterosexual lifestyle if forced to.
Choice is used in the same twisted way. Choice means you can go either way. The question to the heterosexual reader is this...Can you go either way on the sex issue and be happy and content with a same sex relationship as you are with your current one? If you can then it is a choice, if you can't then it isn't. Homosexuals can't be content and happy with the oppisite sex either. So how is it a choice?
I disagree with you. EVERY one of the homosexuals I know was lured into it one way or another, and usually as a teen. EVERY one that I know wishes they weren't involved but feels stuck. I do know some that have come out of that lifestyle and they are glad they did. Two that I am aware of are happily married and one is the mother of two lovely children now.
Their choice, however, is not for or against homosexuality in the long run, but for or against God, as Romans 1 indicates. Any one of us can get trapped in a hurtful lifestyle as a youth, and many are. God can rescue anyone. There may be a tendency towards homosexuality in some. There are tendencies towards anger in some. There are tendencies toward lying in some. They are all part of the tendency toward evil. However that does not mean we have to give in to any of them. What is interesting is that it is only the homosexual who identifies himself by his sin. You don't hear a person who lies constantly say "I am a liar" by way of introduction (or, probably, any time!). Nor do you hear a chronic thief identify himself by that sin. A person who has a terrible temper does not hang around with other people like that but he knows it must somehow be controlled.
So the idea that they are born into it means nothing more nor less than anyone who is born into any other sinful tendency. And we are all trapped in our sins until God rescues us.
The choice they make is for or against God. He does the rest. They cannot rescue themselves; none of us can. But a homosexual is just as capable of turning to God for help as is any other human being alive. The ones that do, and don't just try to find justification for their sin, find themselves rescued and born again and whole in the spirit, rejoicing in Christ their SAVIOR.
Post-It, I seem to recall threads in the past where you were shown reasons why homosexuality is a choice and challenged to show some type of conclusive proof to the contrary. All we have to date is your opinion that it is not a choice and God's revealed opinion that it is... backed by legitimate science.
What this Association is doing is un-Constitutional. They have established a religious test for the judiciary. This should be a major concern to anyone concerned with individual rights.
Hate the sin not the sinner.
The Boy Scouts have a “right” to be homophobic
Why not? The NOW has a "right" to be anti-religion and anti-male.
But since when is "morally straight" and "clean" homophobic? It's not a ban on homosexuals, just a ban on the sexual activity. It bans both hosexuals and heterosexuals from such exual activity.
What not as well known is that the BSA also doesn't allow people to be scoutmasters who are living with partners outside of marriage. But the Gay advocacy groups never bring that up, because it would take away from the appearance that the BSA is homophobic.
I can tell by your qualitative form of "science" that you have rejected modern medicine opinion that homosexuality is not a choice and that it is not a disease or not inflicted by some secret organization of homosexuals that stalk teenagers during school.
Since we can drop science out of the "proof" equation, we are left with common sense.
If one can be converted to homosexuality, then why is it that most prisoners don't come out of prison being and actively pursuing homosexual behavior. Even those that participate in such acts behind bars switch right back to heterosexual relationships upon leaving.
Prison is one of the places where I will agree that homosexuality is a choice. Just as in some cases, it is a choice for a teenager that is normally attracted to girls but has a homosexual friend that pressures them into having sex. In that event it is a choice and very wrong on two levels (sex before marriage and unnatural act for the heterosexual). But in the same light a homosexual who is tempted by a heterosexual relationship is also wrong. Both have the choice to do what is unnatural for them.
But because of the fine line I'm drawing here, it can't be a choice for a person who has always felt, known that they are only happy in same sex relationships. Even when that occurs later in life. In other words, a homosexual can be raised as a heterosexual and even marry and have kids but is that a choice he/she made against their nature of being a homosexual.
Choice is a two edged sword and is used wrongly by most people debating this issue including the Homosexual Left and the Christian Right.
Homosexuals themselves are using words such as lifestyle when they have no clue as to what they are saying. The same goes for most of us Christians. Choice is thrown out completely from the homosexual side when in fact, there is a place for choice as I have just shown above; but it muddies the water in normal debates. A Christian hears the word Choice and they assume a homosexual has something they don't have.
The moment you can tell me you choose to be heterosexual and further that you could be homosexual and be happy in it if you "chose" to, yet you remain heterosexual; that is when you will convince me that homosexuality is not a natural innate state determined early in life not open to "real" choice.
So if you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then what you are also admitting is that you could be a homosexual given the right circumstances and be happy in it, since it is a choice.
I myself could never be homosexual and be happy in it under any condition. Just as I suspect you could not also. Therefore, changing sexual roles is not a choice.
[ July 29, 2002, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]
Therefore, changing sexual roles is not a choice.
Just because you can't do something doesn't mean it can't be done.
In the meantime, science research does NOT show that homosexuality is born in (that bit of 'research' which said it was has been long since shown to be false), and with so many coming out of the gay lifestyle, I think your opinion is contradicted by both science and experience!
Reminds me of the teen at church who claimed she got pregnant because Satan lured her into it. Right! I will assume and have no doubt that kids confronted by an intolerant person will say that they were lured or forced or whatever takes the heat off them.
All the ones I talked to have said just the opposite because there was no "fear" and "guilt" factor at work. The story I hear is that they were "always" drawn to same sex people, period. The story doesn't change either. They never blamed anyone for their feelings or desire. Of course I'm leaving out rape victims since that is another subject.
They feel stuck because that is their nature, you would get the same answer from a heterosexual kid if you tell him he should be attracted to guys. He is going to say "but I feel stuck on girls." It's about that time you may also here how he was “lured” by their beauty and charm.
You know some people who are living unnatural relationships, anyone can live in denial. Many lesbians go through the marriage with a man thing first. They also have the nature to have children. The real nature will win out most of the time. I wouldn’t want to bet on your friends continued relationship.
If it isn't "born in" then you are saying that sexual orientation is created after birth, meaning that one is not born heterosexual either.
Just because proof isn't available doesn't mean it is not so. We can't prove the earth was created in 6 days either but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
May I ask that we bring this discussion back to the main topic? Otherwise, you're going to go back and forth until I cut this thread off on the third page.
[ July 30, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: The Squire ]