K
KCT
Guest
My personal favorite.
- Status
K
kim3260
Guest
:whacky: 
:whacky: yeah I read your tract(took a while because I was laughing so hard I could not see through the tears of laughter
)
That is ranked up there with 10 of the craziest posts.no, 3 of the craziest, make that 2
:whacky: yeah I read your tract(took a while because I was laughing so hard I could not see through the tears of laughter )That is ranked up there with 10 of the craziest posts.
no, 3 of the craziest, make that 2
T
TommD
Guest
“The Bible says that being gay is wrong, therefore it is true. Well, the Bible also says that the earth is flat, condones slavery, supports murdering those who work on saturdays, etc. So we should definitely follow the Bible on a day-to-day basis.”
I love when people use these kind of examples to discredit the Bible and religion as a whole. A lot of people intrepert things completely wrong from the Bible, including myself sometimes. Times have changed just a bit since then. The Church today does not condone slavery or mudering of any kind. With that logic we could go back in history and make every single person’s nationality and culture look terrible from things that occured hundreds and thousands of years ago. It is a riddicolous argument. Some people need to work Sunday’s to survive and I highly doubt God would want them murdered. These kind of arguments are part of a constant assault against the Church in an effort to make Christians look like hypocrits.
I love when people use these kind of examples to discredit the Bible and religion as a whole. A lot of people intrepert things completely wrong from the Bible, including myself sometimes. Times have changed just a bit since then. The Church today does not condone slavery or mudering of any kind. With that logic we could go back in history and make every single person’s nationality and culture look terrible from things that occured hundreds and thousands of years ago. It is a riddicolous argument. Some people need to work Sunday’s to survive and I highly doubt God would want them murdered. These kind of arguments are part of a constant assault against the Church in an effort to make Christians look like hypocrits.
G
Gene_Church
Guest
Homosexual activity violates natural law. Fortunately, eyeglasses and air conditioning do not–the jury is still out on polyester.
Being gay has yet to be shown to be biological. But the problem with homosexual relationships is not whether there is a biological propensity, or a psychological propensity. A person may have a propensity toward rape, but this does not justify it. And because we are discussing homosexual ACTIVITY versus propensity, hanging around homosexual ACTIVITY could encourage other such immoral activity.
After giving legal standing to homosexual activity, it is a small leap to giving the dog legal standing.
The sacrament of marriage has not changed. It’s views in different societies have changed, but that is a non sequitur.
Sacramental marriage will be less meaningful. Those making a mockery of it, whether through homosexual or heterosexual activity, detract from the sacrament.
Marriage has a governmental justification to promote population continuation. Without it as policy, you end up with diminishing Western populations, and increasing, increasingly hostile, Muslim populations.
Gay parents will simply fail to serve as appropriate role models. They can have well rounded children, in the same way that one can argue that walking away from a plane crash means that plane crashes are safe.
Truth is truth–sorry.
We allow single parents as a less advisable alternative. We should support the most advisable alternative, not create additional less desirable alternatives.
It would change the foundation of society, but it is not a question of adaptation. I could adapt to living in a sewer, but why would I want to?
God says such action is inappropriate, and so does his Church. And folks, life would be so much better if we tried harder to follow these edicts, whether than create our own. Ask Eve.
THERE YOU GO FOLKS!
S
Schultzz
Guest
Powerful analogy!
Whenever I hear the phrase “gay marriage” I think of a story of Abraham Lincoln’s.
He’d ask “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?”
When the other person answered, “Five” he’d say, “No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
S
Schultzz
Guest
Just a few short years ago according to the DSM, homosexuality was considered a mental illness - a deviant from the norm. That may still have some merit, but I think it has more to do with spiritual illness just as atheism and addictions do.
J
Joe_Stong
Guest
All I want to know is… if an absolute minority of people have the right to re-define a word that describes an age-old institution and have the courts force everyone else to accept this new definition, then when can I re-define another word, such as “state” or “public” or “property” or “rights” and have MY definition forced on the majority via a court?
This is the crux of the argument. They want the right to re-define a word and have the state force the rest of us to accept this new definition.
It would be one thing if they were seeking legislation or a Constitutional amendment. At least then it would be “may the majority win”. But no. They are attempting end-runs around the democratic process entirely.
It’s a matter of principle: they believe they have rights (the right to re-define words) that none of us have.
If Marriage can be re-defined to placate 2% of the population why can’t it be further re-defined to include polygamy? Polyandry? What plausible principle could be invoked to keep “marriage” from being redefined to involve underage children? (After all, if girls 8 years old are “mature” enough to have abortions without parental notice, there’s a certain logic that would say they’re mature enough to marry).
But then why stop there? If we can change definitions of terms via the court, why can’t companies get married? The sky is the limit. Nothing would be absurd if any minority has the “right” to start changing the rules for the majority.
This is the crux of the argument. They want the right to re-define a word and have the state force the rest of us to accept this new definition.
It would be one thing if they were seeking legislation or a Constitutional amendment. At least then it would be “may the majority win”. But no. They are attempting end-runs around the democratic process entirely.
It’s a matter of principle: they believe they have rights (the right to re-define words) that none of us have.
If Marriage can be re-defined to placate 2% of the population why can’t it be further re-defined to include polygamy? Polyandry? What plausible principle could be invoked to keep “marriage” from being redefined to involve underage children? (After all, if girls 8 years old are “mature” enough to have abortions without parental notice, there’s a certain logic that would say they’re mature enough to marry).
But then why stop there? If we can change definitions of terms via the court, why can’t companies get married? The sky is the limit. Nothing would be absurd if any minority has the “right” to start changing the rules for the majority.
T
Teen4Christ
Guest
Nope, i’m pro gay-marriage.
Funny stuff BTW
Funny stuff BTW
T
trobinson017
Guest
I LOVE THIS ONE!!! Oh how beautiful is your response!I polled various members gathered on our brass doors at St. James Cathedral and here is their response:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/sistamyman/cathedraldoor4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/sistamyman/cathedraldoor3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/sistamyman/cathedraldoor2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v434/sistamyman/cathedraldoor1.jpg
Looks like the “ayes” have it!
Here’s what I can do at this time for a raised hand:
trob
P
PetersKeys
Guest
Oh really? Were wrong? Have you become infallible all of a sudden? Did the person who write this list became infallible also? Your list is nothing but moral relativism, something the Church predicted that would happen 100 years ago and infallibly condemned.
My only advice to you is I hope you confess the sin of supporting sin to your priest before you take the eucharist again.
Actually if you read Isaiah you will see that it says the earth is round. Murdering? murdering people who are guilty and have commit crimes. Slavery? Do you realize slaverly in the biblical times was nothing like the slavery your thinking(black slavery). Slaves were paid back in the biblical times. A worker of any kind who worked for a corporation would be a “slave” back then because that was the common term for a paid worker.
T
that1dude
Guest
Peterskeys: I assume you are just not versed in your bible and are not being deliberately dishonest. Slavery is mostly condoned (by sheer number of references) in your bible. And contrary to your bizarre claim that it was a different kind of slavery, numerous mentions are made to BEATING and OWNING of slaves and women and children, yet there is not ONE reference to the paying of slaves. “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” (Luke 12:47) Slavery is not only allowed but -encouraged- in both the Old and New Testament. You highlight the schizophrenic and very HUMAN nature of your bible when you mention one of the few passages that seems to disapprove of slavery (though it only talks of the “oppressed”).
The Mosaic law allows slavery, it even allows you to beat your slaves so long as you don’t cause them to lose an eye or a tooth, or you have to set them free. If you give your slave a wife, then if you set him free he has to leave his wife and children behind, or else come back and be a slave to you forever.
And Jesus encouraged slaves to be faithful to their masters.
When slavery was legal in the US, churches in slave states taught that it was Biblical, in fact they taught that abolitionists were ungodly.
It just goes to show how you can justify just about anything using the Bible. Fact: Your bible WAS used to justify slavery at various times in history. Fact: Your bible IS still used to justify bigotry against gays. Bottom line: If a Christian tries to use force (governmental or otherwise) against a peaceful homosexual, then that Christian should be stopped by whatever means necessary.
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant – and a fearful master.”
—George Washington
The Mosaic law allows slavery, it even allows you to beat your slaves so long as you don’t cause them to lose an eye or a tooth, or you have to set them free. If you give your slave a wife, then if you set him free he has to leave his wife and children behind, or else come back and be a slave to you forever.
And Jesus encouraged slaves to be faithful to their masters.
When slavery was legal in the US, churches in slave states taught that it was Biblical, in fact they taught that abolitionists were ungodly.
It just goes to show how you can justify just about anything using the Bible. Fact: Your bible WAS used to justify slavery at various times in history. Fact: Your bible IS still used to justify bigotry against gays. Bottom line: If a Christian tries to use force (governmental or otherwise) against a peaceful homosexual, then that Christian should be stopped by whatever means necessary.
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant – and a fearful master.”
—George Washington
T
that1dude
Guest
you said “times have changed just a bit since then.”. So you seem to be admitting that the bible was written by fallible humans. Also you waste everyones time when you state that people interpret the bible incorrectly , yet give no examples.
T
that1dude
Guest
Gene Church: here we go…
You said: “Homosexual activity violates natural law.” Your ignorance astounds. No disrespect meant. Amazes me how a person can see hundreds of species exhibiting homosexuality and not recognize that it is natural. This ignorance would just be amusing if it were not used to justify violence (including governmental).
And here is where you cross the line from ignorant to pure trashy evil. You conflate rape with consensual homosexual activity. You are either stupid or intentionally evil. Seriously, I challenge you to justify your words.
You said “After giving legal standing to homosexual activity, it is a small leap to giving the dog legal standing.” A “small leap” to give non-human animals “legal standing”. Are you serious? Give some thought before you post on this site. You are poisoning the pool with your trash. In your mind a dog can enter into explicit agreements with humans? You are a joke.
And here is how we know that Gene Church is beyond redemption: he said “Marriage has a governmental justification to promote population continuation. …” In other words he is a
soviet-style engineer of society. Governments can decide who gets to contract together based upon some Utopian desires? He is neither Christian nor American. He is an elitist pig who would go into your homes and dictate how you should live. DISGUSTING!!
Much more can be said. But I challenge this pinko communist traitor to at least respond to the few points I have made. And if you take umbrage with some of my insults, I will understand. When ignorant bigots like yourself spew trash, it is hard to stick to clinical and neutral language.
You said: “Homosexual activity violates natural law.” Your ignorance astounds. No disrespect meant. Amazes me how a person can see hundreds of species exhibiting homosexuality and not recognize that it is natural. This ignorance would just be amusing if it were not used to justify violence (including governmental).
And here is where you cross the line from ignorant to pure trashy evil. You conflate rape with consensual homosexual activity. You are either stupid or intentionally evil. Seriously, I challenge you to justify your words.
You said “After giving legal standing to homosexual activity, it is a small leap to giving the dog legal standing.” A “small leap” to give non-human animals “legal standing”. Are you serious? Give some thought before you post on this site. You are poisoning the pool with your trash. In your mind a dog can enter into explicit agreements with humans? You are a joke.
And here is how we know that Gene Church is beyond redemption: he said “Marriage has a governmental justification to promote population continuation. …” In other words he is a
soviet-style engineer of society. Governments can decide who gets to contract together based upon some Utopian desires? He is neither Christian nor American. He is an elitist pig who would go into your homes and dictate how you should live. DISGUSTING!!
Much more can be said. But I challenge this pinko communist traitor to at least respond to the few points I have made. And if you take umbrage with some of my insults, I will understand. When ignorant bigots like yourself spew trash, it is hard to stick to clinical and neutral language.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
(Edited)
There are a lot of things that “species” do, including humans, that are in opposition to natural law. Natural law is not the same as what animals do in nature. It is what is moral or not according to the nature of being a human being. Keeping kosher is a religious law. Having sex with a parent is against natural law. Murder is against natural law…it happens in nature all the time, it happens in Greek tragedies all the time for that matter, but who’s arguing that it is “natural”? I’m not saying homosexual sex is the same as beating your wife, but you can’t prove that homosexual sex is OK by the same means which would also allow domestic violence. It’s a logical fallacy. So let’s forget that argument.
It is also against moral law to use someone else’s moral failings or natural differences as an excuse to do violence against them. Violence and hatred aimed against homosexuals are grave sins. I don’t know where you got the idea that anyone here was arguing differently, though. Again: that people have used theft as an excuse to lop people’s hands off is not evidence that theft is OK, nor is the fact that people have been stoned for infidelity prove that adultery OK. Obviously, the odious behavior that has been tolerated towards homosexuals is not evidence that homosexual behavior is itself OK. People have been given the death penalty for virtue, vice, and just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is besides the point.
I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that otherwise sentient human beings would give a dog the same legal standing as a human. They want to protect dogs. OTOH, making an activity morally allowable and making a dog a person are apples and oranges, if that close. That argument was besides the point. If homosexual marriage were a right, it would be a right, and we’d just have to figure out a way to keep ourselves from having canines as landlords.
Also, the secular marriage contract does not exist to promote the continuation of the species. It exists because intact families are in the interest of society and, to be blunt, in order to legally protect the parties to marriage, including the children, from the inevitable betrayals of spouses.
This does not imply that adults living in community but who cannot marry (never mind their sexual relationship) might not need to have some of the advantages often associated with marriage. Certainly, with the way we distribute health care and set up what people other than our parents can make our health decisions or inherit our possessions, that is something to look at. Nevetheless, marriage itself is not a right that any collection of adults not even theoretically capable of producing children might rightly claim. May I say that when homosexual activitists want to be allowed “civil union” benefits they say they need because they have formed a household, but don’t want to give those benefits to adults who are not homosexual, such as grown siblings or close relatives, I don’t believe this is about need? It is about wanting others to extend societal blessing to that which is not societally accepted.
I’m sorry to break this to you, but Christianity is indisputably about telling you how you ought to live your life. Society, including American society, is indisputably about deciding what contracts are and are not permitted and who may or may not enter into them. Liberty and license are not the same thing, and in no society have they ever been so, including this one.
There are a lot of things that “species” do, including humans, that are in opposition to natural law. Natural law is not the same as what animals do in nature. It is what is moral or not according to the nature of being a human being. Keeping kosher is a religious law. Having sex with a parent is against natural law. Murder is against natural law…it happens in nature all the time, it happens in Greek tragedies all the time for that matter, but who’s arguing that it is “natural”? I’m not saying homosexual sex is the same as beating your wife, but you can’t prove that homosexual sex is OK by the same means which would also allow domestic violence. It’s a logical fallacy. So let’s forget that argument.
It is also against moral law to use someone else’s moral failings or natural differences as an excuse to do violence against them. Violence and hatred aimed against homosexuals are grave sins. I don’t know where you got the idea that anyone here was arguing differently, though. Again: that people have used theft as an excuse to lop people’s hands off is not evidence that theft is OK, nor is the fact that people have been stoned for infidelity prove that adultery OK. Obviously, the odious behavior that has been tolerated towards homosexuals is not evidence that homosexual behavior is itself OK. People have been given the death penalty for virtue, vice, and just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is besides the point.
I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that otherwise sentient human beings would give a dog the same legal standing as a human. They want to protect dogs. OTOH, making an activity morally allowable and making a dog a person are apples and oranges, if that close. That argument was besides the point. If homosexual marriage were a right, it would be a right, and we’d just have to figure out a way to keep ourselves from having canines as landlords.
Also, the secular marriage contract does not exist to promote the continuation of the species. It exists because intact families are in the interest of society and, to be blunt, in order to legally protect the parties to marriage, including the children, from the inevitable betrayals of spouses.
This does not imply that adults living in community but who cannot marry (never mind their sexual relationship) might not need to have some of the advantages often associated with marriage. Certainly, with the way we distribute health care and set up what people other than our parents can make our health decisions or inherit our possessions, that is something to look at. Nevetheless, marriage itself is not a right that any collection of adults not even theoretically capable of producing children might rightly claim. May I say that when homosexual activitists want to be allowed “civil union” benefits they say they need because they have formed a household, but don’t want to give those benefits to adults who are not homosexual, such as grown siblings or close relatives, I don’t believe this is about need? It is about wanting others to extend societal blessing to that which is not societally accepted.
I’m sorry to break this to you, but Christianity is indisputably about telling you how you ought to live your life. Society, including American society, is indisputably about deciding what contracts are and are not permitted and who may or may not enter into them. Liberty and license are not the same thing, and in no society have they ever been so, including this one.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Now, why would you say that? Is marriage only based upon procreating? Should infertile couples, no matter the sex, be denied marriage? Should marriages be dissolved when infertility is reached, for example due to age?
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
you are speaking of exceptions. the norm is the measuring stick.
it takes a man and a woman to conceive human life, there are no exceptions. this is natural law at work, absolute truth.
Homosexual acts are not life giving, ever, no exceptions.
place 1 million homosexual couples on an island for 100 years, what do you have? 1 million dead homosexual couples.
place only ten heterosexual couples on that same island for only ten years, chosen at random, and what do you have? a growing village.
it doesn’t take a genius to see the natural law does not support homosexual acts. they are naturaly disordered.
D
Dale_M
Guest
Oh, you are being silly. There is more to life than procreation and there is more to human survival than producing off-spring. Homosexuality has a basis in nature. It is evolutionarily advantageous to have non-breeding couples - adults who can pick up the slack when times are hard.
Now, you can argue that homosexuality is immoral. But don’t give silly arguments such as the one above.
And please, tell us whether marriage only has to do with raising of children. If so, should marriages be dissolved once children are raised?
T
that1dude
Guest
Murder is against natural law…it happens in nature all the time, it happens in Greek tragedies all the time for that matter, but who’s arguing that it is “natural”? I’m not saying homosexual sex is the same as beating your wife, but you can’t prove that homosexual sex is OK by the same means which would also allow domestic violence. It’s a logical fallacy. So let’s forget that argument.
It is also against moral law to use someone else’s moral failings or natural differences as an excuse to do violence against them. Violence and hatred aimed against homosexuals are grave sins. I don’t know where you got the idea that anyone here was arguing differently, though. Again: that people have used theft as an excuse to lop people’s hands off is not evidence that theft is OK, nor is the fact that people have been stoned for infidelity prove that adultery OK. Obviously, the odious behavior that has been tolerated towards homosexuals is not evidence that homosexual behavior is itself OK. People have been given the death penalty for virtue, vice, and just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is besides the point.
I would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that otherwise sentient human beings would give a dog the same legal standing as a human. They want to protect dogs. OTOH, making an activity morally allowable and making a dog a person are apples and oranges, if that close. That argument was besides the point. If homosexual marriage were a right, it would be a right, and we’d just have to figure out a way to keep ourselves from having canines as landlords.
Also, the secular marriage contract does not exist to promote the continuation of the species. It exists because intact families are in the interest of society and, to be blunt, in order to legally protect the parties to marriage, including the children, from the inevitable betrayals of spouses.
This does not imply that adults living in community but who cannot marry (never mind their sexual relationship) might not need to have some of the advantages often associated with marriage. Certainly, with the way we distribute health care and set up what people other than our parents can make our health decisions or inherit our possessions, that is something to look at. Nevetheless, marriage itself is not a right that any collection of adults not even theoretically capable of producing children might rightly claim. May I say that when homosexual activitists want to be allowed “civil union” benefits they say they need because they have formed a household, but don’t want to give those benefits to adults who are not homosexual, such as grown siblings or close relatives, I don’t believe this is about need? It is about wanting others to extend societal blessing to that which is not societally accepted.
I’m sorry to break this to you, but Christianity is indisputably about telling you how you ought to live your life. Society, including American society, is indisputably about deciding what contracts are and are not permitted and who may or may not enter into them. Liberty and license are not the same thing, and in no society have they ever been so, including this one.
J
Julian_Peters
Guest
Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.
- Status