P
Publisher
Guest
You mean “Someone” left out “the rest of the story”??? How’d that happen???
Who has the “agenda”? Interesting.
Who has the “agenda”? Interesting.
- Status
A
Antwill
Guest
The point is that, even though Pastor Green was eventually acquitted (a fact that I was not aware of - I only knew that his original conviction was on appeal - I apologize), he WAS prosecuted and convicted for his sermon, even though he was eventually acquitted. I’m assuming you’re appalled at his statement that homosexual behavior is going to lead to other sexual deviancy like beastiality and pedophilia. Well, regardless of whether or not that is true, it is plausible and his right to express that theory.
Plus, what about all the other clergy that were cited that are in the process of being prosecuted? Even if they are eventually acquitted, isn’t the fact that they are being prosecuted a persecution in itself? If you don’t think it is, talk to anyone who has been wrongly prosecuted for something.
To quote the gay rights gentlemen in one of the articles you linked: **"Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal, said that religious conservatives in the United States were ‘trying to twist’ the Green case to their advantage, but that it was ‘not relevant to any actual debate about gay civil rights or the role of religion in the United States.’
U.S. gay rights groups ‘are not interested in forcing any churches to do anything they don’t want to do theologically,’ Cathcart said. Evangelical Christians who think Green’s case is what the future holds for them ‘may be right,’ he said, ‘but only if they move to Sweden.’" **
What do you expect him to say? For crying out loud, he is part of promoting this whole agenda. They understand, as should we all, that this whole process of implanting this agenda and making these lifestyles seen as completely moral and acceptable is a long process of making small strides which eventually will lead to their ultimate goal. One could look at these attempted prosecutions as “test runs”. Eventually, they are bound to succeed and their cause advance. I’m sure if one looks back far enough, you could probably find a quote from a gay rights activist saying that they had no intention of making their lifestyle a part of the public school curriculum, yet look at what is happening.
To Publisher: I do have an agenda and I am not at all afraid to express it, unlike many of these gay activists. My agenda is to stand up for and promote the TRUTH of Jesus Christ as revealed to the Catholic Church, but to do so in a loving manner while not shirking the negative ramifications of homosexual activity out of a false sense of love, acceptance, or ecumeninism.
Finally, KarenNC, I find it interesting that you changed your signature line after I pointed out to you how it very succintly states why we should stand up against homosexuality and same sex marriage. I liked it so much, I’ve made it my own.
J
Jerusha
Guest
People have the right to sin, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. That is the line between what is sinful and what should be illegal.
K
KarenNC
Guest
there is a growing list of pastors and priests who are being prosecuted under various “hate speech” laws, simply for teaching what the Church and the bible say about the immorality of homosexual relations.
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04043006.html
Let’s take a look at the list of folks in that article that you say are being prosecuted for simply “teaching what the Church and the bible say about the immorality of homosexual relations.”
First:
“Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and “reorientate” themselves.”
Here’s the article in the Telegraph that is referenced–telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/10/nbish10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/11/10/ixportal.html
The comments were made in the local newspaper, and the police received a complaint which they were investigating. A follow-up
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3255461.stm
"Cheshire Constabulary spoke to the bishop after receiving a complaint about the comments from a member of the public.
But on Monday evening, a police spokesman confirmed that no action would be taken . He said: “The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted at length and the Cheshire constabulary is satisfied that no criminal offences have been committed.”
Second:
Ake Green—already discussed
Third:
Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country’s discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching published in a Belgium magazine. (CWNews.com, 01/26/04)
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27229
"Cardinal Gustaaf Joos told a Belgian magazine, “I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are just sexual perverts.”
Note that he faced a lawsuit from a private organization over this, not threat of arrest by police. Was it ever actually filed? Was it resolved prior to his death? It also says that “The Belgian bishops’ conference said Cardinal Joos was speaking in a private capacity.” Sounds like the other bishops weren’t exactly in favor of his statements either.
Fourth:
“Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (Washington Post, 01/03/04)”
Unable to find something that is from a regular news source to tell me exactly what he said, who is filing the suit, how it was resolved. Free access to articles in the Post only go back 60 days and this is three years old. Can anyone point me to the actual remarks, to who filed the suit or what the resolution of the suit was?
Fifth:
“In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican’s publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)”
“Could face?” Was anyone actually prosecuted? What was the result of such if it happened? Was it thrown out or dismissed as all the other examples I have found?
lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04043006.html
Let’s take a look at the list of folks in that article that you say are being prosecuted for simply “teaching what the Church and the bible say about the immorality of homosexual relations.”
First:
“Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and “reorientate” themselves.”
Here’s the article in the Telegraph that is referenced–telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/10/nbish10.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/11/10/ixportal.html
The comments were made in the local newspaper, and the police received a complaint which they were investigating. A follow-up
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3255461.stm
"Cheshire Constabulary spoke to the bishop after receiving a complaint about the comments from a member of the public.
But on Monday evening, a police spokesman confirmed that no action would be taken . He said: “The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted at length and the Cheshire constabulary is satisfied that no criminal offences have been committed.”
Second:
Ake Green—already discussed
Third:
Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country’s discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching published in a Belgium magazine. (CWNews.com, 01/26/04)
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=27229
"Cardinal Gustaaf Joos told a Belgian magazine, “I am willing to write in my own blood that of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay. All the rest are just sexual perverts.”
Note that he faced a lawsuit from a private organization over this, not threat of arrest by police. Was it ever actually filed? Was it resolved prior to his death? It also says that “The Belgian bishops’ conference said Cardinal Joos was speaking in a private capacity.” Sounds like the other bishops weren’t exactly in favor of his statements either.
Fourth:
“Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (Washington Post, 01/03/04)”
Unable to find something that is from a regular news source to tell me exactly what he said, who is filing the suit, how it was resolved. Free access to articles in the Post only go back 60 days and this is three years old. Can anyone point me to the actual remarks, to who filed the suit or what the resolution of the suit was?
Fifth:
“In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican’s publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)”
“Could face?” Was anyone actually prosecuted? What was the result of such if it happened? Was it thrown out or dismissed as all the other examples I have found?
A
Antwill
Guest
You obviously missed the jist of my post: the fact that prosecutions and lawsuits are being threatened and/or pursued is just a sign that these laws are being seen by many homosexuals and homosexual agenda supporters as a way to try to silence those that oppose that lifestyle. THIS IS A PROCESS. You can say that “no one has actually had to serve time, pay a fine, etc.” but the fact that these suits are being threatened and pursued shows what they have in mind. It is only a matter of time before a prosecution is successful or a more speech specific law is passed if people do not vigorously stand up against this agenda.
Call me an alarmist, call me a conspiracty theorist, call me a homophobe (not that you have - but I know what you’re thinking
). The bottom line is that if we truly love these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, we are going to express to them that their lifestyles only lead to destruction and that true happiness and contentment can only be found in following the laws of God in all things - sexual relationships (whether homosexual or heterosexual) included.
P
Publisher
Guest
"You obviously missed the jist of my post: the fact that prosecutions and lawsuits are being threatened and/or pursued is just a sign that these laws are being seen by many homosexuals and homosexual agenda supporters as a way to try to silence those that oppose that lifestyle. THIS IS A PROCESS. You can say that “no one has actually had to serve time, pay a fine, etc.” but the fact that these suits are being threatened and pursued shows what they have in mind. It is only a matter of time before a prosecution is successful or a more speech specific law is passed if people do not vigorously stand up against this agenda.
Call me an alarmist, call me a conspiracty theorist, call me a homophobe (not that you have - but I know what you’re thinking ). The bottom line is that if we truly love these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, we are going to express to them that their lifestyles only lead to destruction and that true happiness and contentment can only be found in following the laws of God in all things - sexual relationships (whether homosexual or heterosexual) included."
We do agree on the bolded…but what we disagree on is WHO gets to define “the laws of God”…the RCC…ECUSA…LCIA…UCC…MCC…???
These other groups advocate equality under the law for gay or straight…so we should deny gay people equality under the law and equal protection under the law because you or your church have decided otherwise?
Call me an alarmist, call me a conspiracty theorist, call me a homophobe (not that you have - but I know what you’re thinking ). The bottom line is that if we truly love these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, we are going to express to them that their lifestyles only lead to destruction and that true happiness and contentment can only be found in following the laws of God in all things - sexual relationships (whether homosexual or heterosexual) included."
We do agree on the bolded…but what we disagree on is WHO gets to define “the laws of God”…the RCC…ECUSA…LCIA…UCC…MCC…???
These other groups advocate equality under the law for gay or straight…so we should deny gay people equality under the law and equal protection under the law because you or your church have decided otherwise?
A
Antwill
Guest
Yet another reason why Christ formed one true, holy, apostolic Catholic Church so that we might know the Truth in matters such as this.
Satan is really enjoying all this dissension and confusion among God’s people.
P
Publisher
Guest
But “God’s people” do not dictate civil law in this country…
K
KarenNC
Guest
The point is that, even though Pastor Green was eventually acquitted (a fact that I was not aware of - I only knew that his original conviction was on appeal - I apologize), he WAS prosecuted and convicted for his sermon, even though he was eventually acquitted.
And my point is to ask whether you bothered to try to find out the facts of the situation or did you just take the initial report at face value and run with it because that initial report suited your purposes?
**Plus, what about all the other clergy that were cited that are in the process of being prosecuted? **
I got to that in my follow-up post, which I was evidently working on while you posted. Sorry, research takes a little bit of time even online and my child seems to expect that I pay attention to her periodically .
** Even if they are eventually acquitted, isn’t the fact that they are being prosecuted a persecution in itself? If you don’t think it is, talk to anyone who has been wrongly prosecuted for something.**
The fact that they are being investigated (for the most part as far as I can tell) shows that not everyone understands how to apply the law perfectly. It is not uncommon, particularly in the early stages. The most salient point is that incorrect applications of the law are being overturned just as they are for other laws.
**What do you expect him to say? For crying out loud, he is part of promoting this whole agenda. **
I expect that he says what he means. So you believe that people mean what they say and it should be taken at face value when it supports your position but are lying and one should conclude they really have a hidden agenda contrary to their statements when they say something that doesn’t? Interesting way to view life.
** I’m sure if one looks back far enough, you could probably find a quote from a gay rights activist saying that they had no intention of making their lifestyle a part of the public school curriculum, yet look at what is happening.**
Go for it. Google is a powerful search engine. Once you find such a statement we can then evaluate it in context.
Finally, KarenNC, I find it interesting that you changed your signature line after I pointed out to you how it very succintly states why we should stand up against homosexuality and same sex marriage. I liked it so much, I’ve made it my own.
Glad you liked it. I do, too, which is why I used it for several months. It is an odd feature of the forum that when you edit your signature line it changes all past posts as well. Wish it didn’t do that. Here are some more good ones by him:
"Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man. "
"The true civilization is where every man gives to every other every right that he claims for himself. "
“There is no slavery but ignorance.”
“If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.”
"If we are immortal it is a fact in nature, and we are not indebted to priests for it, nor to bibles for it, and it cannot be destroyed by unbelief. "
“Happiness is not a reward - it is a consequence.
Suffering is not a punishment - it is a result.”
In actual fact, I changed it in response to being reminded of this quote from Jefferson during a talk at church on humanism a week or two ago. I had used the other one for quite a while (after having used others as well previously) and thought a change might be nice.
And my point is to ask whether you bothered to try to find out the facts of the situation or did you just take the initial report at face value and run with it because that initial report suited your purposes?
**Plus, what about all the other clergy that were cited that are in the process of being prosecuted? **
I got to that in my follow-up post, which I was evidently working on while you posted. Sorry, research takes a little bit of time even online and my child seems to expect that I pay attention to her periodically
.** Even if they are eventually acquitted, isn’t the fact that they are being prosecuted a persecution in itself? If you don’t think it is, talk to anyone who has been wrongly prosecuted for something.**
The fact that they are being investigated (for the most part as far as I can tell) shows that not everyone understands how to apply the law perfectly. It is not uncommon, particularly in the early stages. The most salient point is that incorrect applications of the law are being overturned just as they are for other laws.
**What do you expect him to say? For crying out loud, he is part of promoting this whole agenda. **
I expect that he says what he means. So you believe that people mean what they say and it should be taken at face value when it supports your position but are lying and one should conclude they really have a hidden agenda contrary to their statements when they say something that doesn’t? Interesting way to view life.
** I’m sure if one looks back far enough, you could probably find a quote from a gay rights activist saying that they had no intention of making their lifestyle a part of the public school curriculum, yet look at what is happening.**
Go for it. Google is a powerful search engine. Once you find such a statement we can then evaluate it in context.
Finally, KarenNC, I find it interesting that you changed your signature line after I pointed out to you how it very succintly states why we should stand up against homosexuality and same sex marriage. I liked it so much, I’ve made it my own.
Glad you liked it. I do, too, which is why I used it for several months. It is an odd feature of the forum that when you edit your signature line it changes all past posts as well. Wish it didn’t do that. Here are some more good ones by him:
"Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man. "
"The true civilization is where every man gives to every other every right that he claims for himself. "
“There is no slavery but ignorance.”
“If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.”
"If we are immortal it is a fact in nature, and we are not indebted to priests for it, nor to bibles for it, and it cannot be destroyed by unbelief. "
“Happiness is not a reward - it is a consequence.
Suffering is not a punishment - it is a result.”
In actual fact, I changed it in response to being reminded of this quote from Jefferson during a talk at church on humanism a week or two ago. I had used the other one for quite a while (after having used others as well previously) and thought a change might be nice.
A
Antwill
Guest
Well, we’re really all God’s people, whether some want to acknowledge that or not.
But I understand where you are coming from with that statement, and, unfortunately, that is becoming more and more true. However, it wasn’t so in the beginning with the Founding Fathers.
Our civil and criminal law are based on the 10 Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic. That is also something that is being attacked by the seculatrist agnostics of society. Don’t have to look much farther than the removal of any sign of Christianity in schools and public places (most apparently in the banning of Christmas parties, songs, nativity scenes, etc.) to see that. More and more it is becoming apparent that the fact that our country was founded on the principle of a government that does not designate one religion over another has denigrated into one that seems to be more and more intolerant of the Christian religions.
By the way, the erosion that has led us to where we are now in our society’s growing intolerance of Christians is the same that is going on with the homosexual agenda that we are now in the middle of and, in my opinion, very much a part of the same movement.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Really? You (and others) might find the following article interesting
writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html
The Ten Commandments and American Law:
Why Some Christians’ Claims to Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record
written by Marci Hamilton
"Professor Marci A. Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where she is the founding Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program. She has been a visiting scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, the Center of Theological Inquiry, and Emory University School of Law.
Professor Hamilton is an internationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. She is frequently asked to advise Congress and state legislatures on the constitutionality of pending legislation and to consult in cases before the United States Supreme Court."
P
Publisher
Guest
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles…not belief…ethics being the worth and dignity of people…not specifically “god’s prople”.
Most of the founding fathers of our country would be classified as “non Christian” Diests. We know that the 10 Commandments were founded upon an older law, Code of Hammarabi…we know athiests and agnostics are also moral people…so ethics may be historically rooted in our religious culture…they are not preserved by religious belief…human worth and dignity stand alone on their own…religion may contribute to that worth and dignity or it may compromise it…which IMO has been the case in many aspects for most of Christianities history…slavery, women’w rights, racism, anti-Semitism, anit-intellectualism…now many conservative “Christians” have a new demon to vilify…gay men and women…we no longer allow “in your face” racism…even though most of us suffer from it in one form or another…we no longer allow…“in your face” sexism…though most of us suffer from it in one form or another…and those vestiges of intolerance stem from “Christian roots”.
Once gay rights are secured…we will find someone else “god” doesn’t like…and we will go after them…“god” doesn’t like someone…somewhere…for us to hate.
A
Antwill
Guest
Regardless of whether or not they were strong believers, these “diests”, as you put it, saw the importance of the teachings of Chrisianity and made them the bedrock of our society.
God doesn’t hate anyone, but He does hate their sin because it separates them from Himself. Of course, there are those who would twist religion to make it seem so, but that is not the case.
I know that you won’t believe me, but I do not “hate” homosexuals. I just trust in the CCs teachings on morals and also understand that society’s idea of “freedom” (ie. I can do whatever I want) is a total misnomer and only leads to bondage. True freedom is found when we follow Christ’s teachings as passed down to the Catholic Church. Homosexual acts are contrary to God’s law which is natural law. Therefore in love of Christ and my fellow man I must stand up against that sin. I know that many think that in doing so I “hate” homosexuals, but only God knows my heart, and He knows that is not the case.
Finally, I would also tell you that I “hate” things that I do that are sinful and constantly fight against the sin. Does that mean that I “hate” myself? Of course not, but I know that God’s way is the best way and I am called to fight sin whereever I find it, within or without.
A
Antwill
Guest
Well, here’s another opinion from a constitutional attorney:
lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D159488%2526M%253D150019,00.html
I can cite “experts” who contradict your “experts”. However, the point still remains that the Founders definitely were influenced by Christianity. “In God we Trust” on our money, numerous biblical quotes on various governmental buildings, etc. To argue otherwise is silly.
A
Antwill
Guest
I confirmed the reports from other sources, thankyouverymuch. However, you still don’t understand the fact that my point is that the advancement of the homosexual agenda is A PROCESS and these threats and attempted prosecutions are simply a sign of how those who wish to advance that agenda are attempting to use the system to silence their critics. The fact that some have been dismissed, some not brought to trial, and some aquitted is, at this point, secondary to the fact that this is being attempted. If we wait until someone is actually convicted, sentenced and imprisoned for speaking out against homosexuality, it will be too late.
Sorry, but, unfortunately, I have become somewhat jaded and skeptical given all the lies and half-truths I have seen from those who were trying to advance these types of agendas. Seems that many think “the end justifies the means” in these cases. Plus, I don’t think you are as trusting of what a person says as you would like me to think. I’m sure that you question and research what someone says, and even more so when that person is on the opposite side of an issue. That is obvious by all the internet articles you cite on this board. Don’t get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that and one should, but to say that you “expect someone to say what he means” isn’t what is supported by your actions in checking everything out.
I’ll have to get back to you on this one. I’m obviously not as proficient as you on the “googling”. But, then again, it would appear few are.
I was hoping that maybe you had realized that that statement does summarize why same sex marriages and relationships should be opposed. Oh well.
K
KarenNC
Guest
To say “influenced by” is a far cry from “Our civil and criminal law are based on the 10 Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic.”
“Numerous biblical quotes on various governmental buildings.”–are we arguing on the basis of numbers? Shall we count the number of statues or images of Classical Deities and their symbols that adorn our public buildings, the seals of the states, etc? Since we are discussing the intentions of the Founders, are we limiting ourselves to inscriptions on buildings put up by them? If so, which particular time period and which particular buildings?
Inscriptions like E PLURIBUS UNUM [One From Many]
Horace, Epistle ii, 212 , the motto on the Great Seal of the US?
greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html
As to the “In God We Trust”, to repeat a post from another thread that addresses exactly this:
“Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954
history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm. The Pledge itself (without the use of “under God”) only dates from 1892.
“In God We Trust” as standard on all money is of the same vintage. The first request for it came in 1861 and first appeared on the two cent coin in 1864. It’s use varied greatly until 1956, when “In God We Trust” became the National Motto. It was not added to all money until 1966.
Founded? As I recall, our country was founded in the late 1700s, not the 1950s. Let’s take a look at something from 1797:
“the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-” (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Article 11 yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di…/bar1796t.htm)
It was ratified by a Congress under the Presidential term of John Adams
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di…y/bar1796n.htm
“Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”
This was ratified by Senate of the 5th Congress of the United States.
a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2…08-222/5th.pdf
The Vice President at the time was Thomas Jefferson. John Langdon, senator from New Hampshire, was a signer of the Constitution. William Blount from Tennessee was a member of the Constitutional Convention. You can look at the bios of the men who made up the Senate that ratified this treaty at bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch1.asp.
John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, members of the Constitutional Convention, signers of the constitution, etc vs. Dwight Eisenhower. Which would you choose to be more representative of the understanding of the Founders of this country?
P
Publisher
Guest
Details…details!!!
A
Antwill
Guest
You are the googling queen!
Anyway, doesn’t change my opinion of the importance of the Judeo-Christian ethic to our way of life and justice system. Yes, you have given me some information that shows that it may not be as important as I originally thought, but to argue that it isn’t important at all, as you seem to be bent on doing, is not accurate, either.
Bottom line on this whole debate is that using Hate Crime bills to silence those who oppose homosexuality is wrong, regardless of the degree to which the 10 Commandments and Christianity has influenced our legal system. You don’t think that is what’s going on here. I do. I guess time will tell.
For the record, I hope you’re right.
K
KarenNC
Guest
** However, you still don’t understand the fact that my point is that the advancement of the homosexual agenda is A PROCESS and these threats and attempted prosecutions are simply a sign of how those who wish to advance that agenda are attempting to use the system to silence their critics. The fact that some have been dismissed, some not brought to trial, and some aquitted is, at this point, secondary to the fact that this is being attempted. If we wait until someone is actually convicted, sentenced and imprisoned for speaking out against homosexuality, it will be too late.**
Actually, I see them as blatant evidence that justice itself is a process and that the fact that these specific cases are being overturned is evidence that the process of checks and balances designed into the respective systems of government are indeed working as they should.
**Sorry, but, unfortunately, I have become somewhat jaded and skeptical given all the lies and half-truths I have seen from those who were trying to advance these types of agendas. Seems that many think “the end justifies the means” in these cases. Plus, I don’t think you are as trusting of what a person says as you would like me to think. I’m sure that you question and research what someone says, and even more so when that person is on the opposite side of an issue. That is obvious by all the internet articles you cite on this board. Don’t get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that and one should, but to say that you “expect someone to say what he means” isn’t what is supported by your actions in checking everything out. **
Trust and verify. I expect it, but I am not shocked when I find that there are occasional people who do not do so. I do indeed also check out claims made by those who support my view because they are not immune to lacking pertinent facts. I expect that someone says what they mean unless there is substantial (and substantiated) evidence otherwise.
**I’ll have to get back to you on this one. I’m obviously not as proficient as you on the “googling”. But, then again, it would appear few are. **
Research is what I do and have done for a number of years in various capacities. The ability to use a tool proficiently is usually desirable. The internet has a great deal of misinformation but it also opens up access to lots of source information, if you know how to use it critically.
I was hoping that maybe you had realized that that statement does summarize why same sex marriages and relationships should be opposed.
Nope, sorry, don’t get that from that quote at all. I don’t see any consequences of allowing consenting adult same sex couples who wish a monogamous lifelong committed relationship the same benefits and responsibilities under civil law as those given to consenting adult opposite sex couples who wish a monogamous lifelong committed relationship that would be detrimental to society or to the marriages of those opposite sex couples.
Actually, I see them as blatant evidence that justice itself is a process and that the fact that these specific cases are being overturned is evidence that the process of checks and balances designed into the respective systems of government are indeed working as they should.
**Sorry, but, unfortunately, I have become somewhat jaded and skeptical given all the lies and half-truths I have seen from those who were trying to advance these types of agendas. Seems that many think “the end justifies the means” in these cases. Plus, I don’t think you are as trusting of what a person says as you would like me to think. I’m sure that you question and research what someone says, and even more so when that person is on the opposite side of an issue. That is obvious by all the internet articles you cite on this board. Don’t get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that and one should, but to say that you “expect someone to say what he means” isn’t what is supported by your actions in checking everything out. **
Trust and verify. I expect it, but I am not shocked when I find that there are occasional people who do not do so. I do indeed also check out claims made by those who support my view because they are not immune to lacking pertinent facts. I expect that someone says what they mean unless there is substantial (and substantiated) evidence otherwise.
**I’ll have to get back to you on this one. I’m obviously not as proficient as you on the “googling”. But, then again, it would appear few are.
**Research is what I do and have done for a number of years in various capacities. The ability to use a tool proficiently is usually desirable. The internet has a great deal of misinformation but it also opens up access to lots of source information, if you know how to use it critically.
I was hoping that maybe you had realized that that statement does summarize why same sex marriages and relationships should be opposed.
Nope, sorry, don’t get that from that quote at all. I don’t see any consequences of allowing consenting adult same sex couples who wish a monogamous lifelong committed relationship the same benefits and responsibilities under civil law as those given to consenting adult opposite sex couples who wish a monogamous lifelong committed relationship that would be detrimental to society or to the marriages of those opposite sex couples.
A
Antwill
Guest
- Status