T
The_Barbarian
Guest
They can’t impose acceptance, but they can impose tolerance. Abusing the rights of homosexuals in public school is a crime, and should be. It’s why the Church has come down against such discrimination.
- Status
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The Barbarian;3682605]
"I’ve told them “I am Catholic, and I view what you do as a sin. I don’t think you should be persecuted for it, and I agree you have the same rights as everyone else, but I think what you do is wrong.”
Right. We have the freedom to do as we want, as long as we don’t bother others. They don’t.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour."
-Communist Manifesto
He is advocating social indoctrination, which is happening today. So yes, as he wanted it, I am against it.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Jefferson
Even Jefferson specifically said “legislature”. A teacher is not a legislator, and if she say’s a prayer in class, the legislature is not mandating it.
LOL I don’t know! LOL That’s what I am asking. You said this:
"I’ve told them “I am Catholic, and I view what you do as a sin. I don’t think you should be persecuted for it, and I agree you have the same rights as everyone else, but I think what you do is wrong.”
I have to say, I am having a real tough time with your quotes and format. I don’t know what you now said or what the point is here. Don’t take this the wrong way, but do you see how everyone else formats their quotes and replies? It seems much easier.
Right. We have the freedom to do as we want, as long as we don’t bother others. They don’t.
Right. AGAIN, I am not contesting this point. I am saying, that if one wants to break down a society, in order to change it, it must break down the present society first. This is what is happening right now.
True. But they also are not changing society with a armed revolution. Armed revolution is quick, what is happening here today, is gradual.
"And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour."
-Communist Manifesto
He is advocating social indoctrination, which is happening today. So yes, as he wanted it, I am against it.
No, it say’s CONGRESS cannot pass a law respecting an establishment of religion. Since when is a teacher getting paid from the feds or state, CONGRESS? She does not make policy. She does not vote for policy. She is a citizen who has a job from the government.
And a teacher who say’s a prayer in class, is not mandated by any governmnet. If she were to do it, it is of her own accord, not a government mandate. That is a bad interpretation of the Constitution.
I disagree, I don;t think it was considered a violation of the law. Hell, right after the government was formed, it was allowed. Don;t you think they knew if it was unconstitutional right after they drafted the constitution, they would have banned it then??
And they are wrong. CONGRESS shall pass no law…A teacher is not Congress.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And the law is wrong. The intent was that a religious majority in Congress, cannot pass laws forcing thier views on the nation. The aim is to prevent a theocratic tyranny on a minority.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Jefferson
Even Jefferson specifically said “legislature”. A teacher is not a legislator, and if she say’s a prayer in class, the legislature is not mandating it.
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
So gay students can run around promoting their views, but someone with an opposing view point, cannot?
And their running around brandishing their viewpoints, leads to acceptance, and they darn well know it.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian observes:
They can’t impose acceptance, but they can impose tolerance. Abusing the rights of homosexuals in public school is a crime, and should be. It’s why the Church has come down against such discrimination.
They can’t impose acceptance, but they can impose tolerance. Abusing the rights of homosexuals in public school is a crime, and should be. It’s why the Church has come down against such discrimination.
So long as it doesn’t abuse heterosexuals. No one has the right to abuse others.
Same standard applies to them. They are limited, as are homosexuals, to freedom of expression, so long as they don’t attack others. If the school bans hatred expressed at homosexuals, it must also ban hatred expressed at heterosexuals. That is the law.
Since the Catholic Church accepts homosexuals, why would that bother you? You don’t have to approve of what they do, to accept them as human beings and to accord them equal rights. That is what the Church tells you that you must do.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Barbarian asks:
What did I say is wrong that you do?
Barbarian observes:
The Church also teaches that society should not abuse their rights.
Barbarian regarding laws protecting all citizens:
Like anyone else who violates the law, you have to be prepared to face the consquences.
(mention that communist governments generally are harder on porn and homosexuality)
Barbarian, regarding the difference between America and Marxists:
Right. We have the freedom to do as we want, as long as we don’t bother others. They don’t.
Apparently, it isn’t. China, North Korea, and Vietnam either frown on it, or Criminalize it.
Barbarian observes:
Some leftists might be like that, but leftists and Marxists are often at odds, particularly in individual rights.
Barbarian on Marxism:
He was in favor of education and cleanliness also. I hope you aren’t automatically against everything he liked.
…by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour."
-Communist Manifesto
He seems to be criticizing societal breakdown in Victorian England. BTW, Marx once visited America, and praised us for our progressive spirit. This was during the Robber Baron era, so I suppose he was grading on the curve.
Barbarian observes:
Amendment XIV applied the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states and all jurisdictions under them. So yes, it does say that.
Barbarian observes:
Doesn’t matter. No agent of the state can prescribe religion in any way. The state can neither impose religion, nor delegate that power to any other person.
Barbarian observes:
Police used to torture people to get them to confess. Why did we do that? Because we haven’t always obeyed the law. The fact that we didn’t obey the law in the past is not license to continue to do it.
Barbarian observes:
Sure does. And the courts have always so ruled. Any agent of the government represents the government.
Barbarian observes:
In her private life. In her public school class, she is the agent of the government, and subject to the same restrictions.
Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that’s wrong. She can say it quietly to herself, but she cannot do it in front of her class. That is the law.
And that is how it should be.
What did I say is wrong that you do?
Unless you are homosexual, this doesn’t apply to you.
Barbarian observes:
The Church also teaches that society should not abuse their rights.
Barbarian regarding laws protecting all citizens:
Like anyone else who violates the law, you have to be prepared to face the consquences.
(mention that communist governments generally are harder on porn and homosexuality)
Barbarian, regarding the difference between America and Marxists:
Right. We have the freedom to do as we want, as long as we don’t bother others. They don’t.
Apparently, it isn’t. China, North Korea, and Vietnam either frown on it, or Criminalize it.
Why would it surprise you that a Marxist state would abuse human rights?
Um, if so, it’s very subtle. Violence, for example, is much lower than in the 1970s. Drug and alcoholism declined in the 1990s. American students are now scoring higher on international tests than students of most other nations.
Barbarian observes:
Some leftists might be like that, but leftists and Marxists are often at odds, particularly in individual rights.
Ah, makes sense. Sort of like the Klan promoting equality to undermine America. Or does it?
Barbarian on Marxism:
He was in favor of education and cleanliness also. I hope you aren’t automatically against everything he liked.
…by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour."
-Communist Manifesto
He seems to be criticizing societal breakdown in Victorian England. BTW, Marx once visited America, and praised us for our progressive spirit. This was during the Robber Baron era, so I suppose he was grading on the curve.
Social indoctrination always happens, in every society. It’s just that in past decades, we had swung a little too far toward homophobia, and now there’s a move back to the center. It’s not a plot; it’s the way things work in all societies. It’s one of the reasons the Church had to issue a statement of acceptance of homosexuals as humans deserving equal rights and dignity, even if they are intrinsically disordered in their sexual lives.
Barbarian observes:
Amendment XIV applied the protections in the Bill of Rights to the states and all jurisdictions under them. So yes, it does say that.
The fourteenth Amendment applied that to the states. Trust me, your argument won’t last as long as it takes to say it, in court. The Constitution applies to all government entities.
Doesn’t matter. A teacher’s authority derives from the state in which she lives.
Doesn’t matter. The law forbids delegation of illegal power as well.
And as long as she is an agent of the government, she is under the limit of the Constitution.
Barbarian observes:
Doesn’t matter. No agent of the state can prescribe religion in any way. The state can neither impose religion, nor delegate that power to any other person.
Because she is an agent of the government, it is a government mandate. That’s the law. If she was in the capacity as a parent at a football game, for example, she could openly pray. But not in her function as a representative of the government.
It accomplishes the intent of the Founders to prevent establishment of religion. If you haven’t done so, you need to read Madison’s “Against Religious Assessments” to learn what the Founders thought of the issue.
Barbarian observes:
Police used to torture people to get them to confess. Why did we do that? Because we haven’t always obeyed the law. The fact that we didn’t obey the law in the past is not license to continue to do it.
That thing about cruel and unusual punishement, and due process. Bill of Rights, again.
Some places, the Constitution was violated in all sorts of ways. Over time case law reduced the number of violations. That’s how it’s supposed to be.
Barbarian observes:
Sure does. And the courts have always so ruled. Any agent of the government represents the government.
The Fourteenth Amendment put an end to that.
Barbarian observes:
In her private life. In her public school class, she is the agent of the government, and subject to the same restrictions.
Barbarian observes:
Sorry, that’s wrong. She can say it quietly to herself, but she cannot do it in front of her class. That is the law.
And that is how it should be.
You have three choices:
- Amend the Constitution
- Abide by it
- Find another place to live
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The context of the post was this:
Originally Posted by mysitar
I am Catholic, but I attend a public school. **You can’t impose your religion on people at public school.**Besides, do you think they’d really care (i know my friends don’t)?
Then one shouldn’t be able to impose such a highly controversial topic on kids. Or if they do, then religion ought to be a freely discussed topic as well. If they bring a gay speaker into class, then a preist should be welcomed with no questions asked.
To the gay agenda, tolerance IS acceptance, or it will lead to acceptance. They know full well, that is why they push their agenda so hard in schools. 1) They know they are protected by the government, and 2) They are dealing with kids or highly impressionalbe young adults.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The context of the post was this:
Originally Posted by mysitar
I am Catholic, but I attend a public school. You can’t impose your religion on people at public school.Besides, do you think they’d really care (i know my friends don’t)?
There’s huge difference between being opposed to homosexual activity, and the kind of homophobia that expresses itself in abusive behavior. As others have observed, the vast majority of those who oppose that behavior are simply opposed to sin. A few have emotional reactions, in some cases because they are both attracted to and repelled by homosexuality.
Originally Posted by mysitar
I am Catholic, but I attend a public school. You can’t impose your religion on people at public school.Besides, do you think they’d really care (i know my friends don’t)?
It isn’t controversial, at least not for Catholics. It is the teaching of the Church that homosexuals, although sinners, are not to be abused, and their rights as human beings are to be respected. If you don’t agree with this rather basic Christian principle, why are you a Catholic?
It can be. In a philosophy or comparative religion class, it certain is legal and proper. The school can’t endorse religion, but it can teach about it.
I think so. But he would, if he accepted the Church’s teachings just repeat the things you found so objectionable.
Maybe so. The Church accepts them. Why not you?
Bill of Rights again. That seems to rile you up a lot.
Ah. Fear of recruiting. False fear. It appears that sexual orientation is set rather early, and can be changed, if at all, only by extreme measures. The numbers I see indicate a society’s attitude toward homosexuality has little to do with the number of homosexuals.
There’s huge difference between being opposed to homosexual activity, and the kind of homophobia that expresses itself in abusive behavior. As others have observed, the vast majority of those who oppose that behavior are simply opposed to sin. A few have emotional reactions, in some cases because they are both attracted to and repelled by homosexuality.
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The Barbarian;3684983]
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50016
"On Friday, a commission panel decided Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition of which he was executive director violated human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt."
cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/30/boissoin-ruling.html
"A school administrator, according to the lawsuit, demanded that Zamecnik remove the shirt."
gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/20/5
The suit claims that the school’s assistant principal said the shirt violated the code because it had homemade printing and was “inflammatory,” and that the teenager was suspended by the principal when he refused to remove it.
rightrainbow.com/archives/2005/06/kid_suspended_f.html
gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/20/5
"A handful of students were suspended from Rio Linda High School on Wednesday for refusing to take off anti-gay T-shirts that administrators said were inappropriate."
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819924/posts
Oh gee, the government(school administration) violated those students “free speech” rights.
Judge Ronald Gould, in a one-sentence opinion explaining his opposition to en banc review, wrote:
So according to that statement by the government, I guesss there really is no room for dissent againt gays? They can say or do whatever they want to and it is protected speech, but that does not apply to dissenters.
But simply being in disagreement with gays IS abuse to them. Speaking out against gays IS abuse to them.
"In his majority opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled the student’s constitutional rights were not violated because the message on his shirt was offensive to homosexual students."
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50016
"On Friday, a commission panel decided Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition of which he was executive director violated human rights law because the letter likely exposed gays to hatred and contempt."
cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/11/30/boissoin-ruling.html
"A school administrator, according to the lawsuit, demanded that Zamecnik remove the shirt."
gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/20/5
The suit claims that the school’s assistant principal said the shirt violated the code because it had homemade printing and was “inflammatory,” and that the teenager was suspended by the principal when he refused to remove it.
rightrainbow.com/archives/2005/06/kid_suspended_f.html
gay.com/news/article.html?2008/02/20/5
"A handful of students were suspended from Rio Linda High School on Wednesday for refusing to take off anti-gay T-shirts that administrators said were inappropriate."
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1819924/posts
Oh gee, the government(school administration) violated those students “free speech” rights.
Judge Ronald Gould, in a one-sentence opinion explaining his opposition to en banc review, wrote:
exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/08/anti-gay-t-shir/
So according to that statement by the government, I guesss there really is no room for dissent againt gays? They can say or do whatever they want to and it is protected speech, but that does not apply to dissenters.
Because it leads to the acceptance of their behavior. Yes, even the Church can be liberalized. I am seeing it in abundance here.
They have equal rights. They have equal right to marriage too. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that will have them. Where the Church is getting it wrong, is that tolerance begets acceptance. The more we are to see it, the more acceptable it becomes. And that is a fact.
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The Barbarian;3685146]
Medical drug use is on the rise.
“The average science score of U.S. students lagged behind those in 16 of 30 countries… The U.S. students were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.”
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
I’d like to compare data if possible.
Teen and adult STD’s on the rise. Even old, somewhat obsolete std’s are rising
Vulgarity is commonplace, promiscuity.
IE Social engineering.
“and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”
He advocated not having children. And guess what? We are having less children.
“He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.”
IE: Feminist movement.
Barbarian observes:
Sure does. And the courts have always so ruled. Any agent of the government represents the government.
I do not get the way you quote and reply. You do it so differently. I don;t know what to reply to here.
It dosen’t but you are eithe rnot understanding my point, or ar disregarding it.
It’s not subtle. California just overturned the gay marriage ban. That’s subtle? Look at filth on tv and in the movies up until the 60’s. Look at the divorce rates and the lower marriage rates. The crime rate, in 1993 they changed the way crim data was collected and crim accross the board went down. So it was either collected wrong in the past, or they are messing it up now.
Medical drug use is on the rise.
“The average science score of U.S. students lagged behind those in 16 of 30 countries… The U.S. students were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.”
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
I’d like to compare data if possible.
Teen and adult STD’s on the rise. Even old, somewhat obsolete std’s are rising
Vulgarity is commonplace, promiscuity.
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344049,00.html
I don’t know. All I hear from Liberal Democrats is: Change. Change, change, change. What change is it exactly?
“Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.?”
IE Social engineering.
“and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”
He advocated not having children. And guess what? We are having less children.
“He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.”
IE: Feminist movement.
Are you sure about that?
Are you kidding me? We have gay marriage in a state for the first time. California can now do it. We had a Mayor break the law to do it. Their is more acceptance for gays today than there ever was.
No, it dosen’t. And the gay agenda is backed by Marxist ideology, that is a fact.
Sure, and that has aided in the acceptance of that behavior. And I don’t stand with the Church on many issues, obviously. The Church should not nesseccarily adapt to the current changes in a society, the Church should be constant.
I don’t see how what applies to states or not is an issue. I am not contesting state vs. fed in any argument here. I haven’t even brought up state vs. fed arguments at all. I am saying, that the first amendment regarding free religion/government jobs, is wrongly decided. THAT, is NOT in the Constitution, it was an interpretation, and it is wrong.
So what? She is not Congress.
A teacher has no power that is in context of the First Amendment.
No, that is an interpretation. It is not correct. That is not the intent of the first amendment. She is not Congress. The COnstitution says that CONGRESS shall pass no law. She is not congress.
Where does it say that? It dosen’t. It says CONGRESS shall pass no law.
Again, she is not Congress. Congress shall pass no law. She is not Congress. She is passing no law respecting anything.
But that was in response to a legislative bill. Which was introduced to Congress, as a legislative bill. Congress shall pass no law…
I am not contesting that. I said that I do not belive that it was CONSIDERED a violation of law in the past. Hell, I advocate a little butt kicking by cops even now!
Not in this case with teachers. That is a mis reprsentation of the Constitution.
Barbarian observes:
Sure does. And the courts have always so ruled. Any agent of the government represents the government.
The fifth amendmet did, but even Engel v. Vitale was based on government legislators mandating prayer. Not a private citizen teacher doing so of her own accord.
- There is no need to amend the Constitution, but there is a need to follow it as it is written and intended.
- Of course.
- Or force it to be abided by, by any means neccessary, as it was intended.
I’d get banned for sure if I say what I want to to that.
L
leftistdestroye
Guest
The Barbarian;3686956]
Good question.
No, why should it be in the back of the bus? If GLESN can come in and address a class, then a preist should be able to as well
Yeah, well it won’t happen. Ever.
They accept tham as sinners. And to do that, will lead to accepting the sin. Not to mention gay marriage.
It riles me up because a teacher cannot say a prayer in class, but immoral behavior can be accepted, and their is not a thing I can do to dissent. If a teacher cannot push her religion on people IN SCHOOLS, then gays should not be able to push their agenda on kids either. The government is protecting one side and not the other.
Not the point( again) it is impressionable on the non gays toward accepting their behavior.
LOL Yeah, I have heard that nonsense before, Freud. I am angry because governemnt is biased towards gays and their behavior. The schools are biased towards gays and their behavior. ANY dissent is “hate speech”, which is backed up by the government. I am angry because the Constitution is being violated. I am angry because immorality is being promoted under the guise of respect and rights and is backed up, not indifferent to, but backed up by the government.
N
neat62
Guest
Not sure what church you belong to…but the Catholic Church does not “accept” gays. For just like ALL single individuals, men and women…the teachings of the Catholic Church calls us to live CHASTE lives.
One can’t be considered “homosexual” when one is not behaving in a way which constitutes homosexual behavior…i.e, when one is NOT practicing particular sexual acts.
The Church, of course, loves all her children…but it doesn’t mean that we don’t expect moral and correct behavior…just like, I, as a parent, expect certain behavior and attitudes from my own children and I set rules and guidelines for them to follow…when they misbehave or “break” the rules there are consequences to pay. That doesn’t mean I take them out and “beat” them…but it doesn’t mean I just “accept” or “condone” their bad behaviour either!
N
neat62
Guest
Sorry, but the Bill of Rights doesn’t give “special” rights to any one group over another…as you are asserting. Bill of Rights provides protections for ALL its citizen’s it doesn’t say “you can’t promote religion, but you can promote anti-religious behavior”, etc.
It simply says CONGRESS can make NO LAW! CONGRESS…not ME, tax payer…I can go to ANY PTA meeting and demand that my tax dollars due not go to support a school that promotes a particular lifestyle or not. Just as joe atheist can go to the PTA meeting and demand that his tax dollars not be go to support the promotion of a particular religion, etc., etc. IT DOES NOT mean, however, that the government either supports or promotes…as ONE prinicpal or ONE teacher does NOT represent the government.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
I’m a Roman Catholic, and unlike you, I accept the teaching of the Church.
You’re wrong about that.
**Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner…They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359). **
So a chaste homosexual is no more at fault than a chaste unmarried heterosexual.
Sorry, you are at odds with the Church on that. Perhaps you should reflect on why you will not accept the Church’s direction on this matter.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
But that’s what you’re demanding. You want one set of rules for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals. That’s just not going to be possible, as long as the Bill of Rights is enforced.
Right. So while schools have to tolerate religious or antireligious beliefs, it can’t take sides. But no one’s religion can be used to deny the equal rights of others.
The Fourteenth Amendment extended the protection of the Bill of Rights to encompass all governments.
Bill of Rights also protects your right to do that. Maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all, um?
Sorry, you’re wrong about that. It’s very clear in the law; you’d be done before you finished saying that argument. Why not accept the teaching of the Church and let it be?
N
neat62
Guest
Oh I see…you are the expert on the Catholic faith, sorry bishop…
You apparently are the one that doesn’t fully understand the faith. The Church does NOT openly accept homosexuality as “normal” behavior…it is sinful and the Church teaches as such. Committing sexual acts without marriage, is sinful for all…but that doesn’t mean that it is simply okay to commit homosexual acts if one is “legally” married either. As sexual acts are to serve one purpose…procreation…NOT self-gratification! And since homosexual acts serve no other purpose but other to pleasure one self they are declared by the Church to be grave acts of depravity.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”**142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. **Under no circumstances can they be approved. **
N
neat62
Guest
Sorry, but again, you are wrong here as well. I am not a group demanding “special” rights that don’t exist. Homosexuals, however, are…they are demanding to get “priviledges” that others are not currently awarded simply because of their lifestyle choices. They currently are FREE to marry just like ANYONE ELSE…one man of legal age, to one woman of legal age.
They however, are looking, to change the "aw to suit their lifestyle CHOICES…something I can’t do. I can’t demand that the law change because I want to marry two men…or that I want to marry a 14 year old…or that I want to marry my pet horse, etc., etc. In They are claiming they are discriminated against because of personal choices/BEHAVIOR and they are demanding that society conform to their CHOICES.
As for religion being used to discrinate…umm…well I guess that’s whole point isn’t it? Our religion is being dragged through mud and we are being discriminated against, being forced to hide our faith so we don’t “offend” others. How many times have public displays of the Ten Commandments been removed? What about the cross on Mount Solidad? Its currently on PRIVATE property but again, those without religion are “demanding” it be removed because they are “offended” by its presence…and ON and ON and ON.
M
mattyc4
Guest
Wow. Now you have a right to marry someone of the same sex too–its not exclusive to homosexuals. They do not want to marry someone of the opposite gender. It is not a just comparison. It is equivalent to saying, “everyone can wear jeans, provided they are size 32”. Not only that, but homosexuality has not even been proven to be a choice, so your argument about “lifestyle choices” is not empirically valid. Furthermore, the decision said the current laws violated the equal protection clause–which I’m sure you will create a good reason why that should be abolished in the case of homosexuals.
Again, it has not been proven to be a choice, so stop trying to use an argument that has no intrinsic value. Furthermore, the decision was quite clear in saying it was not to be used as a precedent for polygamous, incestuous, or beastiality. You are basing your entire argument on “CHOICES” and on religion. This is not a theocracy–just because your religion says something is immoral does not mean the USA should automatically outlaw it (that does not mean that every law laid by religion is bad, just that it has no real value in a secular society)
YOU are being discriminated against? Look at the homosexuals before you play the persecution card. My God, there is outright discrimination and bigotry in play against homosexuals (a minority in this country–compared to christianity which is a majority), and you have the audacity to say your discrimination is equal to that? This is NOT a theocracy, religious symbols have no place in court rooms or in government buildings. That is the way the seperation of church and state works. If there is a cross in a government building it could possibly be seen as an endorsement of christianity by the government–which is not acceptable in the USA.
Matt
N
neat62
Guest
Hey Buddy, good to see you here too…
Homosexuality has not ever been proven to be a disorder born to some either…so what’s your point?
Please…Christians are the most persecuted people alive today! We can’t pray in schools, we can’t worship in public, we can’t celebrate Christmas in public, we can’t wear religious jewelry in public, we can’t speak publicly and openly about religion in any institution or business, we can’t run for office without being dragged through the mud over religious beliefs, we can’t even appoint judges without asking them to pass a religious litmus test!
Let’s not forget that at the same time we are being threatened by Islamic nuts who want nothing more than to behead each and every one of us…including you!
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
We are the overwhelming majority in the US. We’d be rather wimpy, if we were truly persecuted. My friend, Christians have been truly persecuted in the past, and still are in some places in the world, and your whining about the way it is here, is an insult to those who have endured real persecution.
I do every day. My daughter used to do an “at the flagpole” prayer every day in school. No one stopped her.
This Palm Sunday, I took part in a public procession. No one was arrested.
Several Churches in our community did that, this year.
My wife and daughter do.
We can’t use a position in government to do so. But that’s the way it should be.
Criticism is not persecution. Others have the right to criticize religious beliefs, just as we have the right to believe them.
Lately, it’s been the other way around. But I agree, that it’s a bad thing.
A good number of those Islamic nuts are in other countries, saying the same thing about us. But most Muslims I know are horrified by terrorism. Of course, most of them grew up in the United States, so that may be a skewed sample.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Yes, that’s what you’re doing. Everyone should have the same protection under the law.
I don’t see any of that. I do see that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but if two people want to make arrangements about inheritance, insurance, power of attorney, etc, that is no one’s business but their own.
They currently are FREE to marry just like ANYONE ELSE…one man of legal age, to one woman of legal age.
I’ve never had to do that. Of course, I am respectful and civil when I state my beliefs. That is how the first Christians won converts. You should try it.
Whenever they’ve been illegally placed on public property, I guess. In some cases, they’ve been left there, even though they violate the law, because of historical or other reasons.
Private property is, of course another issue entirely. There, you can do what you want, subject to the same laws that affect anyone else.
- Status