Outspoken opponent of the gay agenda wins presidential election in Poland

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is a distinction between loving everybody and the belief that love constitutes acceptance and commendation of sin. Making sin normal has nothing to do with loving people who are different.
 
This is according to your religious beliefs, but not according to others’ (religious) beliefs. We do not live in a Christian or Catholic theocracy.
 
But when loving others involves adopting children who are best left with their biological parents first and a married couple of opposite sexes second, then there is potential for harm to others.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
We have no right to impose our religious beliefs, no matter how convinced we are that gays are in danger of losing their souls if they persist in their immoral sexual behavior, on other members of society. No one has a legal right to do so. We do not live in a theocracy.
Click to expand...
That didn’t stop the government from making certain gay therapy for those gay people who want it, illegal. Beliefs were forced on them.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
This is according to your religious beliefs, but not according to others’ (religious) beliefs. We do not live in a Christian or Catholic theocracy.
Click to expand...
We’re permitted to proclaim and live by our beliefs. We do not live in an atheistic dictatorship.
 
Government can also overstep its bounds. This decision was made based on psychological science, and probably also influenced by the gay movement. I will not deny that. Neither government nor religion has any right to dictate to the people.
 
Gay adoption is a controversial issue. The psychological evidence supports the idea that a loving family is the best for a child. A loving gay family is preferable to a non-loving straight family.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
However Catholics see freedom, or Protestants, or Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, or any other (religious) group is irrelevant to the freedom that gays, as members of society, are entitled to in such personal matters as loving another person and not harming others in the process. We have no right to impose our religious beliefs, no matter how convinced we are that gays are in danger of losing their souls if they persist in their immoral sexual behavior, on other members of society. No one has a legal right to do so. We do not live in a theocracy.
Click to expand...
No one is talking about forcing gays to do anything. We are talking about Christians and other religious groups being forced to accept the indoctrination of their children at a young age and about Christians not being able to live freely. How many Catholic adoption agencies had to be shut down because they wouldn’t handle gay adoption? How is that right and tolerant of Catholics? How many Christian bakers, photographers etc. had to lose their business because they were sued by gays trying to force them to provide for their wedding? It wasn’t good enough that there were plenty of other service providers open to doing it. They wanted to force others to violate their conscience. The only ones doing the forcing are homosexuals who will not show the tolerance for others that they demand for themselves.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
But let others live by their beliefs as well.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this elsewhere – but we can run into a conflict here without a compromise. If it is part of my religion to stop the spread of sinful behavior, then I’d have the freedom to do it. At the very least, we can condemn it. But some go farther and might want the right to do other things. Some orthodox Jewish yeshivas have been arrested for not complying with state regulations, even though they were just being faithful to their religious beliefs.
 
And I have taken a stand against intimidation directed toward religious beliefs as well. The issue of bakers and so forth is more complicated than that of Catholic adoption agencies or the Little Sisters of the Poor because bakeries are public institutions, not religious institutions. Still, I tend to side with the bakers, photographers, florists, and so on.

There must be a meeting of the minds on both sides. Hatred (of the sin or the sinner) is not the way to go. Even protests can only go so far. Legally, each case must be decided on its merits. However, more than that, we must try empathy for the other’s position. Otherwise, similar to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, we will never have peace among Americans.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
You can have the freedom to hate what gay people do
Click to expand...
No one really cares what gay people do. Some people care about having it promoted vigorously by government agencies, state and local, down to the school district level. If you don’t see all this, it is becuase you don’t want to.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
This is done because of the reality that many young people do engage in premarital sex, and if they do, at least they should do so more safely. It is not, however, encouraging young people to have sex although I can understand how some young people might interpret it that way.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is too much discouragement happening. Combine this with the media (TV, movies) presentation of couples as invariably sexually engaged s normal and routine. What is the net message?
 
meltzerboy2 said:
And I have taken a stand against intimidation directed toward religious beliefs as well. The issue of bakers and so forth is more complicated than that of Catholic adoption agencies or the Little Sisters of the Poor because bakeries are public institutions, not religious institutions. Still, I tend to side with the bakers, photographers, florists, and so on.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how a privately owned business is a public institution. If Twitter and facebook are allowed to censor speech however they like then a privately owned business can choose not to provide a service if it violates the owner’s conscience. Especially when there are other options open to the person seeking the service.
meltzerboy2 said:
There must be a meeting of the minds on both sides. Hatred (of the sin or the sinner) is not the way to go. Even protests can only go so far. Legally, each case must be decided on its merits. However, more than that, we must try empathy for the other’s position. Otherwise, similar to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, we will never have peace among Americans.
Click to expand...
The fact that gays can now be civilly married, aren’t driven out of neighborhoods, being beat or killed, protected against workplace discrimination, and have a whole month of public celebrations of their lifestyle etc shows a general tolerance in society even though most still view it as sinful. If there is any empathy needed it’s from gays who feel the need to sue, get fired, publicly vilify, impose developmentally inappropriate issues onto young children, and shut down Christian institutions for not serving them. I’m not hopeful that will ever be the case.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Question, if your child had a close a friend from primary (elementary) school, who then came out in secondary (high) school, and you became friends with that childs parents, can you honestly say you’d be comfortable telling your child that their friend is evil and is going to burn in hell? Honestly, you don’t think that might cause issues going forward?
Click to expand...
Nobody does this except people that don’t know what they are doing.
 
Let’s not mince words. Only insane people would say this to their child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top