posted on May 26, 2004 04:47:36 PM new
Linda: yeager - First of all I argue my position....I don't tell people to move to Iraq if they don't like it, I don't tell people they don't have a right to express opposing views and I don't call people names when they express a different opinion
If you dont like a particular radio station because the DJ is offensive, do you continue to listen it, only to complain the DJ is offensive or do you change the channel?
I said that because I am sick of people like EAG who come on here stating they are sick and tired of hearing about gays. They are not debating anything they are just expressing their hate. He knew what this thread was about just by the title. If he doesn't like gays that is his choice. All his statement does is say he is homophobic amd contributes nothing to this argument.
Gays are a part of society whether people like it or not. We will not be "going back into the closest" just because some straight white people are offended.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
[ edited by logansdad on May 26, 2004 05:09 PM ]
[ edited by logansdad on May 26, 2004 05:19 PM ]
posted on May 26, 2004 04:57:24 PM new
So MA has been marrying same sex couples for over a week now, has the world come to an end or has anyone's hetro marriage suffered due to these marriages ?
posted on May 26, 2004 05:04:46 PM new
Linda: I just love all this 'they only want to love one another....to marry and be recognized as equals'. Their mission is to change our society to force their lifestyle on others. They have fought against the Boy Scout Groups....that have done nothing but promote strong leadership and concern for others in their organization.
Here we go again, the gays trying to force their lifestyle on the straight community.
First the Boy Scouts are a discriminatory organization regardless of what they make of it's members. Who would buy from Wal-mart if they discriminated against women or blacks? Of course you wouldn't. It is the same with the Boy Scouts. Why should the gay community support an orginaztion that discriminates?
Linda, do you aprove of the KKK? I bet your answer is no. Do you admit they have a right to express their ideas and march in communities. (They do have that right but you will probably feel it is wrong).
How long has this group been around? I don't see many people trying to put an end to the KKK or institute a constitutional amendment banning the KKK.
Linda, what is your view on abortion? Personally, I think it is wrong and don't approve of it. However I accept the fact that is a woman's choice to kill a fetus. When people that favor abortion prost for their right to have one, do you see that as trying to force their views on the rest of society?
I can understand how you dont approve of gay marriages, but you might as well accept the fact that gays will not be quieted and will continue to push for equal rights.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 26, 2004 05:06:51 PM new
Readmond: So MA has been marrying same sex couples for over a week now, has the world come to an end or has anyone's hetro marriage suffered due to these marriages ?
I bet nobody has noticed any difference, but those against it will blame every crime that has taken place in MA on it.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 26, 2004 07:19:35 PM new
Cheryl: I still fail to understand how in the hell a gay person getting married affects any one of you personally (meaning those of you so adamantly opposed). They have not asked to come live in your house. They have not asked to eat at your table. They have not asked you to accept their lifestyle. They have not asked you for anything. They have asked our government for the same rights, the same consideration and the same respect that everyone else in this country expects. It is not up to anyone on this board or anywhere else to judge them. The very people you judge with so much venom are the most tolerant and accepting people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. What some of you are spewing is nothing more than bigotry.
I am glad to see not all straights are closed minded and bigots. It is nice to hear those words from a straight person.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 26, 2004 07:28:33 PM new
My pleasure, logansdad! Why do you think I am such a supporter of Dennis Kucinich! He stands up for all of us - gay, straight and everything inbetween! Besides, he's a really nice guy.
Edited to add: And I am proud to say that two of my brothers are gay. Well, one is. The other passed in 1996 from an AIDS related illness. And no, he did not die from AIDS just because he was gay. He died from AIDS because our government took action too late to save millions of people that didn't need to die. I'm proud of both of them for not being afraid of being who they are. It's how we were raised.
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on May 26, 2004 07:32 PM ]
[i]Today, homosexual activists led by such groups as "Queer to the Left," "Chicago Anti-Bashing Network," and
"Scouting for All," continue their vicious campaign against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA)[/i].
They say that the Scouts are "bigots" because they do not allow homosexuals and atheists to be part of an organization that affirms belief in God and teaches boys to be "morally straight."
In reality, the homosexual lobby is practicing its own form of bigotry by demonizing individuals and groups for following a moral and faith tradition that has served humanity well for centuries. The hatred and vitriol mouthed by militant homosexual activists far surpasses anything espoused by the Scouts and their defenders.
We remind the public that "Morality Is Not Prejudice," despite fervent attempts by "gay" activists to redefine Judeo-Christian teachings as bigotry and "homophobia."
Due to legal challenges from well-heeled homosexual lawyers" groups such as the Lambda Legal (which has a Chicago office), the Boy Scouts came within one vote in the U.S. Supreme Court of losing their freedom to live by their own moral code. That would have been a devastating loss of liberty not just to the Scouts, but to all Americans, regardless of their creed.
[i]Now the homosexual lobby strives to punish the Scouts, falsely comparing this noble youth organization to racist fringe groups. This charge is ironic since the BSA, including the Chicago Area Council, [b]has a long history of helping disadvantaged African-American youth, unlike radical homosexual organizations like the Chicago
Anti-Bashing Network[/b][/i].
Homosexual groups have also pressured local governments to disassociate from the BSA, and private groups like United Way to de-fund the boys' group.
[i]Last year, the Chicago United Way slashed funding by 93 percent to the Chicago Area Council of the Boy
Scouts of America, "following meetings with 'gay' protest groups and internal debates among UW staffers[/i].
You stated earlier that Blacks don't like the idea of gay marriage. This may be true is some cases of conservative black ministers. However, one of the most prominent and well known person in this country does. Her name is Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King. To quote her........
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
You also made a statement concerning the spread of AIDS. First of all, you need to realize that AIDS is a HUMAN DISEASE and not a gay disease. Every living person is a potential victim of AIDS, including ME and YOU! One very simple reason a disease becomes more prevalent is through travel. The American Indians didn't have any of the disease that are here now, until European settlers brought them here. With the ability for a person to travel using airlines from one continent to continent will cause any disease to spread rapidly. You do recall SARS that originated in China, then in a short time was in Toronto, Canada and parts of the US. The reason was a 15 hour flight in an airliner. I have researched some of the early cases of AIDS. Many early cases were thought to have developed in the 1930's and 1940's.
About the Salvation Army. Just recently in the local paper, there was a story about the captain of the local SA. The story was about he and his WIFE that were moving to a different city. About 10 years ago, the same captain of the SA was featured in a news story. That story was about how he was caught late at night in a public park, known to be a place frequented by gay men. He was ARRESTED for soliciting sex from another man.
On the KKK. This last Saturday the 22nd, a gay social group held what they called Gay Day at Dollywood in Pigeon Forge Tennessee. The KKK was angry the these people would be there, so in their usual deeds of hate, they thought it would be a good idea to protest this Gay Day. These boobs assembled a whopping 20 people who were watched over by local police. The management of Dollywood would not allow them onto the property indicating this was private property and that any soliciting or protest of any kind is not allowed. There was an estimated 5,000 gay men and women from as far away as Philadelphia and New York.
Now, if you were the management of Dollywood, would you prefer to have 5,000 paying customers at $42.40 each, or 20 bigots disrupting your guest? Dollywood gained $212,000 in gate revenues from these people. This doesn't include the other items such as food and souvenirs. Good work Dollywood!
Linda,
I don't know what kind of person you are. I am the kind of person that sees gay men and women as HUMAN BEINGS. They have the same human fellings as everyone else. They breathe, cry and bleed just like you and I do. For you to jump on the bandwagon of hate and exclusion towards these people is really inhumane and sickening.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 26, 2004 11:56:19 PM new
I love the way so many people manage to forget that AIDS started out as a heterosexual disease. Yep, heterosexual.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
That is a very good point. In many countries of Africa, about 50 percent of the total population has AIDS. Men, women, and children.
To further my earlier comments on the early AIDS cases.
AIDS is caused by HIV. HIV is believed to have originated in Africa sometime between the late 1940s and the early 1950s. The earliest known case was in a man from the Belgian Congo (now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo) in 1959 (his blood -- stored since 1959 -- was recently tested for HIV).
And for Linda to bring up the subject of AIDS is really a bunch of nonsense. If the gay marriage issue fails, and is never heard of again, it will not help prevent AIDS.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 27, 2004 12:30:52 AM new
In regards to the HIV/AIDs issue...all anyone needs to do is look at the stats on the CDC [center for disease control] site and they'll see that gays have been and still are the LARGEST group by far that continues to spread aids and hiv infection.
posted on May 27, 2004 12:35:54 AM new
Reason To Oppose The Gay Agenda:
Reasons to Oppose the Gay Agenda
Robert A. J. Gagnon gives us 6 good reasons to oppose the radical agenda of gay activists.
"Caving into the homosexual agenda will lead to the radical marginalization of those who oppose homosexual practice and, ultimately, the criminalization of opposition to homosexual behavior."
"Homosexual activism represents the greatest threat to civil and religious liberties for our children. At stake are such things as: mandatory indoctrination of our children in all school systems, public and accredited private, from kindergarten on, through convocations, skits, videos, workshops, and teacher instruction; loss of one's job if one does not sign a statement saying that one "values sexual orientation differences"; mandatory workplace attendance of "Gay Pride" events and "Coming Out" celebrations; fines and even imprisonment for speaking out against homosexual practice, even in church services; having one's children taken out of one's own home for teaching "homophobic" ideas or, if one's child professes a homoerotic proclivity, for "child abuse"; loss of accreditation of all Christian colleges and even seminaries that cannot prove "non-discrimination" in the hiring practices towards "gays and lesbians" or that permit any faculty to speak or publish in a manner critical of homosexual behavior per se; and refusal of colleges and universities to admit any students who do not sign statements affirming the value of homoerotic relationships."
posted on May 27, 2004 12:40:02 AM new
How America Went Gay
by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Charles W. Socarides, M.D., is clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center in New York. He is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and author of Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, Arizona).
You have made it quite clear that you are against gay marriage. With your last 2 postings, would it be safe to say that you are totally against every gay person?
In your mind it seems that they have an agenda to take over society as we know it. I know what you mean. "The coloreds are too".
You still haven't answered the question that I asked you much earlier. I will repeat it for you.
Linda, did you choose to be straight?
Of course, you don't have to answer that, and I don't believe that you will. In your failure to do so, tells everyone so much about you.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
Does the "gay agenda" that you speak about include the right to be free of attacks, both verbal and physical by hate mongers?
In case you don't know, there are gay men and women that are verbally and physically abused EVERY DAY!
However, in many states, they are not protected by hate crime laws. I could beat a black person with a baseball bat, and say NIg*er, I am going to bust your head open. I would go to prison for a hate crime. If I approached a gay person with the bat and said, Hey fag*ot, I am going to bust your head open, I would be sent to prison for great bodily assault, but not a hate crime. It seems to me, the "gay agenda" is very worthwhile.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 27, 2004 02:58:39 AM new
Being against gay marriage does not mean that I condone violence ....I don't condone violence against anyone.
Here's another arguement against gay marriage.
Gay Marriage: Not a Very Good Idea WILLIAM J. BENNETT
The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births.
We have reaped the consequences of its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization.
We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time, would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the question of same-sex marriage.
Now, anyone who has known someone who has struggled with his homosexuality can appreciate the poignancy, human pain and sense of exclusion that are often involved.
One can therefore understand the effort to achieve for homosexual unions both legal recognition and social acceptance. Advocates of homosexual marriages even make what appears to be a sound conservative argument: Allow marriage in order to promote faithfulness and monogamy.
This is an intelligent and politically shrewd argument. One can even concede that it might benefit some people. But I believe that overall, allowing same-sex marriages would do significant, long-term social damage.
Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage. Indeed, it would be the most radical step ever taken in the deconstruction of society's most important institution. It is not a step we ought to take.
The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition — and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow.
On what principled grounds could the advocates of same-sex marriage oppose the marriage of two consenting brothers? How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people? After all, doing so would be a denial of that person's sexuality.
In our time, there are more (not fewer) reasons than ever to preserve the essence of marriage.
Marriage is not an arbitrary construct; it is an "honorable estate" based on the different, complementary nature of men and women — and how they refine, support, encourage and complete one another. To insist that we maintain this traditional understanding of marriage is not an attempt to put others down. It is simply an acknowledgment and celebration of our most precious and important social act.
Nor is this view arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It mirrors the accumulated wisdom of millennia and the teaching of every major religion. Among worldwide cultures, where there are so few common threads, it is not a coincidence that marriage is almost universally recognized as an act meant to unite a man and a woman.
To say that same-sex unions are not comparable to heterosexual marriages is not an argument for intolerance, bigotry or lack of compassion (although I am fully aware that it will be considered so by some).
But it is an argument for making distinctions in law about relationships that are themselves distinct.
Even Andrew Sullivan, among the most intelligent advocates of same-sex marriage, has admitted that a homosexual marriage contract will entail a greater understanding of the need for "extramarital outlets." He argues that gay male relationships are served by the "openness of the contract," and he has written that homosexuals should resist allowing their "varied and complicated lives" to be flattened into a "single, moralistic model."
But this "single, moralistic model" is precisely the point. The marriage commitment between a man and a woman does not — it cannot — countenance extramarital outlets. By definition it is not an open contract; its essential idea is fidelity. Obviously that is not always honored in practice. But it is normative, the ideal to which we aspire precisely because we believe some things are right (faithfulness in marriage) and others are wrong (adultery).
In insisting that marriage accommodate the less restrained sexual practices of homosexuals, Sullivan and his allies destroy the very thing that supposedly has drawn them to marriage in the first place.
There are other arguments to consider against same-sex marriage — for example, the signals it would send, and the impact of such signals on the shaping of human sexuality, particularly among the young. Former Harvard professor E. L. Pattullo has written that "a very substantial number of people are born with the potential to live either straight or gay lives." Societal indifference about heterosexuality and homosexuality would cause a lot of confusion. A remarkable 1993 article in The Post supports this point.
Fifty teenagers and dozens of school counselors and parents from the local area were interviewed. According to the article, teenagers said it has become "cool" for students to proclaim they are gay or bisexual — even for some who are not. Not surprisingly, the caseload of teenagers in "sexual identity crisis" doubled in one year.
"Everything is front page, gay and homosexual," according to one psychologist who works with the schools. "Kids are jumping on it ... [counselors] are saying, "What are we going to do with all these kids proclaiming they are bisexual or homosexual when we know they are not?"
If the law recognizes homosexual marriages as the legal equivalent of heterosexual marriages, it will have enormous repercussions in many areas. Consider just two: sex education in the schools and adoption. The sex education curriculum of public schools would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent. Heather Has Two Mommies would no longer be regarded as an anomaly; it would more likely become a staple of a sex education curriculum.
Parents who want their children to be taught (for both moral and utilitarian reasons) the privileged status of heterosexual marriage will be portrayed as intolerant bigots; they will necessarily be at odds with the new law of matrimony and its derivative curriculum.
Homosexual couples will also have equal claim with heterosexual couples in adopting children, forcing us (in law at least) to deny what we know to be true: that it is far better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father than by, say, two male homosexuals.
The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births.
We have reaped the consequences of its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization.
That we have to debate this issues at all tells us that the arch has slipped. Getting it firmly back in place is, as the lawyers say, a "compelling state interest."
I don't like name calling, but I'm sorry, you are very, very close to being a bigot.
"How America Went Gay"? Give me a break. What kind of quack wrote that?
. . .is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
I got about 1/2 way through this quack's article before I had to stop reading it. This guy doesn't have a clue and has a lot of nerve calling himself a doctor.
You are very good at quoting from bigots and ill-informed people/organizations, which leads me to believe you are bording on being one yourself.
When you insult gays, you insult both my brothers and that's something I will not stand silent for. When you blame gays exclusively for the spread of AIDS, you are, in part, blaming my brother who is not here to defend himself. Not that it's any of your business, but my brother did not get AIDS from being gay. Sex had nothing to do with how he got AIDS. Don't post here saying you don't hate gays and then post articles that spread hatred. You can't have it both ways. They say you "are what you eat". Well, you "are what you post", IMO.
If I didn't find some of your posts so humorous, I'd put you on ignore because they infuriate me. When I first started posting I didn't quite understand Helen's and some other's thoughts on you, but I sure as heck do now. We all need a little laugh now and again so I've elected not to put you on ignore.
posted on May 27, 2004 04:17:01 AM newI don't like name calling, but I'm sorry, you are very, very close to being a bigot.
You've called others names before...no surprise there.
"How America Went Gay"? Give me a break. What kind of quack wrote that? His credential are there for all to read....and there are many more like him who have treated suffering gays in the past who came to the same conclusion. He has 40 years of experience counciling gays and isn't one of your PC - brainwashed people.
You are very good at quoting from bigots and ill-informed people/organizations, which leads me to believe you are bording on being one yourself. What would bother me would be that I have that opinion of myself....I don't.
When you insult gays, you insult both my brothers and that's something I will not stand silent for. Want to show me where exactly I have insulted gays....let alone your brothers.
When you blame gays exclusively for the spread of AIDS, you are, in part, blaming my brother who is not here to defend himself. You're getting too emotional to think straight. Show me where I *exclusively* blamed gays. I did NOT!!! I stated a verifable FACT....it's on the CDC site. They are the biggest group of HIV/AID people. Always have been still are. You don't like the facts? That's not my problem nor does it make be a bigot.
Don't post here saying you don't hate gays and then post articles that spread hatred.
I'll post because I am free to do so. It's your choice to ignore my posts or not....but you nor anyone else has a right to tell ANYONE they can or can't post.
When I first started posting I didn't quite understand Helen's and some other's thoughts on you, but I sure as heck do now.
I understand you, helen, and some others think your way of seeing the issues is THE ONLY WAY....but that's not true. And I also see it really upsets you whenever anyone expresses an opinion that doesn't agree with yours. Well...that's NOT the way our country works. And since the anti-gay marriage group runs 2-1 I think it's clear to see who's in the minority here. It's not me.
The articles that you post insult gays and further spread hatred. You posted them, you must believe them. So, yes, you have insulted gays even if you did so indirectly. My brother chose to die at home because his partner would not have been allowed to be with him in intensive care. Had he been allowed to marry, that would not have been the case. No religious-right retoric you post will ever get me to believe that gays are to blame for anything besides wanting equal rights, which are afforded them under law. They are not a threat to marriage. Marriage began deteriorating a long time ago. Blame the W Lib movement before you blame the gay movement. When women decided they weren't going to be doormats for their husbands anymore is when marriage started deteriorating and that was long before gays came out of the closet.
I don't dislike you, Linda, I feel sorry for you. You say you don't hate gays, but your articles say otherwise. You don't have to come out and say something for a negative impression to be made. You've been on this earth long enough to know that. It is so much easier and healthier to love and accept.
posted on May 27, 2004 05:04:37 AM newThe articles that you post insult gays and further spread hatred.
Which articles....the one's where gays are asked questions about their own behaviors.....the one where the pro-gay marriage advocate says gay are promiscuous [out side of committed relations] himself? Or the one where a very highly regard doctor [and there are more like him] who has worked with gay patients and KNOWS what they have shared with him? Or is it the one's where people see a FURTHER devaluation of the institution of marrige if gay's are allowed to marry?
That is SO UNTRUE. Any person, gay or not can give ANYONE power of attorney, can give them the legal right to make medical decisions for them, etc...if they so choose. This excuse: because his partner would not have been allowed to be with him in intensive care is just not true....but is used as propoganda by the pro-gay marriage groups.
No religious-right retoric you post will ever get me to believe that gays are to blame for anything besides wanting equal rights, which are afforded them under law.
Again, I'll point out that you dems seem to have a problem with comprehending it's NOT JUST the religious - it's NOT JUST republicans that think and feel this way. And if you'd read my posts you'd know for SURE it doesn't apply to me.
They are not a threat to marriage. Marriage began deteriorating....if you will notice my last post did mention that....and said this will further than negative slide. They don't have to get married to obtain equal rights. They want to make major societal changes...that will affect the rights of others.
I don't dislike you, Linda,
I don't have a need for your acceptance cheryl. My opinions are mine and won't be changed in order to be accepted by those who hold different positions than I do.
I feel sorry for you. You say you don't hate gays, but your articles say otherwise.
If you feel sorry for me....then please share your pity with the other people in the 38 states that agree with my position.
It is so much easier and healthier to love and accept.
Do you love and accept pedophiles? Do you love child molesters? It's no different - you just draw your 'line' in a different space than others do.
posted on May 27, 2004 05:50:43 AM new
Linda, I would have to agree with Cheryl, you are not different than Twelve with his ideas, just another "wolf in sheeps clothing". Until you are discriminated agianst you will have no idea what the average gay person goes through or feels. How many gay friends do you have? How many gay people do you actually know and have talked to about what they face day to day in the work place, what they face when it comes to health care and insurance. How many gay people (besides the one on here) have you actually talked to about what they hope for in life - job wise, house wise, partner-wise?
If you would take the time to learn and LISTEN, you would realize gay people are no different than what straights, blacks, latinos, Canadians, Europeans want.
You can continue to post every link to every article that slams gay and what they stand for, it will not change the fact that gay people are part of this society and there is nothing you or your people will be able to do to silence that voice.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 27, 2004 08:36:32 AM new
Linda, I understand what you are speaking of: and no matter how many points you bring up, they will continue to call you (me) bigots and such. It's a good thing we have thick skins, and not thick skulls.
As to being straight, God created me that way. You said that you wanted no Christianity brought into this, so I will leave it at that.
Here are 4 more points against Homosexual marriage:
Same-sex families always deny children either their mother or father.
Same-sex family is a vast, untested social experiment with children.
Where does it stop? How do we say "no" to group marriage?
Schools will be forced to teach that the homosexual family is normal. Churches will be legally forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.
That is how the homosexual agenda is trying to tweak our country: not by using elected officials, but by using people who hide behind black robes in ultra liberal Massachusetts. The homosexual agenda cannot bring about change normally, so they are using a different track, and for now it is working.
You want us to radically change an institution that though flawed, works for the proceeding generation? Let’s extrapolate this a little further: let’s say that in time, 10% of the kids now decide to become homosexual. Add that on top of the millions of abortions that happen yearly and you will succeed in one thing-lowering the population of the US. Because, no matter what you may think the facts are as plain as the nose on your face. Neither 2 men together, nor any 2 women together, can have a child alone. You need a sperm and an egg. So I guess the local sperm bank will be big business now; maybe that should be my next investment.
And what really burns me is it is all about "I Want!" from the homosexuals. What about what our children need-our country needs-our next generations need. They need the stability that a father and a mother offer to them. Never, in a million years, no matter how loving and caring they may be, will 2 men or 2 women ever be able to raise a child better then the original design of a man and a woman.
As to the AIDS/HIV issues: that is largely a disease of lifestyle. By being heterosexual, and committed to the same women for the last 17 years, my chances of contracting HIV are nearly 0. But if I use IV drugs or become a homosexual, my odds go up astronomically.
And before you call me a bigot (though i know some will anyway), I work in a Long Term Care/Rehabilitation Facility: and even though I an in little New Hampshire, I see the results of AIDS on a daily basis. I have asked several of the guys and gals here (who, btw, are homosexual for the most part: out of 9 male AIDS patients there are 8 homosexuals. Of the 6 lesbians, 4 were IV drug users) and for the most part they say the same thing: I wish I had chosen a different path.
Check this website out (sorry, I have forgotten how to link) http://www.lovewonout.com/
It is from the Focus on the Family website; it is a conference offered this year. If I have the time I would love to go.
Personally, I do not care if you are a homosexual, that is your sin and not mine. You have to live with it daily-and answer to it in the end.
In Christ,
Rick
Genesis 1:1
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
edited for spelling
[ edited by ChristianCoffee on May 27, 2004 08:45 AM ]
posted on May 27, 2004 09:54:34 AM new
I do not accept that homosexuality is a sin.
I do believe bigotry to be sinful and as such Linda you are both a biggot and a sinner.
Once again I am forced to speak to your biggoted hateful view of the world.
And yes by your terms I am further to the left than the left itself and proud of it.
posted on May 27, 2004 10:12:16 AM new
ChristianCoffee -
I believe you may have misunderstood something I said somewhere. I would never tell anyone not to mention religion or the Bible in a conversation....we all have the right to say what we wish. I did try to [laughingly] state the non-believers here are usually the one's quoting the Bible...or telling those who are believers what the Bible tells us to do when they want to 'control' our behavior in some way. I don't answer to them, but rather to God.
It's just that the majority of this group has tolerance for all other minority groups....but absolutely NONE for those of faith. Sharing anything religious just drives them nuts.
And I agree with the additions you posted. I think those can be found in my [many] links too.
posted on May 27, 2004 10:43:41 AM new
CC: Personally, I do not care if you are a homosexual, that is your sin and not mine. You have to live with it daily-and answer to it in the end.
In the end we will all answer to one Person. You can preach all you want about homosexuality being wrong and sinful and against what God wanted. Well, I know I can sleep good at night, knowing GOD made me this way. When it is my time to answer to God, I know I will have lived a Christian life.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
I don't answer to them, but rather to God.