posted on July 11, 2004 10:11:18 PM new
"And as far as you.. CC.. keep one thing in mind ...God didn't come down to earth and make you His spokesperson.. Stop trying to play God.. I am soooo ashamed of you.. You are lucky God doesn't strike you dead for your judging ways.. You stink of KKK."
And you defiantly have a self-righteous oder about yourself, Maggie. You are wrong: in one sense I am a spokesperson for the Lord: Christians are called to give answers on why they believe what they believe. I have in no way made they insults that yourself and other liberal minded people have made here. If NAMBLA so sickens you, why don't you try to do something about it? Oh yes: it's a homosexual "right", isn't it.
A pedophile that attacks members of THE SAME SEX IS HOMOSEXUAL RAPIST! Just because they prefer children doesn't change that. A pedophile that attacks members of the OPPOSITE SEX IS A RAPIST!! There is no denying that as well.
As far as "God striking me dead", the Lord can have this old body anytime He wants: i will gladly go up to Heaven to my reward. My faith in my salvation is unwavering, my complete belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ is also unwavering.
Your insults just show how shallow you truly are, Maggie. open up your eyes and see what is truly happening around here.
In Christ,
Rick
Romans 4:16
"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"
posted on July 11, 2004 10:35:08 PM new
Maybe logansdad's group of choice is NAMBLA, 12?
LOLOL
In Christ,
Rick
No you never insulted anyone.. di!khead... just made a very nasty insinuation to weenie boy that Logan is a pedophile.
You ignorant SOB... not every homosexual belongs to organizations like NAMBLA and are pedophiles..
You Self righteous prig.. You're enough to make a Saint swear.. Shame Shame Shame..
posted on July 11, 2004 10:40:09 PM new
I made no insinuation, Maggie, other then what you are reading into it.
Insult all you want: it just shows how desperate and uninformed you really are on the issue of homosexual "marriage".
In Christ,
Rick
Col 2:8
"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"
Paulk responded, “When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, it is clear that tolerance does not apply to everyone. By taking a bold stand today against the lies that say homosexuality is biological and unchangeable, we hope to encourage others desperate to escape homosexuality.”
In Christ,
Rick
Romans 8:16
"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"
posted on July 12, 2004 06:08:47 AM new
curious thought kraft, you never once chimed in when people here tried to insinuate I was a homosexual, a group I have no love for, but seem to be upset by this... why is that?
But then again logansdad took this topic away from marriage to just homosexual talk...
posted on July 12, 2004 06:26:34 AM new
But then again logansdad took this topic away from marriage to just homosexual talk...
How did I do that? Because you brought up the theory that being gay is a choice. I suppose you would have wanted me to start a new thread. Then I would have been accused of starting another gay orientated post.
Twelve, have you forgotten to take your meds or did you just forget to go to your doctor this weekend.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 12, 2004 10:56:49 AM new
No logansdad, I am not a priest: nor am I attracted to males like you are.
How do we heterosexuals know about these deviant behaviors, you ask. Because they keep trying to push for "rights" they perceive they deserve. Also, they have been on the news quite a bit recently.
And I am not going to jump at your "accusations" of my wanting sex with a homosexual male, logansdad. Though it seems fair to Maggie for you to truly insinuate things about me, when I have not done that.
And no, Maggie, I do not hide behind anything: I have no need to hide. But go ahead and keep up with your insults and such: insults from a person like yourself only shows how off base you really are.
In Christ,
Rick
1Thes 4:1
"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"
posted on July 12, 2004 11:04:49 AM new
How do we heterosexuals know about these deviant behaviors, you ask. Because they keep trying to push for "rights" they perceive they deserve.
That is not what I asked. I asked how you know about websites like NAMBLA if you are supposedly straight unless you like having sex with youngsters. Where have you seen gays promoting websites or groups like NAMBLA in the news recently?
Wait and see when you are denied rights you think you should have and we will see how you react. You do not know what it is like to be discriminated against until it happens to you.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 12, 2004 11:09:37 AM new
ChristianCoffee, as a purveyor of Christianity, you have made some of the most ignorant and hateful posts that I've read. The God you worship is so narrow-minded and full of hatred that you seem happy to follow that path, no questions asked. No matter what your book says, it doesn't take much brain tissue to realize ALL people should be loved. If they're mean, rude, murderers, psycho's or whatever, their attitude will take care of their welfare, but to deny a group of people the same love you would give another, only adds baggage to your own shoulders. You don't know God anymore than anyone else does, so before you go calling people names here in the name of God, try cleaning up your own yard first.
Twelve, I'll try to answer but I'm not sure what you mean.
posted on July 12, 2004 12:17:33 PM new
I previously made the point that this is not about marriage per se, but about changing the definition of marriage and the way people think. For that I was compared to white supremacist bigots by Reamond. I was the messenger for what the true issue is, my apologies for including a bit of opinion ( "...not in this century..." ). Would the homosexual community be happy with a new word for their union that carries the exact same legal ramifications as marriage? I don't believe so, that is why this thread has devolved to name calling. The homosexual community, as represented here, realize the dirty underbelly of the issue has been exposed.
Here is a nifty link for those of you that are lazy like me and don't want to leaf through your bible to find the references:
posted on July 12, 2004 12:35:01 PM newWould the homosexual community be happy with a new word for their union that carries the exact same legal ramifications as marriage?
Would they like separate but equal drinking fountains, waiting rooms, schools, movie theatres ?
posted on July 12, 2004 01:25:48 PM new
Sorry, Reamond, it doesn't fly. We are not arguing 'separate but equal'. This is about the definition of marriage. More to the point lets define 'drinking fountains', 'waiting rooms', 'schools', and 'movie theaters' to reflect what you want them to mean. You like to drink urine? Then lets change the definition of 'drinking fountain' to include a penis. Good try at a snow job, though.
__________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on July 12, 2004 01:32:47 PM new"You like to drink urine? Then lets change the definition of 'drinking fountain' to include a penis. Good try at a snow job, though."
posted on July 12, 2004 02:03:07 PM new
Since you say it is both, then Bush can not pass the amendment because the 1st amendment calls for freedom of religion and calls for a separation of church and state. (religion aspect)
My religion says I can marry whoever I feel like according to the rules of my church. Why should Bush stop me from allowing me to express my religion. Furthermore if it is based on religion then the government should not be giving tax credits and special benefits to married people. It is their choice to get married and have kids. Why should they get special treatment?
If it is civil, then then the religious people in the country have no say on whether or not gays can marry because religious doctrines do not apply. Marriage is therefore the union between two people that love each other.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 12, 2004 02:21:25 PM new
The contention is over the civil authority definition of marriage. If the civil authorities agree that the definition of marriage includes same sex unions, then the LEGAL definition is changed. On the same note if we pass laws that lower the age of consent, NAMBLA becomes a fraternal organization. A union between two same sex people is not a marriage, it is something else. Go make up a new word. Don't try to redefine old words to suit your agenda. To your mind, I concede, it probably all depends on what 'is' is.
____________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on July 12, 2004 04:12:08 PM new
The one thing that we never hear about was whether Jesus was straight, gay, bi, or what... All I know is that he refused sex service from Mary Magdalene, and roamed freely across the land with 12 other dudes. It makes me think...
posted on July 12, 2004 05:01:54 PM new
____________________
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
posted on July 12, 2004 05:31:28 PM new
Parklane: Go make up a new word. Don't try to redefine old words to suit your agenda.
I doubt that would still statisfy the straight community. We could call it "marriage for the 21st century" and you would still have a problem with it because it is the act that you have a problem with.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 12, 2004 08:43:03 PM new
The following gives a NEW perspective to the belief that gay marriages be banned,
-----------------
"A secular world that ratifies homosexual marriage would provide a legal foundation that would open the floodgates to civil litigation against religious leaders, institutions and worshipers. In such an environment, churches might be sued for declining to provide their sanctuaries for gay marriages, for example. Ministers could be sued for hate speech for giving a sermon on moral behavior. Churches that protest homosexual unions could face revocation of their tax exemption status. The delicate balance between church and state...is teetering on a high ledge at this moment. It's ironic that those who oppose churches' involvement in state concerns nonetheless have no compunction when it comes to the state dictating what churches can do. Even nonreligious folk should be concerned. Either we believe in separation of church and state or we don't, but you can't have it both ways. The July 12 debate is really a discussion about 'cloture' -- the process by which the Senate puts a time limit on filibuster, thereby allowing a bill to be voted on. In this case, 60 senators have to vote in favor of cloture for the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage as between one man and one woman, to go to the floor for a full vote. Many senators prefer to delay voting rather than make their position public before the November election. But advocates for the amendment predict that November may be too late, that if President George W. Bush loses re-election, the amendment will be dead and marriage as we know it will be history." --Kathleen Parker
Black pastors join gay-marriage debate
Star Parker
I must give credit to gay activists on one count. They have managed to get evangelical black pastors around the country to overcome their natural aversion to politics. These pastors have good instincts about what they can and cannot ignore and they have concluded that legalization of gay marriage is an issue they cannot ignore.
It is true that some African Americans of note, such as Coretta Scott King, have expressed sympathy for claims of gays that their movement is but the newest chapter of the civil rights movement. But these black notables are exceptions rather than the rule. Polls show that African Americans are registering among the strongest groups in the nation in opposition to legalization of gay marriage. What I hear from the pastors in my own network around the country confirms this. It takes a lot for these pastors to leave their pulpits and head for Washington. But this issue is causing them to do just that.
Why are blacks, who know so well the reality of discrimination, so uniformly unsympathetic to the case that the gay community is making?
Wilfred McClay, a history professor from the University of Tennessee, gets it with the following observation about black attitudes on this issue: "It is not just that they know when their movement is being hijacked. It is that the religious sensibility that animated the civil rights movement, and that is still very much alive in the American black community today, is bound up in a biblical world view that would no more countenance the radical redefinition of marriage than it would the re-imposition of slavery."
There is real outrage in the black community and McClay is on the right track in his analysis. Blacks know instinctively that the debate on gay marriage is the symptom and not the problem. They know that the root problem is the implicit de-legitimization and marginalization in the United States today of traditional standards of right and wrong.
Blacks know that it was such rationalizations of ultimate standards that opened the door to slavery and its perpetuation and justification by our nation's highest political bodies and courts for a good portion of our nation's history. Without an anchor in ultimate standards, blacks know that the best politics and law, even in as great a country as ours, can lead anywhere.
In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan authored a prophetic study entitled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action." Moynihan, then an assistant secretary of labor, chronicled the social problems in the black community and tied these problems to the disintegration of the black family. He related this crisis in the black family to the legacy of slavery and the deleterious effects of the welfare state. Moynihan predicted then that things would only get worse.
Things got much worse. Incidence of out-of-wedlock births, abortions, absentee fathers tripled over the next 40 years. What Moynihan did not consider then, in 1965, was that the situation in the black community provided a looking glass into the nation as a whole.
The experience of white America followed on the heels of black America by every measure of family collapse, promiscuity and out-of-wedlock births. Today the incidence of out-of-wedlock births among white women, 25 percent, equals the incidence among black women 40 years ago.
Almost 30 years later in 1993, Daniel Moynihan authored another prophetic article titled "Defining Deviancy Down." Moynihan continued to address the signs of social collapse in the country and attributed these to an inexorable relaxing of generally accepted standards of what is considered deviant. Just looking at New York City alone, he compared the illegitimacy rate in 1992, 45 percent, to what it was in 1943, 3 percent.
The fact that today's debate is about gay marriage and no longer about genetic predisposition of homosexual behavior shows that deviancy has already been defined down another notch. The Ten Commandments, which address honoring one's father and mother and not coveting thy neighbor's wife, have already been purged from display in the nation's public spaces. Legalization of gay marriage will complete the process and purge them from our national consciousness and from any unique relevance to our national life. At that moment, everything turns political.
Where will things go next? A philosophy professor at Princeton today makes elegant arguments for infanticide. Why not kill a baby born with a terrible and incurable disease? Blacks know what evil is and what it means to live in a society with no moral compass, that lives by rationalization rather than reason. We are trying to rebuild our communities that have been ravaged by power and politics.
Blacks are indeed outraged and legitimately so. Expect to read more about press conferences by black clergy around the nation and in Washington. Our lives and communities are at stake here. We won't sit this one out.
Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education ( www.urbancure.org ) and author of "Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It."
"The natural family is a man and woman bound in a lifelong covenant of marriage for the purposes of:
*the continuation of the human species,
*the rearing of children,
*the regulation of sexuality,
*the provision of mutual support and protection,
*the creation of an altruistic domestic economy, and
*the maintenance of bonds between the generations."
posted on July 12, 2004 10:15:22 PM new
Logansdad you never denied being a member of NAMBLA... curious....
However your refusing to get therapy for the questions you are asking shows there is something seriously wrong with you...
You know deep down that homosexuality is wrong, your unhappiness shows each time you post about it... your choice has led you astray... such is the pity...
I kinda feel sorry for you logansdad... but you can get help... all you need to do is ask... I have read many former homosexuals are just as happy as ever and are glad to be rid of that disgrace of a lifestyle...
Unless of course young boys are you choice also... then you have more problems than you are letting on here.
Oh and not knowing how CC knew of that site... but I am guessing as fenix said it has been on TV before and as any good person learning about those in need of help, you have to learn about their problems... and their agenda to do wrong...
posted on July 13, 2004 12:07:04 AM new
Bear, you're right when you posted,
"Blacks are indeed outraged and legitimately so. Expect to read more about press conferences by black clergy around the nation and in Washington. Our lives and communities are at stake here. We won't sit this one out."
From the Associated Press 7/12:
NAACP chairman, Julian Bond, condemned Bush administration policies on education, the economy, the war in Iraq, and implored members of the nation's oldest civil rights organization to increase voter turnout to oust the president from office.
Leaders of the group are upset that Bush has no plans to attend their convention making him the first preident since the 1930's to skip it."
posted on July 13, 2004 12:44:15 AM newLeaders of the group are upset that Bush has no plans to attend their convention making him the first preident since the 1930's to skip it."
GOOD FOR HIM!!!
That would be like me wanting to go into a room FULL of crowfarm's.
Unless one was a masochist - it would be a very stupid move.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:59:59 AM new
Racist? ROFLMHO.....yea....let's compare how many blacks are working in the kerry campaign to how many are serving in the Bush administration.
He has a very good repor
with other black groups....just not the extremists.
Good for him....just goes to show once again this President has GUTS to stand by his convictions....and not flip-flop like kerry does to get votes.
Re-elect President Bush!!
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
