“I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people”

[Kdall]

The Enlightenment as a whole had no God that could give rights, much less care to do so. Franklin was not quoting a disinterested, distant deity when he said,




Again, why you're stupid:

No buddy, you're just wrong again. Some Enlightenment principles overlap with Christian principles, and some Founding Fathers were Christian. But almost ALL were Free Masons, and the principles of Masonic code were what the Constitution was drafted on. And where did those come from? Enlightenment era Europe. Do some research. TIME magazine recently had a large article about it.

Benjamin Franklin is a known rejector of Christianity.

Here's a tip: Don't call people stupid when you don't know what you're talking about

 

[Kdall]

Ah. So you admit your anti-historical perversity.



False analogy and red herring. A sign of desperation and stupidity.

How is that a false analogy? Please explain

 

[Kdall]

You prefer the atheists define things? They have a tendency of defining inconvenient people out of existence...Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...but of course you'd prefer it. You're one of them. And you're a sock, and you've been spotted.

I don't care what one's religion is, they need to keep it out of law making. You don't have to be atheist to separate religion and law. You just have to be objective, which, not surprisingly, you cannot even fathom

Hitler, maybe the worst there, was Christian. Muslim terrorists are all religious radicals. Religion has no place in law. Look at sharia

What the heck is a sock?

Again, call me atheist all you want. You aren't God, and He's the only one I really care knows that I am not

 

[moparguy]

Correct

Ok.

As I explained previously, if the government doesn't define it, then religious nuts will. And that's unconstitutional.

You seem to be saying that the government should have this right because if it doesn't, someone else will. Which is odd in light of the rest of your post below, where you say that the government can't define as a union that which "actual studies" say isn't a proper union.

---

Do you presume that there can't be "nuts" in the government?

Furthermore, how were the writers of the founding documents, especially the constitution, not "religious nuts?" Virtually all of them believed in the power of prayer or at the extreme least assented to it in public and in public and private government processes; they were not deists (those who believe god does not interact in any way with his creation beyond creating it and fully detaching himself), and many believed in something very like the biblical concept of "providence," which *requires* an interactive God.

Yes, but they must use actual studies and data to make such rulings, as they do.

The "actual" you use makes me suspect that it's not the generic idea of "studies" you're referring to, but rather something else.

What makes a study valid?

I'm not beating around the bush here. I want to know why you're saying what you are.

Well I didn't. So.....yeah

This isn't clear. I'll assume from the context that you're saying that the studies have the right to define what is a proper union - because you've said that the government can't define as a union whatever "actual studies" define as not a proper union.

 

[musterion]

This isn't clear. I'll assume from the context that you're saying that the studies have the right to define what is a proper union - because you've said that the government can't define as a union whatever "actual studies" define as not a proper union.

The studies he refers to are only the ones done by and for homosexuals, but you probably already know that (and he'll never admit it).

 

[musterion]

Hitler, maybe the worst there, was Christian.

Lapsed baptized Catholic, not Christian. And numerically, an amateur. The communists each amassed far more skulls than the Nazis did.

What the heck is a sock?

Don't play dumb.

Again, call me atheist all you want. You aren't God, and He's the only one I really care knows that I am not

Only because you make all the same cases and seek the same goals that atheists here do. If it walks like a duck, etc.

 

[Kdall]

Ok.



You seem to be saying that the government should have this right because if it doesn't, someone else will. Which is odd in light of the rest of your post below, where you say that the government can't define as a union that which "actual studies" say isn't a proper union.

---

Do you presume that there can't be "nuts" in the government?

Furthermore, how were the writers of the founding documents, especially the constitution, not "religious nuts?" Virtually all of them believed in the power of prayer or at the extreme least assented to it in public and in public and private government processes; they were not deists (those who believe god does not interact in any way with his creation beyond creating it and fully detaching himself), and many believed in something very like the biblical concept of "providence," which *requires* an interactive God.


The "actual" you use makes me suspect that it's not the generic idea of "studies" you're referring to, but rather something else.

What makes a study valid?

I'm not beating around the bush here. I want to know why you're saying what you are.


This isn't clear. I'll assume from the context that you're saying that the studies have the right to define what is a proper union - because you've said that the government can't define as a union whatever "actual studies" define as not a proper union.

Ugh I'll humor you one more post. Then I need a break from this nonsense.

I answered your false claim that the Constitution's authors were religious nuts in my last post to musterion. Take a look.

A study is valid when the scientific (or whatever field it falls under) community has scrutinized it and it holds up. Corroboration from other studies certainly doesn't hurt either.

I'm saying that the government should, due to its confinement to constitutionality, have the people's best interests in mind when in control of things like marriage. A religious nut only has their own, or what they think is their god's, interests at heart. Objectivity is needed. The government, more specifically the democratic system of government, provides that.

The studies themselves don't define anything. They provide information from which the government should be obligated to draw from in order to make an informed decision. Laws should never be made purely on emotion, but instead on the back of data that suggests the correct decision to make. The government is still in charge, but they should consult third party data. It ultimately does have the right to define things, but it should make informed decisions.

Example: the President is in charge of the country and makes the big decisions, but it's irresponsible for him to do so without consulting his intelligence officials for their information and guidance.

 

[Kdall]

The studies he refers to are only the ones done by and for homosexuals, but you probably already know that (and he'll never admit it).

Says the guy who thinks that he isn't a bigoted homosexual hater

 

[Kdall]

Lapsed baptized Catholic, not Christian. And numerically, an amateur. The communists each amassed far more skulls than the Nazis did.

True about the commies. What about the crusades? Was Christianity not at fault there? Or the Spanish Inquisition? It goes on and on.

Don't play dumb.

I actually don't know. But you don't believe anything I say so whatever. It's not that important to me to know.

Only because you make all the same cases and seek the same goals that atheists here do. If it walks like a duck, etc.

No. I make cases that objective, rational thinking people have the ability to make. You, demonstrating a clear lack of such things, don't understand that. Have you ever had a non-Christian friend? I'm guessing no

 

[moparguy]

Ugh I'll humor you one more post. Then I need a break from this nonsense.

This thread is moving way too fast...

I answered your false claim that the Constitution's authors were religious nuts in my last post to musterion. Take a look.

I will.

A study is valid when the scientific (or whatever field it falls under) community has scrutinized it and it holds up. Corroboration from other studies certainly doesn't hurt either.

Is the bible believing community to be recognized? If not, why not? You keep saying "religious nut" but I haven't seen you say what you really mean by it or why anyone should care.

Why should you - or anyone else - care what the scientific community says?

To fast-forward this argument, can you give any reason for people to agree with you that doesn't involve the fallacies of the appeal to brute force, the appeal to majority, the appeal to emotion, or the appeal to studies that inherently make general statements based upon incomplete particular observations?

I'm saying that the government should, due to its confinement to constitutionality, have the people's best interests in mind when in control of things like marriage. A religious nut only has their own, or what they think is their god's, interests at heart.

Have you ever considered that "religious nuts" (whatever you mean) might actually put God's interests first because, amongst other reasons, God's interests ARE in the every individual human's best interest, which would directly counter-act your statement above?

Further, and more important, WHY is the interest of of any given individual more important than God's interest? Are you, me, or any other human more important than God? Can you show that anyone outside of God is, without having to resort to false, aka, irrational justifications?

The studies themselves don't define anything. They provide information from which the government should be obligated to draw from in order to make an informed decision.

This may only be a point of unclear language, but you've just said that the studies can't define anything, which means that they couldn't provide information to the government.

Is that what you really meant?

Laws should never be made purely on emotion, but instead on the back of data that suggests the correct decision to make. The government is still in charge, but they should consult third party data. It ultimately does have the right to define things, but it should make informed decisions.

You're just repeating that the Government HAS to define things on the basis of what you're calling "informed" decision making, said information provided by "actual studies." This has the government codifying into law, but not defining.

 

[Kdall]

Is the bible believing community to be recognized? If not, why not? You keep saying "religious nut" but I haven't seen you say what you really mean by it or why anyone should care.

Religious nut = ultra fundamentalists who think that only they are right and have no ability to see things from another POV. They only make decisions based on their religion, and religion can't and shouldn't define how society is to be run.

The Bible community is to be recognized, but not catered to any more than any other religious group. You will unfairly discriminate against those of other religions if you make laws based on the Bible. All people should be given the rights that they desire, provided those rights don't infringe upon those of others and are not in some way detrimental to society (see anti-incest marriage example below)

Why should you - or anyone else - care what the scientific community says?

To fast-forward this argument, can you give any reason for people to agree with you that doesn't involve the fallacies of the appeal to brute force, the appeal to majority, the appeal to emotion, or the appeal to studies that inherently make general statements based upon incomplete particular observations?

Because they gather data objectively, and give information on which informed decisions can be made. The complete, truly objective ones will be scrutinized by the scientific community at large, and will stand up to the scrutiny. Without data, all we have to base decisions on is emotion or religion, or more commonly a combination of the two.

Have you ever considered that "religious nuts" (whatever you mean) might actually put God's interests first because, amongst other reasons, God's interests ARE in the every individual human's best interest, which would directly counter-act your statement above?

two part answer here:

1. These nuts put interests that they think are God's will ahead of everything. The problem with that, is that the Bible has too many verses that are open to polar opposite interpretations, and also contains verses that contradict one another. The nuts may think that a verse means something, when in reality it means something completely opposite. For example, the Bible was used to justify slavery for many centuries.

2. God's interests aren't what matters in regards to state and national law. The people's interests are what matter. If God says that homosexuals are to be denied equal rights, then He doesn't have every individual's interests at heart. Not on this Earth anyway. Furthermore, if you can't prove the existence of something, you shouldn't be forcing its will on people who don't believe in it. We don't have aircraft combing the skies for UFOs because you can't prove the existence of extra-terrestrial spacecraft roaming our skies.

Further, and more important, WHY is the interest of of any given individual more important than God's interest? Are you, me, or any other human more important than God? Can you show that anyone outside of God is, without having to resort to false, aka, irrational justifications?

I believe that #2 above answers this

This may only be a point of unclear language, but you've just said that the studies can't define anything, which means that they couldn't provide information to the government.

Is that what you really meant?

I'll clarify. Studies can't make laws on their own, and sometimes studies on the same subject contradict each other. It's up to people to look at the results, and make a decision based upon all of the available information gathered from the credible, scrutinized ones. They CAN and do provide government lawmakers with important social information, such as if being gay is nature or nurture, for example. By looking at the results of such studies, good justifiabke laws can be made. Another example would be denying close relatives the right to marry because it often produces children with deficient mutations.

You're just repeating that the Government HAS to define things on the basis of what you're calling "informed" decision making, said information provided by "actual studies." This has the government codifying into law, but not defining.

They define and create laws based on these studies. Government is the body by which the results of such studies can be factored into policymaking. That's what I mean by "informed" decision making.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No buddy, you're just wrong again. Some Enlightenment principles overlap with Christian principles, and some Founding Fathers were Christian. But almost ALL were Free Masons, and the principles of Masonic code were what the Constitution was drafted on. And where did those come from? Enlightenment era Europe. Do some research. TIME magazine recently had a large article about it.

Benjamin Franklin is a known rejector of Christianity.

Here's a tip: Don't call people stupid when you don't know what you're talking about

Real Government in the US began with Puritan Jurisprudence, study some sometime. That is what all our laws stemmed from. You dont know what you are talking about.

 

[elohiym]

What the heck is a sock?

He's implying you are some other poster posting under another user name. It's just his paranoia; he does this a lot. The most damaging is when he does it to new posters. I would have perma-banned Musty a while ago for doing that again and again. It's pathetic and brings down the forum.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not 'simply a fact' that I am sexually oriented towards the opposite sex. I do not self-identify as straight, nor as heterosexual and I doubt that I have ever referred to myself as such. Do you get this? I do not perceive myself as heterosexual nor do I perceive myself as disabled even though I would certainly be called disabled by most. I do not perceive myself as red-green colour blind. Putting people in boxes is not something I tend to do, nor do I do it to myself. I am conscious of myself and my motivations and desires. I am conscious of some things that I know motivate me but which are not Christian. But these are things I learn to live with. I am not trying to change them. I gave up trying to change them many years ago and was much more peaceful in myself after that. In the same way, as I said before, which I hope you did listen to, I am not suggesting that homosexuals can always change their tendencies. But if you want to be a Christian, to follow Jesus, then you cannot indulge in homosexual acts, just as I cannot engage in the acts that sometimes motivate me.

If a homosexual wants to change his tendencies, then I am all for offering help. But we all have tendencies that are anti-Christian. That is why self-discipline is one of the core ethics of the believer. We put to death the desires of the flesh and live instead by the spirit. The flesh is weak and dying but the spirit gives life and will bear fruit to eternal life. Homosexuals aren't special in this respect. Just because they 'self-identify as homosexual' doesn't mean they are exonerated from the same responsibility of self-discipline as the rest of us. Once you get used to the idea of self-discipline and embrace it, it becomes easier over time. And with the strength of the Lord, may even completely eradicate the unrighteous thought or just subdue it till it is of little consequence in your life. But whatever happens, you don't give in to the thought. The Spirit gives you strength and you overcome.

Homosexuals, in order to justify themselves, have created the boxes. They have defined themselves as homosexual in the expectation that banding together, creating a social sub-group, gives them legitimacy but in so doing they have limited themselves. They have also limited the rest of the people whom they label as straight. I refuse to be limited like this. I am human. I am created in God's image. I was made a little lower than angels and crowned with splendour and glory. When God created me he said that I was very good. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I can live a righteous life in the spirit and know true freedom. Those who indulge in unrighteous acts cannot do this.

Okay, I'll start by saying I'm no lover of labels or boxes as within the context of the thread I don't believe someone's sexual orientation defines them as a person. At the same time however I have no problem with identifying as straight as in regards to sexuality etc I'm solely attracted to women. I had/have no say in it and it's rather ironic that you accuse homosexuals of creating these 'boxes' to 'justify' labels when you're using a label itself to box those people into. Do you see the irony in that?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Arthur,

Hey buddy!! How's it going? It's been a while! Well, I'm sure no one wants to hear from me, a former 'homo' gay person. I'm sure I will cause a terrible stir here, but what else is new? You already know me for my stirs. I THINK that being gay is anti-God and that gays in the church (to get married) are actually fulfilling the scriptures with Jesus saying, "And when you shall see the 'abomination' of desolation stand in the holy place {Church}, know that the time is near." Or "if you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not, know that the time is near." I really wish so badly that this weren't true, because most of my life, I was gay, until I just decided to abstain from sex. So you know that I am not hoping the scripture is true, but I have to say what I feel that The Lord is telling me. That's His answer. Now act on it. That does not mean to be against gays and not loving them. Just love them and give them the chance to change themselves. If I did it, perhaps they can also. I did it because I cared more about my Love for God over my love for gay sex or any sex. You see, I can't have sex with women, but I won't tell you why for now because you'll all just start on my case. So I'll leave that for another time. Well, that's my assessment from the Lord to you all. No Gay Marriage!! Isn't necessary anyway. They had Civil Unions, and that was not good enough. Now they are marrying. Can you see how wrong that is? They can put in writing all that each partner wants to do and get it notarized. They do not have to get married. I wish I were wrong because it hard on me. But God made the laws. OK, everyone jump on my case!! Love the gays, not what their ways are. They need your love, not hate!! Otherwise, they'll never change. Let them see why God is more important than sex. It's really down to "how much do you love God and Jesus?" More or less than sex? Fornication is wrong also, but tons of singles are doing it. It's just as bad as being gay, yet the gays don't hold them in derision. Fornication is having sex with someone who is not your wife/partner. Many guys have two different girls to have sex with each weekend. No, No!!

In God And Christ {Their love for us},

Michael

 

[Desert Reign]

Okay, I'll start by saying I'm no lover of labels or boxes as within the context of the thread I don't believe someone's sexual orientation defines them as a person. At the same time however I have no problem with identifying as straight as in regards to sexuality etc I'm solely attracted to women. I had/have no say in it and it's rather ironic that you accuse homosexuals of creating these 'boxes' to 'justify' labels when you're using a label itself to box those people into. Do you see the irony in that?

It depends on what the label connotes. I use the term 'homosexual' primarily because I respect the identification that others use for themselves. Your attempt at trying to defuse my arguments with this rather weak ad hominem looks like an admission that you don't have any argument against it. The only thing that homosexuality has got going for it is that it is consensual. This in no way means that it is a good thing.

 

[quip]

Homosexuals, in order to justify themselves, have created the boxes. They have defined themselves as homosexual in the expectation that banding together, creating a social sub-group, gives them legitimacy but in so doing they have limited themselves. They have also limited the rest of the people whom they label as straight. I refuse to be limited like this. I am human. I am created in God's image. I was made a little lower than angels and crowned with splendour and glory. When God created me he said that I was very good. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I can live a righteous life in the spirit and know true freedom. Those who indulge in unrighteous acts cannot do this.

Irony...indeed.

No, boxes were created years ago to condemn, shun and segregate the "sin" of homosexuality by and from mainstream society. The
homosexual's attempt at legitimacy is an attempt to escape from the box (or closet, if you will) the likes of you so righteously confine them within.

You refuse to be limited? ....so does the homosexual.

 

[Kdall]

Real Government in the US began with Puritan Jurisprudence, study some sometime. That is what all our laws stemmed from. You dont know what you are talking about.

Puritan Jurisprudence has nothing to do with the Constitution, which is what we were talking about. Masonic values taken from Enlightenment principles are what make up that, in some places word for word. Try to keep up

 

[Kdall]

He's implying you are some other poster posting under another user name. It's just his paranoia; he does this a lot. The most damaging is when he does it to new posters. I would have perma-banned Musty a while ago for doing that again and again. It's pathetic and brings down the forum.

Thanks for clarifying that. Yeah I can see how that'd be a problem

 

[musterion]

He's implying you are some other poster posting under another user name. It's just his paranoia; he does this a lot. The most damaging is when he does it to new posters. I would have perma-banned Musty a while ago for doing that again and again. It's pathetic and brings down the forum.

Still whining.