QUICK LINKS
Domestic Partnerships: What To Do?
Anyone who follows the events in Olympia, Washington, or reads the Faith & Freedom website knows that the most recent campaign by those who seek to redesign the culture is the push for Domestic Partnerships. Click here to see a list of bills relating to gay marriage.
While the sponsors have assured both the press and the public that Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions or Reciprocal Benefits, for that matter, are not really what they want, they continue their march to re-engineer our culture.
They want marriage for homosexuals.
So conservatives and the faith community are desperately looking for the appropriate response. While a majority of Washingtonians do not want gay marriage, there are many ideas out there as to how to handle the incremental step called DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS.
There is no amount of compromise, including Reciprocal Benefits, that will change the process. Not politically and certainly not ideologically.
This struggle is not about benefits for gays, grandparents, grandkids, or good friends, it's about authenticating a lifestyle and the political process is the vehicle.
So, what to do?
I support Senator Dan Swecker's approach. He is supporting an Ammendment that if Domestic Partnerships are approved by the legislature, and today they have the vote, will put the Domestic Partnership law before the voters. Let the people decide.
There is no amount of zigging, zagging or political maneuvering that will suceed on these particular issues.
With all due respect, this is a time for moral clarity and simplicity of action.
We are certainly called to serve the Lord in action and deed, however, in the end, the battle is the Lord's.
Click here to vote in the new FNN OPINION POLL.
___________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
76 Comments:
A genuine, Biblical marriage is "that which God has joined together" (Mk 10). Jesus teaching regarding a genuine, godly marriage excludes any reference to the state. Therefore, the effort by Evangelicals to make state sanctioned rights (call them what you will) as synonymous with marriage results in the degradation of true, Godly marriage to nothing but a mere artificial creation of the state with state (vs. God) provided rights/responsibilities.
I find this, at best, distasteful and uniquely disparaging to both the institution of God as well as the humanity involved in the arrangement. To degrade marriage in the manner that it appears that FNF and Evangelical/Roman Catholics have done is really a slap in the face to God and the arrangement He created.
Therefore, the real issue is whether disciples of Jesus Christ will work to maintain the high view of marriage as put forth by Jesus Christ or the degraded view of marriage as proposed by Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Genuine disciples will reject the states involvement in their marriages since their "yes must be yes" and their "nos must be no". Our integrity and honesty before man and God will be the glue of that holds us together.
I welcome Biblically based comment on what I believe is the key issue rather than the on-going meddling in the affairs of the world (and the related dissimulation which is constantly manifest in doing so) which God has specifically relegated to Himself alone (ICor5:12,13; "my kingdom is NOT of this world" - Jesus Christ; "Our battle is NOT against flesh and blood but principalities and powers" - Paul).
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Gary, what is FFN's position on the attempts to stop the predatory lending practices of pay-day lenders? These companies prey on the poor, often tricking them into loans with APRs as high as 400%. Seems that the damage caused by this to families should be self evident, so why is FFN not taking a pro-family position on this issue? It almost makes one think that your real motivation is anti-gay not pro-family.
Human, If you really believe what you are saying then you would shut up and quit meddling on this web site. No one cares about your personal theology and the fact that you keep pushing it on us shows you are only concerned about proving your theology correct and you don't give a damn about upholding a moral society. Give us break from your high brow nonsense.
This is a political action web site dedicated to withholding equal protection of all citizens under the law due to theological reasonings.
Of course those interested in the other point of view will be here and trying to correct the moral mistakes being committed by the other side.
A moral society is one where all citizens have equal rights, equal protections and who's God-given rights of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are supported by the society and the state. This site advocates an immoral society and of course there are going to be those opposing these efforts.
Attack other people and try and deny them their rights and they will respond - get used to it.
Human and Vishanti are the same person.
"Human and Vishanti are the same person."
Gary Randall and Mark Foley are, too.
So are Mick and Rush Limbaugh.
And Mimi from Mass. and Larry from Everett are really Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. It's one HUGE conspiracy around here. Let's all talk about that so that we can not focus on the hypocrisy of the GOP machine that is FFN.
Thanks guys - my post re: a genuinely moral, Biblical, Christian concept of marriage remains until fully responded to by those of the Evangelical Religious Right (ERR) persuasion who degrade marriage to mere human artifice - a tawdry conniving of state sanctioned rights/responsibilities).
So far I have not heard a single response....
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
I agree
This post has been removed by the author.
I don't believe the democrats would ever allow this or any bill to go to the vote of the people unless it was mandated by the Constitution . The Initiative process has always been a plague to the left in this state .
However it is not that big of an issue to the average voter either , it would not pass in a state wide vote , but it also will not effect the the next election ..
The average voter just does not have it on their radar as important .
When are "conservatives and the faith community" going to look at the facts and admit that homosexual marriage hasn't and won't affect "traditional" marriage and dedicate themselves to a worthy cause?
Gay marriage has been legal for almost 4 years in Mass. Society hasn't collapsed there. The "these things take time" explanation is long gone now too. Even if something changed tomorrow, how could you point to something four years ago and say that was the cause when it could have been something else 10 years ago or 2 years ago (that also just took time).
There is a great deal of disconnect between what the conservatives want to believe and reality.
They want to think same sex marriage will damage marriage - but it hasn't other places and it won't.
They want to pretend being open to same sex marriage will lead to polygamy and marriage to pets, but they only want that because they know those are HUGELY unpopular - which is actually exactly why they would never happen anyways.
They want to pretend that they are the ones who value marriage and family. But Christians divorce just as much as non-Christians and almost EVERY state that traditionally votes Republican has higher divorce rates than ones that traditionally vote Democrat.
They want to pretend the Bible actually says "don't let homosexuals marry" but the Bible says NOTHING about same sex marriage.
They want to pretend that same sex marriage is the only real bad thing happening to marriage out there, when abuse and infidelity always have been legitimate plagues on marriage - but there are far too many people on the inside who don't want to touch those topics.
Lots of interesting and very valid points - the red-herring/fear approach is endemic on the Religious right. Too bad...
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
I guess it is better to throw stones at Ted Haggard's glass house then their own glass houses.
Actually, didn't a recent study find that atheists divorced at a much lower rate than evangelical christians?
Tim,
The difference between Ted Haggard and most of these people is that he threw stones at them - they merely are picking his stones up and throwing them back. If he had not chosen to throw stones at them, they would not have thrown stones at him.
Judge not lest ye be judged - and that is what is happening to Mr. Haggard.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Haggard says he is cured .
Cured in 3 weeks?
This is just more FLIM FLAMMING
from a FLIM FRAM MAN!
Human, I was referring to throwing stones at homosexual's glass houses rather than at their own houses with issues with infidelity, abuse, etc.
From Jay Leno last night. Yes, Haggard is cured. When the church over site committee asked him how he felt, Haggard replied, "Fab-U-Lous!"
Interesting debate , the conservatives fail to understand reality and have no valid point of view . Human , Tim and the intelligent caring socialists understand the neccessisity of changing the laws .
Either through reasons of religion or secular reasons . Your logic comes through perfectly .Conservatives racists and bigots , liberals smart and concerned .
Not quite right. Laws don't change to steer society. Laws are changed to reflect changes in society.
Not all conservatives are racists or bigots. Not all liberals are smart and concerned.
Whether liberal or conservative, ignoring scientific evidence and quality research just because you want it to match what you want to belief isn't very smart.
Is keeping gays from getting married going to:
a. reduce the number of gays? No
b. reduce the number of gays raising children? No
c. prevent heterosexual marriages from ending in divorce? No
d. change the number of children being raised in single parent homes? No
e. change the number of gays living in stable relationships? No
If you believe, though, that it's just the way it's always been and so it shouldn't change (a "conservative" viewpoint), then you really aren't looking at what has already changed.
All that remains is getting everyone informed about the changes that already happened.
And your point was ?
Is keeping Garbage trucks from being married part of your information . Crazy , so was homosexual marriage , so was polygamous reraltionships ,etc .
Will it reduce the number of trucks . No
Will it reduce the amount of trucks bringing up children .NO
Will it prevent hetrosexuals from getting divorced . NO
Change the rate of children being raised in single parent homes . NO
Change the amount of gays living in a stable relationship . NO
Allthat remains is you to convince people how garbage trucks getting married is better for conservatives .
Anon 11:49
Somewhere you might have a point; however, working with actual conditions will lend credibility and actually move us toward a solution.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
BTW - Tim, thanks for the clarification.
working with actual conditions will lend credibility
? ;0)
Human said...
Lots of interesting and very valid points - the red-herring/fear approach is endemic on the Religious right. Too bad...
Yes garbage truck anonymous has a point - all the examples were how things wouldn't change.
Will allowing same gender married couples to license the contract help their marriages? Yes.
Will allowing same gender married couples to license the contract help their families and provide a better child rearing environment? Yes.
Will allowing same gender married couples to license the contract help us be true to our American ideals of equal access to government and equal protection under the law? Yes.
Is it better for society to have as many married couples as possible in its adult population? Yes.
So there are benefits and no stated negatives - maybe if you could explicitly state the concrete negatives it might help? (keeping in mind that there are areas that have had marriage equality for some time so we have some real-world examples to point to)
Exactly government support usually increases the product or activity .
Government supports single parent homes with children on welfare , if father came home , government help usually stopped, single parent homes on welfare increased .
Government supports fossil fuel exploration and refining , fuel consumption increases .
Government supports Bio Diesel production , an increase of bio diesel use is already in the works .
Government supports marriage , it supported avenues for government to allow tax support for education , medical aid , etc for children and spouses .
Homosexual government support for marriage , we will see an increase in homosexual families .
Some poeople see that as a good thing , some see it a bad thing , some don't care either way .
Welcome to the debate ... If you believe one way or the other you are ridiculed , stay out of it and you are either running for President as a Democrat , or listen to way too much country music.
How would we see an increase in homosexual families? If two committed, same-sex people are already raising a kid, their family isn't going to change. If two people who aren't raising a kid can get married how would that change their decisions about raising kids (for a some it might, but for the majority)?
Or were you pointing out that we would see an increase if for no other reason than we would be better able to identify (and thus count) those situations?
I wouldn't agree that Government supports fossil fuel exploration and refining , fuel consumption increases. Typically, fuel exploration and refining type activities increase supply, reducing prices allowing for more consumption - kind of like dropping prices on hard drives.
Welcome to the debate...I think you left out "gun-toting" and "tree-hugging".
Seriously, though, I've never really seen explained why it is a bad thing other than just non-specific generalizations (like "it will hurt traditional marriage", or "the Bible just says so").
Let's look exactly at what allowing gay marriage would do.
Will it harm heterosexuals currently married?
No (unless somehow allowing the two gay guys living together to actually get married will magically force other marriages to HAVE to start adding abuse and infidelity to their currently stable situations).
Will it open the door for polygamy and marriage to garbage trucks?
No.
Will it help give rights and dignity to a large segment of the population who currently are prevented from it (a thoroughly un-American stance for the governement to be taking)?
Yes.
Will it make our nation be suddenly God-less because we're in direct opposition of a decree from God in the Bible?
No.
So, what is it?
Hey Tim ,
Forgive me I do not know how to darken yours or my comments in this blog ..
"I wouldn't agree that Government supports fossil fuel exploration and refining , fuel consumption increases. Typically, fuel exploration and refining type activities increase supply, reducing prices allowing for more consumption - kind of like dropping prices on hard drives."
Yes , but the tax breaks that Exxon got have really allowed it to search for fuel and charge lower prices then the rest of the world . Our government actually subsidized Exxon and such .. Our state is now allowing tax breaks and other monetary concessions to bio Dioesel fuel . This allows the manufacturer to increase their supply and also sell it at a competible prices . Thus allowing competition , I am not an expert on this subject , but it appears to me if government allowed more incentive for monetary gain , we will see new break throughs eventually in fuels that are cleaner and stop our reliance on the Middle East . I think Brazil did it ?
Welcome to the debate...I think you left out "gun-toting" and "tree-hugging".
I don't like guns but I know we are a nation of laws , so I support the 2nd Amendemnt ,and I am against trees getting married but what they do in the privacy of their forrests is none of my business.
"Seriously, though, I've never really seen explained why it is a bad thing other than just non-specific generalizations (like "it will hurt traditional marriage", or "the Bible just says so"). "
I have explained it a few times on this blog , using examples that apparently made sense to me to help the listener , but I appear to be having aa hard time just explaining simple capitalistic systems here , , but also the people on this blog were not concerned about understanding the view really , most people who have come here in the past have moved on except for a few lefties .
. I often wonder why it has to be explained , I mean how can you not undertand the belief of standards and certain standards . Setting the standard of an A in school , if we shot for the C , the majority would get Ds or Fs.
Telling kids to be abstinate till marriage , and history shows kids in the majority do not do that , but since we have come to the culture of abstinences to marriage is the same as having sex with a condom , no difference in the morality of it , we have seen people increase the amount of their sexual partners before marriage . Lessen the standard , and increase the activity below the standard .
I see that as a negative , such as I do with sexual relationships before marriage , not only for the physical health , but the mental health and how it effects our married relationships .
So I guess Tim , do you understand any of those points ? Otherwise I don't think you could understand where I was coming from , we will not change each others minds . And for sure either way , your culture is winning ..Just a matter of a generation in my opinion . PUblic education has made sure of that .
At least it appears that way to me .. I am just not too sure if you have kids or know people who have kids , you are not going to be so keen on what they are exposed to as years go by .. You may not see this issue as having any effect on it , but it is becomming a world worse for youth , not kid friendly at all . .
When I debate an issue , I usually know both sides , like drugs , legalizing or not . I see both sides to some extent , the secular left , or maybe humanism is actually has a core that prevents doing it in this matter I guess.
Sometimes it looks like your just playing , like can you not understand the other side ?
Let's look exactly at what allowing polygamous marriage would do.
Will it harm heterosexuals currently married?
No (unless somehow allowing the five females and one guy living together to actually get married will magically force other marriages to HAVE to start adding more then one partner and infidelity to their currently stable situations).
Will it open the door for gay and marriage to garbage trucks?
No.
Will it help give rights and dignity to a large segment of the population who currently are prevented from it (a thoroughly un-American stance for the governement to be taking)?
Yes.
Will it make our nation be suddenly God-less because we're in direct opposition of a decree from God in the Bible?
No.
So, what is it?
Mick,
Seeing both sides is very positive - usually there is a reason people hold to a particular view. As long as they are clear what that reason is, then we can begin to analyze and evaluate the reason. As long they are open to following along, that is great - we should all be able to make substantial progress in achieving win-win ways of relating with one another (Jesus said it best - LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF - since you do not deprive yourself of sex/marriage - why would you deprive your homosexual neighbor of the same - that is God's job - not yours, mine or Ted Haggards (despite efforts to the contrary)).
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
This is an equal access to government issue, do all citizens have reasonable access to this civil contract?
All of those capable of pair-bonding with a person of the opposite gender already have access, that some may want more than one contract or more than one spouse in the contract is a very different issue.
Those capable of pair-bonding with someone of the same gender do not have reasonable access and are basically being forced to financially subsidize those people who do have license to the contract even though the tax paying gay citizen is just as married as they are.
As to polygamy, we know that most polygamy is actually of the type called polygyny - one man married to multiple women,. the women not married to each other or able to marry more than one man. Enabling this by government sanction would be institutionalizing inherently unequal rights based on gender and its one of the best reasons the Supreme Court gave to justify disallowing it over 100 years ago.
Mick, now is letting gay people marrying going to be anything but raising the standard?
We can't use your abstinence analogy because it is based on everyone reasonably being capable and desiring to perform the regulated activity. Since there is no evidence that being gay is either pernicious, seductive, or otherwise infectious, encouraging a higher standard for gay relationships would only have beneficial effects for the citizens themselves and society in general, right?
(and as an aside since the new comment forum change does anyone ever get their comment to 'take' with the first word verification entry? Every time I have to type in a second verification to get the comment to post)
Human I have found your reasoning Bibically to be in era myself , but to answer your question politically , I am not depriving anyone or granting anyone and power to marry , live together , have sex or do anything .
That power is in Olympia .. Why you wish to grant that power, or support "people" who want that "power"is something that you obviously feel religiously compelled to do ..
I have a different Faith then you .. If was to share my religious faith with my politics , I would encourgae I believe what is called socialism. People are suppose to care and support for their brothers and sisters in Faith . I know you have read the book of Acts , and the First Teastament Church ..
But the government has political leaders at the head , not God , so I separate my political views from my Bible in many instances .
Perhaps that is just how I was brought up , kind of that English Episcoplaen God is private value system , I believe it makes our civil discourse better when it was practiced more however .
Oshtur
I really do not believe you are concerned about exchange , deabte or understanding . . And you appear to be inclined to the belief that those who disagree with your view are bigots , racists , liars , all and more. .
I guess in truth we are all pretty bad in many things if we were to judge ourselves fairly , but in discourse it tends to sour the debate and I would wonder you would assume to try to carry a conversation with someone after you accuse them of this and more ..
You have chased some people off , and what I noticed most was from the lady Mimi , a new convert who appeared to go out of her way from her culture , her beliefs , and her experiences to be civil with you and you just trashed her . I am sure you feel you had a perfect right to do , which is why I find conversation with you quite burdensome or people with this frame of reference to themselves . How could someone who treats others like this ever comprehend anything that did not fit into their own selfish wants .
As with JC , who definitely was wound way too tight , and Human who has a religious view that those who believe in regulating drugs or making opium already proven physically and mind altering with serious ill effects as blasemy to God , I still can not figure out why he is kind to other religions and people , and disregards people of the Christian Faith .. It is obviously totally differnt then the Christian Faith he has , the spelling is the same , but I have never heard any church preaching what he speaks to . And I have visited ore then most ..
Your intellectual ability has obvious high marks in my opinion
With your command of language and grammar , something I wouldgive much for , you can make points that all of us could have learned from . Instead you used it for an expansion of hatred , deceit , and actually insulting those who reached out to you , you are so challenged in your ability to form relationships that promote growth , you just flung it back in the faces that reached out .to you in exchange . Your partner must be often at odds with you , and I would say he is the better half without ever meeting him .
Bug off .
I really do not believe you are concerned about exchange , deabte or understanding . . And you appear to be inclined to the belief that those who disagree with your view are bigots , racists , liars , all and more. .
Mick, you are wrong. You are the one that won't actually discuss. Take your financial rationalization. I practically BEGGED you for a response to my observation that it would be gay money going to pay for gay marriages. You pointedly refused to even continue the discussion but just moved on to other rationalizations. Is that the act of a person really willing to discuss an issue.
As to the rest of your complaints it seems you are in as free-form rant: please when have I called anyone a 'racist'? Please where have I been deceitful in any way whatsoever? I am the one that corrects and points out others deceit. As to being insulting, telling the truth is never insulting to the rational mind.
Regardless if you want to admit it or not there are liars and bigots posting on this board and again pointing out that they are just that is exactly what you are supposed to do in a discussion that is about someone's God-given rights and those that are trying to take them away.
No one has ever 'reached to me' with anything other than empty words. Mimi compared my partner who you seem to like to a turtle and said my opinions were valueless because I wasn't a member of her sect.
If you can't see what you have said and suggested is just as and probably more insulting than anything I have ever said you are living in denial. That I continued to even attempt to draw you into rational discussion shows how dedicated I am to the process of communication and your current note shows how you are not.
I have no regrets - the feigned indignation at slights that pale in comparison to their own is the hallmark of the losing side in discussions like this.
If you could answer my question you would - that you can only light your hair on fire and exit stage right with faux indignation really does say more than you probably want.
Oh and if anyone has doubts, do bother to use the rather nifty search feature for key words and phrases. I just did and was reminded of who is exactly saying what about whom..
Its easy for newcomers to not realize the history of sharp words that have come before to get to the current 'tone'.
Mick,
I have never stopped reaching out to you - nor, I believe, has Oshtur. My only difficulty is that, in all honesty, I cannot always read your writing. Perhaps you could go back and edit a couple times to make sure you are communicating what you want to? I do that myself and usually catch at least a half dozen errors.
I am not your enemy nor am I the enemy of any man in particular. However, when a movement advocates violence and oppression against peaceful human beings as does the Evangelical movement (especially the leadership), I speak out against them as Jesus did against the Pharisees (same spirit). I welcome fellowship with all human beings but especially those that name the name of Jesus Christ.
Like you, I am disappointed that Mimi has not joined us recently (and I hope she will soon!) - although I can hardly say Oshtur was to blame - I read their interactions and I felt they had respect one another.
You mentioned that no churches teach what I teach. Really I don't teach anything - I just share scripture in the manner that you have done in the past (and I have greatly appreciated and benefited by the way!!).
"Love does NOT hurt its neighbor"
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
Human ,
Let me perfectly clear . You have used the words Evangelical throughout you stay on these blogs in a negative light . I am an Evangelical , and find your comments strinkingly offensive . As have others . You have stated those who oppose legalization of drugs somehow even connected with some notion of Evangelical doings .
The commente here are those stated to Mimi , I say this because as I have stated before , coming from her new Christianity , her culture and understanding it was obvious to this Evangelial Christian she was being kind , tolerant and compassionate to those who did not agree with her and as in your case, you continued to make perjoritives on a continual basis of Evangelicial Christianity . As I said before , no where have I seen a church promote the THEOLOGY you do in regards to drug use . Or have I seen people call those in the Chruch Chrisianists , racist , and the other shallow names you direct to those in the Evangelical Community ..
The following are Comments that you say is Oshtur reaching out to her .. I must wonder if either of you have any friends at all .
...................................
You seem to be into your religion for the smug self-righteous high it gives you and don't really understand what love and compassion is.
And 'discriminate against Christians'? My, you are fulblown into your fantasy world - when have I discriminated against Christians?
Mimi you are a hurtful cruel person who desperately would like to think she isn't as was evident in one of your first messages where you compared a person dedicating their live to another as like marrying a turtle. What loving person would do that?
..................................
I just finsished reading James .. Good book .. Being an Evangelical Christian it made me think of people who would so negatively put people in groups and attack denominations , while supporting this present culture's love affair with self and mocking those of faith .
===================================
.
9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. 11Can both fresh water and salt[a] water flow from the same spring?
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God
Thanks, Mick.
How is a marriage between two committed same sex people less than two committed opposite sex people?
I think being able to show same-sex couples in stable, monogamous, committed relationships is much better than showing gays as circuit partying, drug using, etc.
When I was a kid the only image of gays that I ever saw was of gays dressed up in weird outfits, marching in San Francisco. That was pretty scary.
Otherwise,
I agree that it is best for people to wait until getting married, or until they are at least more mature than they are at 18, etc.
I agree that the world isn't as kid-friendly as it used to be. There are a lot of things to worry about these days that weren't concerns before.
Yes, I do like to play (a lot). Sometimes, I play just to see if I can get someone to say something they haven't said before.
I respect people the most who at least can explain their positions, even if I don't agree with their position.
Yes Mick, that you didn't post what I was responding to is telling and typical. I was responding to a post where I was called 'depraved' 'discriminating against Christians' and it was suggested that I leave the country if I didn't accept her sect's views.
I stand by all I said - the pretense of reaching out by Mimi had been dropped many messages before.
Well said Mick. Human the things you say offend many. I don't know what your true motive is but you talk crazy talk. Maybe you don't mean to offend, but that is the result. I'm afraid what you are doing is taking sacred things and verbally defecating on them. It doesn't help your cause.
Alter ego Vishanti said "the pretense of reaching out by Mimi had been dropped many messages before"
We have already established that you don't recognize kindness--and Mimi has shown you kindness. That is so very sad. I can only imagine the pain you endure with the way you filter the things in this life. I've seen pure love typed to you but you couldn't even see it. You called it sarcastic. That is enough to drive a person crazy.
PS Human/Vishanti--there is a reason you do that. While I was generally able to recognize kindness, I would sometimes see malevolence where there was none . It was helpful to me to start looking at my family--maybe it would be helpful to you too. From experience I can tell you, that kind of thinking is like a cancer of the brain and heart and it makes life 100 times harder.
Mick, Anon,
re: Oshtur and Mimi -
Maybe I missed something in their communication - I did not follow it closely. I will trust that there was an unfortunate break-down since Oshtur is indicating that to be the case.
re: Evangelicalism
Yes, "just another -ism". Why do you want to be an Evangelical when you can, rather, be a disciple of Jesus Christ???
This brings us back to ICor 3, 4 - one says they are of Paul, one of Appollo - one calls himself an Evangelical, one a Fundamentalist, one a conservative.
Enough of this - let us call ourselves by the name which we are called - Jesus Christ.
The problem with Evangelicalism is that it spans such racist, pro-slavery organizations as the Southern Baptist Convention, etc., etc (If you have any doubt, please just read the history of that institution). Evangelicalism routinely suscribes to the use of violence against peaceful human beings in the promotion of its own self developed ethic as well as oppression via legislation. All this is wholly contrary to "Love does not hurt its neighbor" - which is the highest law.
With all due respect, you may NOT be an Evangelical but inadvertantly have allowed yourself to be pigeonholed as such because it is so popular to make this term inter-changeable with a "born-again Christian". But that is, of course, a lie. My goal is to pull all true disciples to Christ alone - away from any identity other than Him.
If that offends you, then I would suggest you are not genuinely in Christ. If it makes sense and you are re-considering your identity, then I would suggest that you ARE genuinely in Christ.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
BTW - Anon 11:14 - there is nothing I am "verbally defecating" on except the traditions of men which make void the Word of God. In this, I have a great example, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
"Enough of this - let us call ourselves by the name which we are called - Jesus Christ."
Human this totally gives you away. This is the thing cults are made of and is extremely dangerous. I won't even go into why. I don't think you can comprehend why (I mean no disrespect).
Tim said...
"Thanks, Mick.
How is a marriage between two committed same sex people less than two committed opposite sex people?"
First Tim , you need to add different groups besides just homosexual relationships . There are bi sexual , and a host of other possibilities . Otherwise what you are doing is including one more group while excluding others . So right away your particular question sends a flag up to me . Why are you excluding and including ? I am not stopping anyone to get married , homosexuals are being asked to be included and the law changed JUST for them .
I recall the first time I fell in love/lust , I had a committed relationship , I and her became better people, I even got straight As . The benefits of having someone over you in a something we can both identify as a good thing . Marriage I put on a different platform . So has our state , culture < that's changing> and Federal Courts .
The standard of a man and women is a relationship that provides the BEST family model because of the relationships in that model that it allows . . The natural Mother and Father , social scientist have even concluded adopted children to not do as well < on the average> as children raised in homes of the natural parents . Do people get married and never have kids , do old people , and people who get married who are lousy parents .
Of course ..
But all follow the models of what has been established by the state , reinforced by our culture norms of what works best to bring the next generation safely through with some ability to function .
My "pinion" is each gender has an important role in bringing up a child , regardless if the child is a male or female , the parenting and mental fulfillment of the child is best recognized by both a make and female . That is the way we were designed or that is the way we evolved . Can homosexuals be good parents , YEP , and in some cases can most likely do much better then the many heterosexual couples . But the state has a vested interest in Marriage , and just like we do not allow blind people to drive , the state can stop Sisters or five people from getting married to each other .. The Civil Rights issue never convinces me , especially when other possible marriage arrangements are brought up , their civil rights become less then defended by the same who lobby for homosexual marriage .
The reason , homosexuals can marry , so can bi and polygamous and brothers and sisters , they jhave to marry someone from the opposite sex , just one and they can not be realted . Its the same for all of us .. Fair , no , legal , yes .
"I think being able to show same-sex couples in stable, monogamous, committed relationships is much better than showing gays as circuit partying, drug using, etc."
Well you have my agreement there , and it is a good point . Also the sub homosexual culture caused to go underground before has always been hurt by anti social behavior and norms that have hurt people . So you are right , this will help many people in the homosexual community to get out of their social circles and mix in with other circles and enjoy their lives better . I can not argue with points you make that make sense to me , and I am not saying I deserve to be happier then a homosexual ,
HOWEVER ;0)
In the long run in my opinion , the more harm that comes to the Traditional Family , the worse off we all will be . Including homosexuals . That is not fair either Tim .
"When I was a kid the only image of gays that I ever saw was of gays dressed up in weird outfits, marching in San Francisco. That was pretty scary."
Yes I know what you mean . I had a good friend who was the Chair of the local PFLAGG . Who asked me to go to a gay parade. We had become good friends , started out at odds .. But she knew I would defend the rights and integrity of homosexuals , and I had stated if the parade stayed to those issues I would not have a problem marching .. I did not go , but even that parade had folks in leather , dressed up in religious Catholic Garments , stockings etc ... But that goes to the point you made before , if homosexuals are allowed to participate in the heterosexual marriage deal , we would see less of that .
"I agree that the world isn't as kid-friendly as it used to be. There are a lot of things to worry about these days that weren't concerns before."
What bothers me most about that is it appears it is not a concern of the vast majority . Just taking your kids to the park , most parks now are used to get high or for older kids to hang out at . When I was growing up < never figured I would say that> if folks were doing illegal activities where young children were there would be parents down there instantly stopping it , now its accepted and good parents just keep tighter reins on their kids . Its accepted that our kids will have to endure and get through being exposed to situations and circumstances that we were never exposed to .
Well I don't think I was as articulate as I have been , but better then the recent State Supreme Court wording anyway .
No Mimi was never kind, you can't be 'kind' and not recognize the rights of others. Her first few notes were demeaning to gays and that never ever stopped.
Again, use the word 'smug' and look up my note and check the notes that mimi was replying to with her derogatory terms, her dismissal of my marriage, and condescending suggestions.
I always ask specific questions and the avoiding answering them is typical of someone who really doesn't want to discuss anything, they just want to win.
And not to worry, I'm the 'go to' guy in my family for finding solutions to issues of all sorts, but the first step is being open to finding solutions at all.
Anon 12:15
With all due respect, cults are made of EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THIS - cults are made of organizatons and leadership that use other names than Jesus such as Watchtower, Prophet, Pope, Evangelical, Lutheran, Calvinism, Paul, Appollos, etc., etc.
This is obvious to anyone who walks with God in Christ and has even a rudimentary knowledge of the Word of God.
Your lack of any explanation is indicative of cultic behavior since scripture calls disciples to provide an answer of the hope that is within them (as I always do).
FYI - I attend Mars Hill - not exactly a cult....
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Human
I'm truly perplexed at the enormous amount of ego and refusal to be honest that occurs around here. Here is the reality:
Human and OV are not always nice. They can be very sarcastic and biting at times and certainly not always pleasant. I'm sure it must be frustrating to constantly have people insulting you and never actually addressing the issues you bring up, but that's not truly an excuse to act that way.
Mimi, Mick, etc. are also not always nice. They can be quite rude and offensive to others and have been multiple times.
But without any contest at all the worst behaved, rudest, most disrespectful, and most offensive person here is "Anonymous" - and 90% of the time it's aimed at OV and Human and anyone else who doesn't completely agree with Mr. Randall.
Just a view from the outside.
I wouldn't include/exclude any groups other than incest relationships today. Otherwise, if the two people can form a legal marriage (not necessarily religious).
All the sociologists, researchers, etc. that I have heard, read, etc. have shown that the sex of the two parents (same or opposite) doesn't affect the raising of the child ( good or bad).
The thing that I don't like is the research that shows that kids that are being raised by same-sex parents are worse off because their parents can't get married, thus providing a more stable environment for them. Social scientists and doctors have pointed out that this actually hurts children.
Not being able to get married isn't going to keep same-sex couples from raising children, it's only keeping the kids from being protected in a legally recognized relationship.
I'm not too surprised to hear that adopted children might not do as well as natural parents. At least adopted parents are better than none.
Hey Tim ,
You would exclude three or more in a group though , for bi sexual or other reasoning.. My point is you are excludiing to your definition , not theirs.
"All the sociologists, researchers, etc. that I have heard, read, etc. have shown that the sex of the two parents (same or opposite) doesn't affect the raising of the child ( good or bad)."
That is strange , I have found both . But the compeling evidence with how they benchmark success shows statistically that the higher percentage of kids going to college , better paying jobs ,lack of drug use , etc are from natural parents .. Non divorced .
Of course natural happiness can not be measured , or many factors . But kind of surprised you have not come accross that material or data . It can be used against conservative causes like pro life causes for instance . The child being adoped statistically is not as helped as once thought etc . I believe if you research it even in leftward leaning circles you will the same statistics . To me its just logical ... I kind of wonder why people are so surprised by it , I mean its hard enough to change a crappy diaper when its your own smelly kid . ,
"The thing that I don't like is the research that shows that kids that are being raised by same-sex parents are worse off because their parents can't get married, thus providing a more stable environment for them. Social scientists and doctors have pointed out that this actually hurts children."
Yes and their is research that shows homosexual parents live shorter lives , have more health problems , higher suicide rates etc . Kids suffer more peer ridicule , etc etc . Ridicule something that appears to get worse , also I may add my own kids have been ridiculed for God. So I do not propose to not allow Christian Parents get married either , just pointing out though the research you have is commonsense . The benefits to marriage are designed to support the institution of marriage , it is not meant for everyone .. If I thought homosexual parenting was a good thing equal to marriage you have a point , but I don't ... Giving government subsidization increases the product .. Homosexual parents is not something I advocate for , its something I am tolerant of . .
Hurt children ? in the cases of those children you have a valid concern . I wonder why these celebrity folks always promote having kids out of marriage ,
"Marriage causing the stability ? "
Well I am glad the other side sees this as important.. Perhaps your a a closet conservative .
"Not being able to get married isn't going to keep same-sex couples from raising children, it's only keeping the kids from being protected in a legally recognized relationship."
Obviously not , abortion against the law did not stop abortions . But it sure increased them when it became legal . The left also uses the back alley abortion as means of justification of another wrong . That works I guess , but not idealogues like me .
Abortion still is not a solution I support ... And it definitely does not help the child either ... OUR World views are different ..
"I'm not too surprised to hear that adopted children might not do as well as natural parents. At least adopted parents are better than none."
I have a blended family myself , but anyone who has had kids know there is natural bond that is God Given , again if your a non believer call it nature , that gives you an instinct to help and provide for that child . Loving a adoped child is a beautifull thing , I am not attemptinmg to down play that relationship or the importance it can do to help a life. Both parent and child ... . But for me anyway , having a child was an experience that is just so amazing and impossible to describe , and their is a bond that is unique .. To some that is excluding others , to me its the miracle of life .
Anon 1:40
I don't know that being nice is a goal - but I don't mean to be sarcastic and biting. I have worked hard to avoid what I consider a very anti-Christ spirit.
If you see anything in particular that I wrote that reflects that - please point it out. Perhaps you could suggest a better way of expressing it?
Thanks for your help,
Human
Mick - Kudos to succeeding in a blended family.
I would like to read/respond to you and Tim but admittedly, that is a LOT of issues. Maybe one or two at a time for the slow readers here?
Thanks,
In Christ,
Human
Anom , Your reality is perplexing .
.
"But without any contest at all the worst behaved, rudest, most disrespectful, and most offensive person here is "Anonymous" - and 90% of the time it's aimed at OV and Human and anyone else who doesn't completely agree with Mr. Randall."
Look at the posts made after every original posting from this organization , and there is rush of rude , crude , condemning , hatefull explanations of why the posting was made in deceit and prejudice .
The vast majority of people now posting do not support this organization or Gary Randall . . It has become so nasty that the folks who are use to different language , modesty and manners have left .
Just an honest view form the outside
I was being totally honest at 1:40 - and 3:03, it sounds like I touched a nerve a little too close for your comfort. Might think about why that is.
Look at the posts made after every original posting from this organization , and there is rush of rude , crude , condemning , hatefull explanations of why the posting was made in deceit and prejudice.
Are you open to the possibility that many of the posts objectively ARE deceitful and prejudicial? Is it wrong to point out something that is in fact true??
Tim,
Though Mick is a piqued as far as I'm concerned, do know that we have been round this bush before.
Of course bisexuals already have license to the contract of marriage, as long as their spouse is of the opposite gender. Limiting bisexuals to one spouse is no more restrictive than limiting any other sexual orientation to just one. The issue has always been about accessibility: someone who can actually pair-bond with a spouse of the opposite gender has license to the civil contract, those that can only do so with the same gender can not.
There is no known person who can only pair-bond with siblings, or animals, only love more than one spouse, or any of the other things they come up with. Changing the licensing requirements so that a citizen can have a spouse of either gender gives all categories of sexual orientation license to the existing contract.
And of course there are no studies that show "homosexual parents live shorter lives, have more health problems , higher suicide rates" and is irrelevant anyway - convicted felons IN JAIL have been found by the Supreme Court to have a right to marry and to also license the contract in its support. There are far too many opposite gender couples that have far worse known traits than those listed who can license the contract without the bat of an eye. The contract has never been reserved for only 'the best' but is designed to be tools to make ANY marriage better than it would be without it.
(also note that a few notes earlier Mick was bemoaning "...it made me think of people who would so negatively put people in groups..." but he does so when it suits his agenda)
Oh and abortion today is at the same levels as it was when it was illegal, just now 20% of pregnancy-related hospital admissions are not due to abortions as it was then.
I wish you luck and will be watching to see what happens.
Hey 319 ..
Interesting to see the comments on this blog .. Just count them from the start .. How many are from which position , who is being attacked , who starts out being attacked .
Not attacking the issue , but attacking the person .. Who is being asked to leave because of the insults .. Then after your comments , more attack . Of course this is only pointing our prejudice, agendas and deceit ..
Too close .. Are you serious ? These people are not wanted here , not because they disagree , that is cool , but because how they disagree .. That is not .
As many abortions in the 5o's then are now ?
If you stated this it must be so ..
Then after your comments , more attack
Hmmm, Mick attacked me, insulted me when I asked a direct question and not a single personal reference in any previous thread comment. You attacked 'the person' not the issues, and I am curious - where are you seeing an attack other than those initiated from the F&FN supporters?
Well Tim ,
Appears Ohtur thinks you need help , I thought you were doing quite well on your own myself .
I guess him feeling he had to beg for me to correspond While he has repeated stated I
am a bigot, makes no sense to me . Yeah I could tell he always wants to jump in , that he continues to want to converse .
He has jumped on more then a couple good conversations , stopped them cold with his judgements and pronouncements . His intellectual brilliance is overshadowed by his lack of social skills . With such high standards of who is worthy of repect and who is not , he must have declared 99 percent of the human race unfit to respect by now . What would he have people who hfelt kids would be worse off do , lay down ... I respect either side if kids is an important aspect of their views .
Just the way I think , I bet many people on the left do also .
In my world if you degrade someone like that , you say your sorry , or if you mean it but it had no benefit to the person you belittled , you say your sorry so as not to allow it to fester inside of you , I hate holding grudges . Mainly because I am so good at it . but no way do I go up to the person again and try to have another conversation so I can call him a bigot again ??? What the heck is that for .. I mean they have 12 step courses for this ...
I am not sure why these blogs continue to exist , I have tried to ignore Ohtur and Human , when you start from a belief system that you are a bigot or from Human's view if you are an Evangelical Christian you are a racist and whatever Human keeps coming up with , the conversation will tend to sour .
I assume you have certain beliefs and your world view is different from mine , but for me to believe you want the world to be worse or more people worse off is just stupidity . I assume you want Homosexual Marriage because you believe it is the right thing to do .. I disagree with your view , but your intentions indeed are honorable.
I like people , all people .. They can be any race , any Faith , any sexuality .. Doesnot effect my Faith ...
Like a democrat , Evangelical , Homosexual , etc ,has anything to do with a person having integrity , honesty , compassion , perseverence , kindness or those qualities that we like our kids to acquire , those qualities have nothing to with the subject at hand and our views on homosexual marriage .
A person has
got a brain the size of a pea if you think Evangelicals are a racist denomination . Martin Luther King , , hello , my denomination walked with him .
Polygamous marriage appears to be more acceptable to my view point or at least understandable to myself then homosexual marriage .
Interesting the left on this blog sees that as insincere , it makes perfect sense from my view point .
I see no difference with changing Marriage Standards for any group . The homosexual lobby is more intence , and I am sure that will be a major factor in homosexuals getting domestic partnerships and eventally marriage rights , but to me , and many people from I guess you call the Judeo Christian ethic world view it is no different . Just that homosexual have more numbers ,
The very fact that homosexuality was as numerous was a relevation . To me . I graduated in 1973 , did not know of one person who was homosexual .. Not even on the radar ... ...
The reason conservatives have this domino theory with marriage is our understanding and view of culture .
30 years ago people said when abortion becomes acceptable , < at one time their was a bad stigma with people who had abortions > that taking ones own life when older would be the next step . Oregon has assisted suicide laws , and I don't think we are too far behind .
To me , when the state takes over medicine , we will have the state in on that sucide choice .
Sorry threw that tangent in there .. But that should help you possibly understand I hope , if you were interested .... The old slipery slope paranoia conservatives have is real , not insincere . Its Bibical in fact . And History proves it also .
Anyway Tim , I know your a radical on the other side , read some of your posts looking for Mimi's comments , but I do appreciatte the conversation . I was for domestic partnerships because of family's member experience and yeah it seemed like a fair way to handle things . From the comments made here on this blog I am now even against that now , very little conservative views given on this blog ... Mainly dominated by the left , not that my view was ever important , but if the average person saw some of the comments made here about some main line denominations and just traditional viewpoints , I think you would loose others also who saw domestic partnership as a fair thing to do . It appears this just promotes a culture that does not care about other views .
maybe its not related to each other , but it looks that way to me sometimes . A Christian should not have to go on a Christian Blog , or a homosexual have to , and feel they have to defend their own dignity ...
Hows the weather ?
5:51,
I have not been here from the start - only off and on for the last year or so. I would mention that it's a bit trickier to ask an "anonymous" to leave than someone who has an identity. And I'm telling you thr truth - the biggest attacker of people's character and users of personal attacks intstead of focusing on the issues is "anonymous"s who don't like anyone who says anything anti-FFN.
Mick, really that's the issue? The term 'bigot' to me is an objective term like 'Republican', 'Socialist', 'Christian'. Yes it's something most people don't want to be but its not inherently derogatory.
A bigot is someone who is prejudiced and intolerant.
intolerance is the opposite of tolerance which is:
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with
Are you willing to allow others to be in same gender marriages even though you don't necessarily agree with them or want to be in one yourself?
If your answer is 'yes' than I do apologize. If it is 'no' then an apology wouldn't involve what I think you would want - if someone fits a definition it would be lying to say they didn't when they do. At best I can say sorry they fit the definition and I'd be more than happy to help them not fit it.
As to 'social skills' so much of those is just tactful lying - inappropriate behavior in a substantive discussion. I'd rather have someone dislike me for what I really think than not for a less than honest statement. That's probably why I don't hold grudges and don't require apologies - I respect honest opinions backed up by facts even if I don't agree with them, even if they are against me. The only 'apology' I expect is admitting errors and getting back on track to ernest discussion.
No, I don't expect apologies for personal slights, I do expect admission of errors. Probably one of the reasons I feel most people here are agenda-driven - you can show them they have said something that is patently false and they just move on to something else - they never even acknowledge they were in error. (Something you will note I do when anyone has shown I have said something in error)
So I think my assessment of your being 'piqued' at me is quite accurate in the strict definition of the word but I don't know there is anything I can do about it. I can't lie to you and say you don't fit definitions that you do, I can't make you realize that you really can still discuss with someone who thinks you fit the definition of a bigot just like I do all the time with people who think I do the definition of a sinner. We all have our pejorative terms that we don't personally feel are and getting panties in a knot about them is pure self indulgence.
If you think a discussion with me is about making you feel good about yourself then it probably is best we don't talk - that just isn't even on my radar of discussionary goals. Do use the search feature on 'Sheldon' and see how your opinions have evolved since you first started posting. Note all the blatantly pejorative terms you have used in those notes and then ask yourself is your indignation really as justifiable as you seem to think.
Again, no hard feelings on my side - you don't want me to think you don't fit the definition of a bigot the solution is simple - don't be one, I guarantee you that is my gold standard solution to the problem.
I tend to be more in the middle, but with a healthy dose of practicality.
I would rather not see women getting abortions, but just making them illegal doesn't really solve why women are getting abortions.
When I graduated (in a conservative city), I didn't know any one who was homosexual either - although I did know of a couple of kids who got severely bullied about it.
I don't think it's really the lobbyist groups that are having that much effect. I think it's just that more and more people are getting to know people who are homosexual and realizing that there isn't anything different about them.
I certainly think marriage is very important in our world, but I just haven't seen a how same-sex marriage weakens it. I also think that the institution of marriage between two people is stronger than some people realize. It certainly survived the swingers parties of the 70s.
It seems to me that some conservatives are still just using marriage as a carrot to try and get homosexuals to live as a heterosexual as was done in the 50's.
Hey Tim ,
But making abortions illegal did make them fewer , .. Thats the point I guess. But its only a valid point if you are passionate about the evil of abortion . If you think its just inappropriate or neutral on it or whatever , the illegality makes less sense .
It also is an intangilble measurement , how to you measure a hardened heart , the accomplishments of a life never allowed to live , and other immeasurable statistics .
I never saw the carrot idea with marriage , but who knows , When I was very involved in politics , I was always locally involved.
Your idea of freedom may or may not be everyone getting an even slice of the pie , to me its just the opportunity to have a piece , how much is up to you , luck , and I guess who you know , and of course God if your a believer . I am a Union man myself , can't stand much of their politcs , but the concept of joining together makes sense to me .
I don't see homosexual marriage weakening marriage in a high degree either , the attidues that is promoting the debate has done that far more in my opinion ,
All roads lead to equality , to me idea of freedom is that opportunity , not "forced"equality is important to freedom . .
What bothers me the most about homosexuality issues is different . I have a seen a stronger intolerance for people of Faith with this changing culture . Look at movies now , usually the bad guy is a Believer in Christianity , but has many hang ups , is a hypocrit , and usually quite nasty . Even remakes of movies now have the bad guy a Fundamentalist , ... Stereotypes of the homosexuals caused them to stay in the closet to their parents and such , what gets me is we seem to be exchanging prejudices , not standing up to them .
It is totally acceptable to call a person a bigot if he was taught , re evaluated and still believes the best for culture and individuals is a man and a women in marriage , waiting for sex till marriage , and being tolerant of those who disagree.
To me we have become a culture without standards , definitions or tolerance .
It seems to me there is there is less thinking going on in culture, and instead just more reacting.
If a person is willing to look at and evaluate, they aren't a bigot. A bigot is someone who relies on their prejudices, not information.
I hope that what we see and hear now is just viewpoints from either end of the spectrum. That the media finds they get better ratings if they pick people who are far apart.
I don't think either end of the spectrum though does much good for representing their groups or showing respect.
I agree Tim. We are going back to the old Greek days when Aristotle described democracy as "Mob Rule." That really is what a democracy is. Unfortunately, like Tim has said, we are reverting to mom rule. Our founders did not want mob rule. That is why they designed our country as a republic. We have caucuses, and from these, we elect representatives to the county convention, and these elect to the state convention, and these elect to the national convention, and these elect our President, otherwise known as the electoral college. That is the role that parties play in our American system of government. Our state laws actually are formed to give each person a say IN PERSON. But it is not just as a mob.
Hopefully, we all will get more educated and not just be controlled by the media moving as a mob will.
I wonder if there is some agreement that the Right Wing media, e.g. Fox, et. al. plays to fears and works up its mob as a fundamental part of its presentation?
Tim and Anom
JFK had it right , look at what you can do for your country ... LBJ took us the wrong way ..
It does seem the genie is out of bag ..Hard to change the way government survives now . There are a few quotes that Christians often quote from our Founders stating our form of government will only exist with a moral and religious people . The philospy is that we need to the good for othes , not the government . But evn most churches now if a homeless person comes to the door , they may get a meal , but they will be driven or directed to the government agency to handle it .. The church has become dependent on Mommy Government too in my opinion .
That is the conservative philosophy as I have learned it anyway , small government leads to a prosperous private sector , big government eventually leads to less eventually , but in the culture of mash potatoes and career politicians , what happens down the road is usually off the radar .
But that is what gets the eye rolls going - there is nothing immoral or anti-religious about being gay. Sometimes I get the feeling that people think letting gays marry is somehow accepting circuit parties, prostitutes and meth when its the exact opposite.
Some of the most moral people I know are gay, and plenty of Christians and Jews (referring back to the blogs mission tag) are totally accepting of gays and their place in their respective God's plan.
A religious person deciding they were wrong about gays doesn't mean they were wrong about God, in fact such rigidity is an obvious danger to faith. I think of the recent book "Misquoting Jesus" when its seminary-attending evangelical author found out the Bible was not the unerring book he'd always thought it was he became agnostic. His faith was broken not because he could no longer believe in God but because he could no longer believe one little thing, one widely contested tenet of his particular sect. In a way he actually put belief in Biblical inerrancy above his faith in God, idolatry.
Many biblical things were just rules, do's and don'ts for an earlier time. Again the the Christians I know who try and behave in Christ-like ways believe that Christ demanded that his followers use our common sense, that his followers error on the side of love and compassion, and that their job is NOT to go around deciding if others are sinning or not. They think they have an obligation to make everyone's lives better, even gay people.
Bet there's be a lot more Christians if more of them acted this way.
If a person is willing to look at and evaluate, they aren't a bigot. A bigot is someone who relies on their prejudices, not information.
True. But people can claim they have reasons but when one idea is shown to be based on wooly thinking and they just move on to another one without even acknowledging their first one was in error it indicates that their 'reasons' are not the real basis of their opinions but mere rationalizations for their prejudices.
When I was a kid I called it 'Archie Bunker thinking' because he always just made up things to justify his prejudices that weren't based on the reasons he were giving at all.
Oshtur , would not a Virus that kills, promote only a bigot to believe that certain sexual activities were equal with others, some even harmful according to your definition ..
Of course also we all need to understand your version of religion is accurate , and your opinion has more meaning then others who believe in the Bible .
Because you believe its False , and they believe its true , therefore , they are the bigot .
To me tolerance is accepting other religious beliefs , other orienations , and people in general . My views on the marriage issue has never been diminished or showed illogical by you . In fact your statements have shown why a standard is important . Do you think you are the only person who has walked this earth and has known they were right and the other person was wrong .
Being a citizen of this country and at least this the majority agree with me on this issue , we have become great by accepting our differences and unifying around our similiarities . You obviosuly belive the majority of Americans are bigots ..
I know my views are in the minority , and I still hold them with a passion , but they have changed over time , but the friendships and love you get to share in this world always remains what is best Oshtur .. You limit yourself to happiness , that is what bigots do .
This issue has no meaning for me in how I treat a person or value their integrity .. You are kookoo
Mick, no I don't think the majority are bigots, again lets review the meaning of the word:
Bigot: someone who is bigoted
Bigoted: intolerance of those who hold opinions different than oneself
intolerance: being not tolerant. and finally
tolerant: showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
So no, me thinking I am right and you are wrong is not bigotry as long as I allow you your opinion and your behavior. You don't want to be in a same gender marriage, no one is going to force you. You don't want your church to perform religious rites for same gender marriages, again no one is going to force you. You want to interpret holy texts to justify these positions - heck, its your right.
But the government should respect both opinions, it shouldn't take sides. And so by advocating that the government should only share your point of view you are NOT being "accepting other religious beliefs, other orienations, and people in general"
As to your opening statement "Oshtur , would not a Virus that kills, promote only a bigot to believe that certain sexual activities were equal with others," Are you referring to HIV, primary infecting heterosexuals? Or HPV primarily infecting heterosexuals? Or are you promoting universal monogamous marriage since that largely protects everyone from both regardless of their gender combination?
You have come out against negatively grouping people - so all those who don't have these virii and are not engaging in activities that can transmit them aren't who you are talking about, right? Isn't that the majority of people, gay or straight?
A bigot when presenting his rationalizations usually isn't logically consistent since his bigotry really isn't based on the rationalizations he is presenting, e.g. Archie Bunker.
And finally as to 'accepting my understanding of religion' no, its just shouldn't you be open to the possibility a different interpretation is a better one? You run into many fundamentalists who are like the author I mentioned - they are so wrapped up in a laundry list of do's and don'ts that they seem to think are unquestionable that they have lost the truly important directives per the biographies quoting the person they purport to worship.
Of course you can believe as you want, this is the USA - handle snakes for all I care. But my wishing you wouldn't, trying to convince you don't have to, my refusing to do so myself and thinking the government shouldn't act as if that is the only way to be is NOT bigotry.
kookoo Osh.
You are mistating your case . You want the Marriage laws to be changed . You do not want the numbers of people allowed to change , just the change of same sex be allowed .You want a CHANGE in laws that are limited to your needs . that is not the issue , but you are unable to admit you are discriminating in your own views to say anothers with more then one partner . Bi sexuals orienation for instance to be sexually satisfied and emotionally some claim the case of needing a realtionship with both genders to be a complete person . That opinion in a debate has as much right as yours or mine . Thats the bigotry I see in your point . You never call your self a bigot ? Your no different then anyone else , you have a set of values , you have reached your conclussiion through your life experiences and your intellect . You believe we have a government which has a sets of laws that protects individual rights , and allows contracts , you fail to see any other point but the contract you wish .. You can not understand anothers point .. I totally understand yours . Or I get the main point . You feel you have no choice , hetrosexual marriage is not for you . You are only attracted to the same sex , and you lover your partner and you feel its unfair that hetrosexuals can get married and you can't / Is that it basically ?
You fail to understand why some people may see your concern for fairness disingenious when you ridicule religions , other views , use bigot and such for deabting tactics . Just as Christians fail to understand why homosexuals may be a bit on edge when CNBC makes sure we all hear Pat Robertson ,or others who I believe is a Christian , who talks without thinking , saying some pretty nasty stuff about homosexuals . Either in retort or from origination , in either case , its not a healthy debate ...
You also claim to have a religion , you seem to know the Bible but it appears to be more as a debating knowledge instead of a fullfillment knowledge and relationship help with your maker . Thats my two cents and an opinion . If you disagree with that it does not make you a bigot .
I would say you are discriminating as I am against that multi partner relationship , I am discriminating againt it , as you are , There is no difference in logic or my views why I disagree with same sex or polygamy .. Possible different specfic points , but the over all One man one woman , children needing both a Mother and Father for examples , emotional and what each gender can offer to that child is impossible to understate in importance . There are studies that confirm it , I can share them with you , if you choose to ignore them or show studies that confirm your point of view as more reliable , that is normal ..
.
You as of now have the same possibiliteis then anyone else in this country .
You are unsatisified with that , understandabaly because you do not find opposite sex attractive .
I see it differently and you can not accept that . I will see it different ind and if the law changes , and the people who differ with me are just that , differing . Big difference to me being unaware , then a bigot .
I have tried to work ith anologies , as it takes the emotional and narow mindness of how I see your view .. In fact your view is how many those of the right see the results of this issue , not the marriage , but the growing cultural dislike for the Judeo Christian ethic . You seem to think you can take the standards out of a culture and re align them at will , all of a sudden sex out of marriage is equal to marriage if your "sincere" .. Again , my view says that is not how it workd , You are not god , I am not , I have different life experiences then you and see things differently . I can try and put myself in your position , and you can have my empathy , perhaps if we were friends a stronger sense of empathy ,
There are many things in my life I don't see fair , we all feel that way .
Your belief that only a bigot would share my obligation as a citizen to vote against something I see as a detriment to our culture and country .
Once again , when I attended a college < NJ maybe this explains my spelling> one of the most meaningfull lectures I recall were four professors give separate lectures of FDR . I was an American Histoty buff , still am .
Only subject I ever got As in . At that time I had no real political views , except maybe I had thougth Nixon and Agnew were big time JERKs.
One lecture described FDR as a Hero , came at the right time and handled the most important times in World History as a Saint , saved the county by war and economy with his leadership .
One lecture from another professor using the "same facts" taught that FDR came upon a time in History that were Historical , he handled them efficiently , he as good president , but the times highlighted his Presidency , he was adequate , but no genius . One Professor using the "same Facts" explained how FDR almost blew it , he wasted the resources , took too long to get into the war , set up policies that have bankrupted the Treasury , was lucky Hitler ran out of men and supplies , mis handled Japanese diplomacy , etc etc .
The fourth Lecturer took a bit of each and tried to round it out , but still did have an opinion that was flattering but with reserve .
After each lecture I held that opionion till the next .. I was a bit young , and honestly my reading of American History , except perhaps On Lincoln which had progressed to learn many of his bad sides also, was a very polyanna view of American History . I was a clean slate I guess . But my point is , they all used facts , and I am not sure if that was their real opinions , but all their opinions could be taken as FACTS . No each one was not a bigot , they used the same facts , but their world views and importance that was in those views most likely had much in their opinions, ehh facts . That is what you seem to be doing with Homosexual Marriage . Where as I can understand your conviction , and I can understand your zealousness, but I do see a very narrow view. And you have proven to me , you have become what you hate . At Thanksgiving I sahre the Dinner Table with people with views that would support yours , I have a sister who marches in parades , but you know , none of them would mine having me say a prayer thanking the Lord Jesus Christ for all He has done for us .
Interesting to note, that the Dutch government, the unequalled most tolerant government on the earth, is seeking to outlaw burkas or other Muslim face veils in public places, which of course, conflicts with their religious freedom laws.
Total intolerance can never last. Every country has to have some standards. (nature abhors a vacumn)
Post a Comment
<< Home