Homosexuality is detrimental and ultimately destructive

[Witsec7]

I'm gonna get this out of the way now, since I want to take some time prepare dinner and watch the primary returns. I seriously doubt the troll will reply to my post.

[CC3]

Yes, that's exactly right. Do what you want in your own church, home, and bedroom; keep your opinions to yourself when it comes to others and their homes and bedrooms.

I suppose I should have added my intended sarcasm.

[Maul the Koala]

I'm gonna get this out of the way now, since I want to take some time prepare dinner and watch the primary returns. I seriously doubt the troll will reply to my post.

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I am made of cake and insulted to be compared to this other troll.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

I don't think that CC3's interpretation of the bible is correct but if it is - then it is just one more reason for me to never ever even consider worshiping her/his god.Based on her/his comments her/his god sounds like an asshole. Frankly I can not imagine how anyone would want to worship a god that was so cruel as to create queer people and then turn around and offer those people nothing but hate. A god like that does not deserve worship IMO.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

This is why I'm so comfortable as an atheist. Because even if any of the major "gods" swooped down from the skies and somehow provided me with irrefutable proof of their existence, I'd spit in the creature's face. I'd rather risk eternity in hell, thankyouvermuch, than live without integrity.

Though CC3's interpretation may very well be correct because the xtian "god" I've heard/read about is a cruel son of a bitch. You need to look no farther than this thread, with stoning references and whatnot, to see so.

[QAF_Rocks]

Let me get this straight. I should not campaign for what I think is right if it disagrees with your opinion or lifestyle.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to force your religious views on others by inserting them into civil marriage laws. Religious freedom doesn't mean that you can use the government to inflict your beliefs on everyone else in society. If you don't like same-sex couples, just ignore them. You don't have to accept them. No one's telling you that you have to invite them into your home or welcome them into your church.

If my religion told me that women must wear skirts and dresses in public, it's not okay for me to try to pass laws forbidding women from wearing pants. Why? Because we do not live in a theocracy and I have no right to make everyone else follow my religious prohibitions. You would not be happy if it was some other religion trying to legislate what you can and cannot do.

I don't like Christianity. I think it's a false and immoral belief system. However, I don't use my dislike of your religion as an excuse to persecute Christian people. I'm not trying to stop Christian couples from getting married. I'm not trying to stop them from adopting children. I'm not trying to shut down their churches or religious schools. What Christians do is their business. I do not have the right to use government force to stop them from practicing their religion.

[Guest Anonymous]

I never said one thing about having to adjust or mourn the loss if my kid was gay. Ridiculous.

She had you mixed up with a different homophobe, and she acknowledged that she was mistaken before this comment.

Since you don't like it when people accuse you of doing things that you didn't do, maybe you can clear up why you said that I was twisting God's words. And address my previous posts.

[CC3]

Quoting this in hopes that CC3 will answer. And remember, people who get divorced because their spouse is beating them aren't obeying the Bible. So CC3, are you fully supporting and trying to get laws to mandate abused women get the divorces from abusive exes invalidated so that they can obey the Bible?[/quote

While that's a very interesting (bolded) question, I would like to ask one as well. How would I even know why someone got divorced? As it stands now, my husband and I are working preventative measures through education. The only people ever personally confronted by me about their living arrangements were couples in premarital classes. The confrontation is not to produce guilt or shame but to educate. Most couples in our classes have not read what the Bible says about marriage. The couples we counsel are not in leadership positions. Lastly, I belong to an evangelical church, so no gay couples could hold leadership positions. We do have gay people who attend some of our outreach ministries such as those grieving loved ones or fighting substance abuse.

[browngrl]

As usual, Michael K of Dlisted has le mot juste : "When are we going to get to the part when some Craigslist hustler is on the cover of The National Enquirer talking about how he gave Kirk Cameron a real growing pain. That moment is inevitable and I, for one, can't wait." quoted from his March 3 post (I do not have the computer skills to imbed this )

dlisted.com/node?page=2

edited to break link - but I doubt he (Michael not Kirk) would care

[CC3]

She had you mixed up with a different homophobe, and she acknowledged that she was mistaken before this comment.

Since you don't like it when people accuse you of doing things that you didn't do, maybe you can clear up why you said that I was twisting God's words. And address my previous posts.

Lissar, she actually went back and edited her comment before my reply. I've never seen anyone do that before.

[debrand]

I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square

I am getting sick of people screaming that their right ot free speech is destroyed because someone reacts to something that they said. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reaction. If no one is allowed to disagree with Kirk, we do not have freedom of speech. We live in a world where Kirk has all the power because he can speak without anyone responding to him. Luckily, we don't live in Cameron's World.

No one has said that Kirk needs to be quiet in the public square. It is only his own fault that his argument is so logically crappy that he can't defend it.

We should send him some sort of cry baby award.

[formergothardite]

Quoting this in hopes that CC3 will answer. And remember, people who get divorced because their spouse is beating them aren't obeying the Bible. So CC3, are you fully supporting and trying to get laws to mandate abused women get the divorces from abusive exes invalidated so that they can obey the Bible?[/quote

While that's a very interesting (bolded) question, I would like to ask one as well. How would I even know why someone got divorced? As it stands now, my husband and I are working preventative measures through education. The only people ever personally confronted by me about their living arrangements were couples in premarital classes. The confrontation is not to produce guilt or shame but to educate. Most couples in our classes have not read what the Bible says about marriage. The couples we counsel are not in leadership positions. Lastly, I belong to an evangelical church, so no gay couples could hold leadership positions. We do have gay people who attend some of our outreach ministries such as those grieving loved ones or fighting substance abuse.

Well, since you are all big on getting the government into people's private lives, I would assume that you would be advocating for laws that require strict proof of adultry before approving a divorce. Having your spouse beat you almost to death wouldn't be an approved Bible way for divorce.

Why is your church strict on gay couples not being able to lead/teach but not on divorced/remarried couples? It only makes sense that you would question a divorced/remarried person on their background before allowing them to serve in the church. Why doesn't your church do this?

Also, you managed to not really answer the question: Are you going to actively try and get laws that would prevent all divorces that are not Biblical and disolve all current divorces/remarriages that are not Biblical? And that includes women who left men who abused them.

[formergothardite]

And by the way, I find the fundie, let me try and avoid answering your questions by asking questions that I hope will distract from my non-answers, highly annoying.

Also, CC3, if gay marriage is legal, how exactly will that mess up your marriage?

[QAF_Rocks]

Also, CC3, if gay marriage is legal, how exactly will that mess up your marriage?

CC3, I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

[CC3]

Well, since you are all big on getting the government into people's private lives, I would assume that you would be advocating for laws that require strict proof of adultry before approving a divorce. Having your spouse beat you almost to death wouldn't be an approved Bible way for divorce.

Why is your church strict on gay couples not being able to lead/teach but not on divorced/remarried couples? It only makes sense that you would question a divorced/remarried person on their background before allowing them to serve in the church. Why doesn't your church do this?

Also, you managed to not really answer the question: Are you going to actively try and get laws that would prevent all divorces that are not Biblical and disolve all current divorces/remarriages that are not Biblical? And that includes women who left men who abused them.

You cannot be in leadership if you were divorced after you became a Christian for any reasons other than infidelity or abuse.

[formergothardite]

Still not answering the question. And abuse is not a biblical reason for divorce.

Here is the question, stop trying to avoid answering.

Are you going to actively try and get laws that would prevent all divorces that are not Biblical and disolve all current divorces/remarriages that are not Biblical? And that includes women who left men who abused them

[formergothardite]

If your church gives an exception for abuse, then they are no more following the Bible than churches that encourage gay marriage.

[CC3]

If your church gives an exception for abuse, then they are no more following the Bible than churches that encourage gay marriage.

Would you prefer common sense be thrown out the window?

[formergothardite]

Would you prefer common sense be thrown out the window?

I'm sorry, I thought you only wanted Biblical marriage/divorce. Is that not so, you don't want to obey what the Bible says when it comes to marriage?

And you still didn't answer the question.

[formergothardite]

I mean, common sense says that gay people should be able to be married, but you are agaisnt it because you claimed to follow the Bible when it comes to marriage.

[CC3]

I mean, common sense says that gay people should be able to be married, but you are agaisnt it because you claimed to follow the Bible when it comes to marriage.

You and I have different takes on common sense, but not for divorcing for spousal abuse.

[Guest Anonymous]

You and I have different takes on common sense, but not for divorcing for spousal abuse.

So you're fine with not following the Bible when it suits you.

[holierthanyou]

Would you prefer common sense be thrown out the window?

Uh, I was under the impression that was your argument.

[formergothardite]

But why is it that you don't want to obey the Bible when it comes to divorce? Why do you want to give non-Bible approved exceptions, yet won't do that for gay marriage? And why do you go out of your way to avoid answering questions?

You can start with how gay marriage will mess up your life and then perhaps move onto if you are advocating making divorce for non-biblical (and of course YOUR approved exceptions, not God's, but apparently He lacked common sense when writing the rules for divorce) reasons illegal and invalidating all divorces that are not Bible approved.

[PennySycamore]

CC3,

I noticed that in previous post you said that you'd watched the film J. Edgar. You were aware, weren't you, that Mr. Hoover was almost certainly gay himself? He lived with Clyde Tolson for years and they are buried side-by-side in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington DC. There are also many tales of Mr. Hoover cross-dressing . The most hilarious of the incidents is relates by Tim Gunn where he and his sister were asked if they'd like to meet Vivian Vance while on their annual tour of the FBI building. They went into the director's office, met someone who looked a lot like Viv, but the director was nowhere to be seen! Tim found no evidence that Miss Vance and Mr. Hoover ever met, but darnit. did they look enough alike.

[celestial]

Would you prefer common sense be thrown out the window?

So if it's down to making decisions based on common sense, not based on the Bible, who's to say your common sense is better than mine? My common sense tells me I should be able to marry the woman that I love.