The Supreme Court And Redefining Marriage

[Cow Poke]

Anyways, I never demanded you do anything, or even came close to it. I just pointed out the curious lacking of passion on other issues in this country doing far more damage to what YOU say is Gods creation, while going after an activity you can't even get the dictionary definition of correct. But you do whatever it is you do that feeds your sense of righteousness.

Ah, come on, SoR, you were hounding me about marching in the streets.... that's just not my bag. I'm into actually DOING stuff that affects a solution, not just carrying signs around.

And don't refer to people in anonymous tones like we don't know who you're talking about, it makes you look cowardly.

Well, if everybody knows who I was talking about, and I have no trouble whatsoever owning up to it, how can that possibly make me look cowardly?

HEY EVERYBODY --- SoR was the "less impressive colleague" I was referencing!!!!!!!

[fm93]

I don't care.

You just want to make misinformed posts and not have to answer to them?

You weren't breastfed, where you fm?

Can you please post the Bible verses that showed that Jesus "showed love" - I mean - he stood up to the bad guys

That would be exactly what I meant by "showing love." Hence why I said "he first showed love BY DEFENDING HER."

but it's not like he hung out with her, or had any appreciable discussion with her.

I don't believe people HAVE to do that, but it would be good, even preferable, if they did.

I mean, I posted such a simple principle--that when a person is facing injustice and is in need of help, people should defend him/her against injustice and provide help. The church has often failed on even that point. Many don't bother correcting false and slanderous reports about homosexuality and homosexuals--they not only fail to stop such injustice, they actively propagate it. Correcting that injustice involves education, which best comes from having personal discussions with gay people.

Additionally, the church has been far too quiet in drawing compassionate attention to problems such as the rate of homeless gay youths who were rejected and disowned by their own parents. Those are issues with which people need help, and for the church to provide help might in such cases involve taking them in or putting them under another's home.

[whag]

I really wish you anti-Christian bigots would stop calling us "anti-homosexuals".

If you stop using the same invective, we may be able to see your point. Setting the example is hard, but no one ever said that being a good Christian is easy.

[JimL]

I really wish you anti-Christian bigots would stop calling us "anti-homosexuals".

Actually i was talking with mossrose not you CP. But if the truth hurts, maybe you should examine your beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

If you stop using the same invective, we may be able to see your point. Setting the example is hard, but no one ever said that being a good Christian is easy.

I'm being facetious, Whag. Good Christians can be ornery, too! And I seriously doubt you'll see the point, but let's give it a try.

Do you intend to stop calling us anti-gay and anti-homosexual?

[Cow Poke]

Actually i was talking with mossrose not you CP. But if the truth hurts, maybe you should examine your beliefs.

Well, yeah, JimL, but you were doing it in PUBLIC. And WHAT truth hurts? I'm talking about your lie that we're "anti-homosexuals". That's just dumb.

[fm93]

If you stop using the same invective, we may be able to see your point. Setting the example is hard, but no one ever said that being a good Christian is easy.

It might be a believable excuse, if not for the fact that I was labeled as well, despite not calling anyone anti-homosexual and clearly not being anti-Christian.

[JimL]

Well, yeah, JimL, but you were doing it in PUBLIC. And WHAT truth hurts? I'm talking about your lie that we're "anti-homosexuals". That's just dumb.

Did I say that you were anti-homosexual CP, or that all christians are anti-homosexual? No, as I said i was talking to mossrose who from our discussion is admittedly anti-homosexual. But since when did you become pro-homosexual? You approve of homosexuality? Can't wait to hear this rationalization?

[whag]

I'm being facetious, Whag. Good Christians can be ornery, too! And I seriously doubt you'll see the point, but let's give it a try.

Do you intend to stop calling us anti-gay and anti-homosexual?

Sure, I can see your point. I'll try to tone down my language, as well, so it doesn't look like I hate Christianity or Christians.

[Cow Poke]

Did I say that you were anti-homosexual CP, or that all christians are anti-homosexual?

You don't know?

But since when did you become pro-homosexual?

Tis a tiny mind that jumps to these false dichotomies, sir. Because I am not anti-homosexual does not mean that I am pro-homosexual. That's just really really dumb to come to that conclusion.

You approve of homosexuality?

No sir - I am quite clearly anti-homosexuality. I believe it's a sin, and God condemns it.

Can't wait to hear this rationalization?

A homosexual is a person, JimL. Homosexuality is a sin. As you may remember, my executive admin for 10 years was a lesbian atheist Jew, and we got along just fine. She knew I believed homosexuality was a sin, and that I was "anti-homosexuality", but she also knew that I treated her with more respect and consideration than she (initially) treated me. (She eventually joined my fan club )

[Cow Poke]

Sure, I can see your point. I'll try to tone down my language, as well, so it doesn't look like I hate Christianity or Christians.

Wow. Cool.

And I'll be clear - I'm only pulling your chain when I call you (or your colleagues) anti-Christian bigots. (Though I DO have to wonder why you come to our house to pick fights with Christians - I'm guessing it's not because you love us and want to win our hearts and minds. )

[Cow Poke]

Did I say that you were anti-homosexual CP, or that all christians are anti-homosexual? No, as I said i was talking to mossrose who from our discussion is admittedly anti-homosexual. But since when did you become pro-homosexual? You approve of homosexuality? Can't wait to hear this rationalization?

Can't you ever just be nice and polite? Do you always have to do this "smart alek" routine?

[Jedidiah]

I make an effort to communicate clearly, and people regularly compliment me on the clarity of my posts.

So in your proposal, all the religious people would have 'marriage', including gay people who were religious, except for the atheists who wouldn't have 'marriage' and would only have 'civil unions'? I don't understand the motivation for doing that... the only purpose of that would then seem to be to try and discriminate against atheists.

Nothing. As I've said, marriage is the historic English term for the state-recognized ceremony, and religious people are totally free to come up with a new term or phrase for their own religious ceremony to suit themselves.

What about the State getting completely out of the marriage game? Some of us have advocated that for years.

[JimL]

You don't know?

Of course I know, I wasn't even talking to you, or about you.

Tis a tiny mind that jumps to these false dichotomies, sir. Because I am not anti-homosexual does not mean that I am pro-homosexual. That's just really really dumb to come to that conclusion.

What are you then CP, Neutral homosexual?

No sir - I am quite clearly anti-homosexuality. I believe it's a sin, and God condemns it.

Then CP, if you are anti-homosexuality you are also anti-homosexual.

A homosexual is a person, JimL. Homosexuality is a sin. As you may remember, my executive admin for 10 years was a lesbian atheist Jew, and we got along just fine. She knew I believed homosexuality was a sin, and that I was "anti-homosexuality", but she also knew that I treated her with more respect and consideration than she (initially) treated me. (She eventually joined my fan club )

So let me get this straight then, you believe that a homosexual nature is a natural condition, but that acting in accordance with ones nature, aka homosexuality, is a sin? Me thinks you are attempting to play semantical games here CP.

[Cow Poke]

Of course I know, I wasn't even talking to you, or about you.

You sound just like my mother-in-law. Do you have to be so snitty?

What are you then CP, Neutral homosexual?

I guess I would say I am agnostic-homosexual. Until I meet the person, how do I know if I'm for or against them?

Then CP, if you are anti-homosexuality you are also anti-homosexual.

No, that's just dumb. Homosexuality is a sin - I'm anti-sin. A homosexual is a sinner, for whom Christ died to save. Jesus came to seek and to save them which were lost, including homosexuals.

So let me get this straight then, you believe that a homosexual nature is natural condition,

No, I believe it's unnatural, as clearly pointed out by Paul the Apostle --- "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another... So, no, it's silly to say that I believe a "homosexual nature" is a natural condition.

but that acting in accordance with ones nature, aka homosexuality, is a sin?

Well, Paul talks a lot about that too... the "natural man" -- there's God's design and purpose, then there's the "natural man", which describes somebody rejecting God's plan. 1 Cor 2:14 - “A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised”.


"Natural" is not always good, Jim. Rattlesnake venom is natural, as are volcanoes, and horsie poo....

Me thinks

Ah, come on, Jim --- SMART people say that!

you are attempting to play semantical games here CP.

Well, speaking of semantics, "semantical" is a nonstandard variant of "semantic", and not used in most dictionaries. But it's no game, Jim --- I am anti-homosexuality, but ... let's call it agnostic-homosexual.

(you really do remind me of my mother-in-law )