Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[lilpixieofterror]

Growing up, I always thought some day I'd want to go to Denmark to see....

A) How you guys make such wonderful cookies
2) how you guys raise those canned pigs

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18072[/ATTACH]

I would add Lego's to that list too.

[Cow Poke]

I've got no issue with this, in the sense that if all you mean by this is that you think God's against it, then fine.

I do.

I regard that irrelevant to me...

Of course you do.

in the same sort of sense as if someone said to me "I don't think God wants me to eat pork, so I'm not going to eat pork because of it," I would shrug and move on. Ideally it shouldn't impact my life or anybody else's in any meaningful way. If they start saying that God's telling them to fly planes into buildings, that's another matter entirely.

So if you want to believe God is telling you not to get same-sex married, fine by me. I might question whether your interpretation of the bible is particularly good interpretation, but at the end of the day I'm not going to be worried too much if even if I think you've butchered the text and come up with a completely implausible interpretation.

Yes, everybody is aware of your thoughts on this. We've been over this again and again.

It's only when people start saying things like "you know what, not only am I not going to get same-sex married because I think God doesn't like it, I'm going to force everybody else not to do it either, regardless of their religion or lack of it. I'm going to enforce my religious views on those atheists. I'm also going to enforce it on the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews down the street, and also on those other Christians who's denomination thinks same-sex marriage is okay." When people start trying to force others to follow their religion, we start to have problems.

Obviously, Christians aren't forcing homosexuals not to marry.

I guess those Christians who think gay sex is sinful would think that. Those Christians that don't, presumably wouldn't.

Yeah, again with the same ol' same ol'.

You're going to have to explain this one to me. Most Christians generally think that even saved Christians are fairly sinful and sin every day. So all children, even those being raised in the absolute best Christian families have parents who sin regularly, and live in an environment where sin regularly happens.

This is a waste of time, because you're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.

[Starlight]

Obviously, Christians aren't forcing homosexuals not to marry.

This is a waste of time, because you're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.

I guess you've got no logic on this one.

[Cow Poke]

I guess you've got no logic on this one.

No, I just get tired of your same old crap.

[Jaecp]

Wait, they weren't?

I must have hallucinated all those civil rights events I participated in.

[Starlight]

Wait, they weren't?

I must have hallucinated all those civil rights events I participated in.

Christians never actually opposed same sex marriage, Jaecp, it's just a liberal conspiracy like the idea that they supported slavery.

Probably CP's just trolling me, he seems to like doing that of late.

[Tassman]

Post #489 is deadly serious....

I believe homosexuality is a sin. (not just having homosexual thoughts or tendencies, but acting on them)

When two homosexuals commit to "marriage", how can that NOT be considered by Christians to be a declaration of intent to continue in sin.

Why, on God's green earth, would I want children raised in that kind of environment?

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/t...sbian-parents/

[Cow Poke]

Well, gee, THANKS, Tazzy. But, I kinda already knew that!

[Cow Poke]

Christians never actually opposed same sex marriage, Jaecp, it's just a liberal conspiracy like the idea that they supported slavery.

Probably CP's just trolling me, he seems to like doing that of late.

I'm just tired of your hate, Star. You're boring.

[One Bad Pig]

Wait, they weren't?

I must have hallucinated all those civil rights events I participated in.

Running with a nonsensical misreading of someone's post rather than asking for clarification. Awesome sauce.

[Adrift]

I guess you've got no logic on this one.

Wait, they weren't?

I must have hallucinated all those civil rights events I participated in.

I'm assuming what CP meant was that Christians were not preventing homosexuals from getting married in the same sense that heterosexuals were allowed to get married. Marriage being defined as that institution where members of the opposite sex are recognized by the state as being in union with one another. Homosexuals could get married to those of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals could. No rights were denied them. The argument against same sex marriage is that same sex marriage affords homosexuals a new and different right, a right otherwise unknown. The argument is that this was contrary to the then conventional definition of marriage making it a sort of Marriage 2.0.

Personally, I believe that the concept of marriage as understood by Christians should separate itself entirely from its now secular meaning. Anyone can get a piece of paper from the state saying that it recognizes a contract between couples for legal reasons, but I believe that "Christian marriage" should be something that is wholly independent of the state. Something that is done within the church, and is only recognized by the church.

That said, I think it's unrealistic, and a bit silly to expect any large group of people to vote contrary to their morals, beliefs, and overall worldview. If you lived in a state made up primarily of vegans, no matter how unfair you might think it is to your fellow meat eaters, it's not unreasonable to expect that state to pass laws banning the sale of meat. In fact, it would be bizarre if they didn't pass such laws. So, I find this complaining about laws created and passed by the majority of the people living within a democracy strange. Unless you live in some sort of libertarian/anarchist paradise, there will always be laws that will impact our lives in some meaningful way. There will always be laws that will be contrary to what some people feel they should freely be able to do or get away with. There's no getting around that. Not that Starlight should be complaining anyways. He lives on the other side of the world in what he describes is already a secular paradise.

Christians in the West, even though they are still supposedly in the majority, are slowly being needled out of the picture, and their voice is being taken away. I think there's plenty of good that can come out of this though. The chaff is burning away and those who were Christian in name only are being exposed for who they are. As the Western world becomes more secular it is becoming darker, and in the darkness the light of Christ grows ever brighter. Christians have lived through and survived these periods of darkness on a number occasions. The early church had little voice, yet spread quickly through the empire because their behavior was radically different from the world they lived in, and men and women were drawn to this Christ-given sense of morality, love, and spirituality like moths to a flame. In this new empire Christians should strive for a new monastic way of living with marks like sharing resources with the needy, hospitality to strangers, healing of racial divisions, support for celibate singleness and monogamous opposite sex marriage, care for our environment, support for the right to life especially of the unborn and the innocent, peacemaking and conflict resolution, commitment to a prayerful and Biblically studious life, and humble submission to our lord Christ Jesus.

Most reassuring is that the days growing darker portents the return of Christ where all knees shall bow, and we won't have these sorts of debates any longer.

[Leonhard]

Personally, I believe that the concept of marriage as understood by Christians should separate itself entirely from its now secular meaning.

I agree. Its the move Bishop Chezlaw Kozon, who's bishop over the danish diocese wants to make for many reasons among those you've already mentioned.

[Cow Poke]

I'm assuming what CP meant was that Christians were not preventing homosexuals from getting married in the same sense that heterosexuals were allowed to get married. Marriage being defined as that institution where members of the opposite sex are recognized by the state as being in union with one another. Homosexuals could get married to those of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals could. No rights were denied them. The argument against same sex marriage is that same sex marriage affords homosexuals a new and different right, a right otherwise unknown. The argument is that this was contrary to the then conventional definition of marriage making it a sort of Marriage 2.0.

Personally, I believe that the concept of marriage as understood by Christians should separate itself entirely from its now secular meaning. Anyone can get a piece of paper from the state saying that it recognizes a contract between couples for legal reasons, but I believe that "Christian marriage" should be something that is wholly independent of the state. Something that is done within the church, and is only recognized by the church.

That said, I think it's unrealistic, and a bit silly to expect any large group of people to vote contrary to their morals, beliefs, and overall worldview. If you lived in a state made up primarily of vegans, no matter how unfair you might think it is to your fellow meat eaters, it's not unreasonable to expect that state to pass laws banning the sale of meat. In fact, it would be bizarre if they didn't pass such laws. So, I find this complaining about laws created and passed by the majority of the people living within a democracy strange. Unless you live in some sort of libertarian/anarchist paradise, there will always be laws that will impact our lives in some meaningful way. There will always be laws that will be contrary to what some people feel they should freely be able to do or get away with. There's no getting around that. Not that Starlight should be complaining anyways. He lives on the other side of the world in what he describes is already a secular paradise.

Christians in the West, even though they are still supposedly in the majority, are slowly being needled out of the picture, and their voice is being taken away. I think there's plenty of good that can come out of this though. The chaff is burning away and those who were Christian in name only are being exposed for who they are. As the Western world becomes more secular it is becoming darker, and in the darkness the light of Christ grows ever brighter. Christians have lived through and survived these periods of darkness on a number occasions. The early church had little voice, yet spread quickly through the empire because their behavior was radically different from the world they lived in, and men and women were drawn to this Christ-given sense of morality, love, and spirituality like moths to a flame. In this new empire Christians should strive for a new monastic way of living with marks like sharing resources with the needy, hospitality to strangers, healing of racial divisions, support for celibate singleness and monogamous opposite sex marriage, care for our environment, support for the right to life especially of the unborn and the innocent, peacemaking and conflict resolution, commitment to a prayerful and Biblically studious life, and humble submission to our lord Christ Jesus.

Most reassuring is that the days growing darker portents the return of Christ where all knees shall bow, and we won't have these sorts of debates any longer.

Pretty much, yeah... I just don't have the time or patience right now to deal with Star's bigotry and hate.

[Tassman]

Well, gee, THANKS, Tazzy. But, I kinda already knew that!

But what you "kinda already" DON'T seem to know is that you're NOT entitled to prevent those who disagree with you about homosexuality from acting on it.

[Tassman]

I'm assuming what CP meant was that Christians were not preventing homosexuals from getting married in the same sense that heterosexuals were allowed to get married. Marriage being defined as that institution where members of the opposite sex are recognized by the state as being in union with one another. Homosexuals could get married to those of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals could. No rights were denied them. The argument against same sex marriage is that same sex marriage affords homosexuals a new and different right, a right otherwise unknown. The argument is that this was contrary to the then conventional definition of marriage making it a sort of Marriage 2.0.

Under the new definition of marriage heterosexuals can get married to those of the same sex, no rights are being denied you.

Most reassuring is that the days growing darker portents the return of Christ where all knees shall bow, and we won't have these sorts of debates any longer.

Dream on.........