In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.
Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.
Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?
The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda
Moderator: Moderators
Post #161
[Replying to Danmark]
dan posted:
shnarkle: Well if we're looking at purpose, then I would have to agree. However, some have argued that since over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, why not let homosexuals have a go at it? Maybe they can do a better job? Perhaps they can, but there is also the argument that a child should have a mother and a father, and that would be the ideal situation to raise children. However, that isn't the case anymore as over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce so who's to say that having two parents of the same gender may not be more beneficial than one?
------------------------------
dan posted:
dan posted:
I fail to see how heterosexual marriage, or the current status of it whether good or bad, has anything to do with same sex marriage.
shnarkle: Well if we're looking at purpose, then I would have to agree. However, some have argued that since over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, why not let homosexuals have a go at it? Maybe they can do a better job? Perhaps they can, but there is also the argument that a child should have a mother and a father, and that would be the ideal situation to raise children. However, that isn't the case anymore as over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce so who's to say that having two parents of the same gender may not be more beneficial than one?
------------------------------
dan posted:
shnarkle: People get married for any number of varied reasons, but the primary reason throughout history has been for the purpose of reproducing and raising healthy well balanced children. Children that then grow into healthy productive members of society. Again, the word comes from a Latin word that means "to impregnate".I assume that same sex marriages occur for the same reasons opposite sex marriages occur.
Post #162
shnarkle: So let's see. Just what is the implication of the article, and why are you asking for the feelings of Christians? Obviously gay marriage doesn't cause disasters. Perhaps we could put your shoe on the other foot. Let's take the example of what happened when gay men started dropping like flies back in the 80's. Do you remember the panic that ensued? Do you remember the news stories from the San Francisco bay area? If you were to ask ANY homosexual in San Francisco back then if they would like to see marriage extended to gay men, they would have looked at you as if you were crazy. Not because they didn't have the right to marry, but most certainly because they had no desire to marry. Ten years later the epidemic was still going strong and had little or no effect in changing the behavior of many gay men. Does this mean all gay men are completely insane? Of course not. Just the one's who don't care that they're behavior could result in their inevitable death. Just the one's who don't care that they are spreading a deadly virus. Just the ones that want to get this deadly virus. The rest took precautions.KCKID wrote: While perhaps more a Current Affair item I present the below news article on this present 'gay themed' thread since it is relative to the subject. It's things such as this, i.e. absurdities from those that should know better, that might lead to vitriol from pro-gay supporters. How do some of the Christians on the forum feel about news articles such as this one?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/20860008 ... or-floods/
The article you posted makes Christians look silly. That's the intent of the article, but by the same token the "AIDS epidemic that took place made homosexuals look like degenerate morons with no inclination of self preservation whatsoever. The backlash was wholesale fear. Whose to blame??? I blame the media for spreading misinformation. There are still people who think that you can catch AID's from a gay person by just touching anything that they touched or may have handled.
Post #163
shnarkle wrote:KCKID wrote: While perhaps more a Current Affair item I present the below news article on this present 'gay themed' thread since it is relative to the subject. It's things such as this, i.e. absurdities from those that should know better, that might lead to vitriol from pro-gay supporters. How do some of the Christians on the forum feel about news articles such as this one?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/20860008 ... or-floods/Why not? What this politician is saying is the viewpoint of many Christians, I would suspect.shnarkle wrote:So let's see. Just what is the implication of the article, and why are you asking for the feelings of Christians?
Certainly not the viewpoint of some, perhaps even many, Christians. You're right, though, and I would trust that common sense reasoning prevails with the majority of Christians.shnarkle wrote:Obviously gay marriage doesn't cause disasters.
Thanks for the response. Your point is well taken.shnarkle wrote:Perhaps we could put your shoe on the other foot. Let's take the example of what happened when gay men started dropping like flies back in the 80's. Do you remember the panic that ensued? Do you remember the news stories from the San Francisco bay area? If you were to ask ANY homosexual in San Francisco back then if they would like to see marriage extended to gay men, they would have looked at you as if you were crazy. Not because they didn't have the right to marry, but most certainly because they had no desire to marry. Ten years later the epidemic was still going strong and had little or no effect in changing the behavior of many gay men. Does this mean all gay men are completely insane? Of course not. Just the one's who don't care that they're behavior could result in their inevitable death. Just the one's who don't care that they are spreading a deadly virus. Just the ones that want to get this deadly virus. The rest took precautions.
The article you posted makes Christians look silly. That's the intent of the article, but by the same token the "AIDS epidemic that took place made homosexuals look like degenerate morons with no inclination of self preservation whatsoever. The backlash was wholesale fear. Whose to blame??? I blame the media for spreading misinformation. There are still people who think that you can catch AID's from a gay person by just touching anything that they touched or may have handled.
