Will Christians be protected from Gay social goals?

[Mere_Christian]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

[micatala]

What is "decent morality"?

Mother, father, their children, as the best idea of family.
[quote]

No one is keeping you from practicing this morality as you wish. Gays have no social goal to keep you from doing this.

It seems to me that you want to provide the definition (apparently based on your interpretation of the Bible) and then force the rest of the world to fall in line.

I just want to stop the insanity of licentiousness being considered a civil right and pop culture with honor.

You are free to express your opinion.

The constitution guarantees both you and those who have other religious views freedom of religion. Why should you be allowed to impose your religious views on others?

I personally cannot see how two people loving each other and wanting to make a life commitment to each other can ever be considered indecent.

It eliminates the opposition to bathroom and other public sex as a hate crime. From gay marriage we will have a furtehr celebration of anything goes. All the way down to Kindergarten Drag Queens.

This may not sound ridiculous to you, but nearly everyone else reading will see it as such.

Does allowing to heterosexual people to get married and have sex automatically lead to people having sex in public? Does it lead to kindergartners parading around like Britney Spears or Tyra Banks?

No of course not. Your statements are nothing more than empty scare tactics.

What I do see as indecent is labeling an entire segment of the population as second-class citizens and denying them the rights taken for granted by everyone else.

Marriage as a man and a woman is decent and moral.

I agree it is moral for men and women to marry.

It is not the fault of any straight person that a homosexual was born the way they are.

Yes? So? It is not the gay person's choice either. What does this have to do with Gay social goals?

Your hand-washing analogy is very telling of your attitude. Homosexuality is not a virus, and it isn't "catching"!

Mmm, yeah. Lindey Lohan et al. Gay sex is a fad in our public schools now. We're headed backwards to ancient Greece.

Truly astonishing.

Is this statement actually meant to reflect reality in any way? Are you at all concerned that your arguments seemed to be based largely upon fantasies rather than reality?


Can you document wide spread cases of sex of ANY kind in public schools now. How many instances can you cite of gay sex occurring within schools in the last 12 months????

[kayky]

Is Christianity and hatred compatible???

[JoeyKnothead]

Is Christianity and hatred compatible???

Compatible? They often seem one and the same.

>edit to add:
My evidence for my opinion is Fred Phelps and that bunch.

[r~]

There is no male or female in the spirit of Christ.
What goes into a body does not make it unclean, but what comes out of the mouth reveals an unclean spirit.
Do not cast stony Words at other sinners.
Forgive and you will be forgiven.
Judge and condemn and you will be judged and condemned in measure.

Only those that cloak their mark in the Name of Christ need fear these social goals.
Christians ItS find rebirth in the spirit of equality and liberty and justice for all .

I am
ItS
r~

[Cathar1950]

Once gay marriage is legalized in most states and forced on those that will not legalize it by the power of Democrat majority in Congress, how will Christians be protected from Gay Activists desiring to force Gay Culture and gay sex on every aspect of Christian life?

Here I am reading some post where the poster is making claims that reflect their own behaviours and not those that they claim are forcing Gay culture upon the helpless Christians. It isn't the Christian, not all Christians are opposed to the Gay marriage any more then just Democrats are for it. Gay sex is irrelevant.

[cnorman18]

From everything I've seen, "gay social goals" consist of the desire to be treated like anyone else and not subjected to discrimination and bigotry, and to be allowed to live their lives in freedom, security and peace. The right to be married, to raise a family, and to pursue the profession of one's choice would seem to me to be part of that.

I fail to see why Christians or anyone else would need "protection" from those goals.

What appears to need "protection" are the "rights" to preach prejudice and discrimination, to spread misinformation, mythology and outright lies, and to implicitly condone bigotry, violence and hatred.

I'm not so sure that sort of speech ought to be protected. In another century, all of those "rights" were directed at Jews.

To make this perfectly clear: I see no moral difference between declaring that gays routinely recruit and debauch children and declaring that Jews routinely murder them and drink their blood. Both are blatant untruths intended to foster and inflame unjustified outrage and hate.

[Mere_Christian]

Is Christianity and hatred compatible???

No. Hatred of people is incompatible with "Christianity."

The exact same way that gay marriage (gay culture) and Christianity are not compatible.

Refer to the preaching and teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. In the work known as the New Testament.

[Mere_Christian]

From everything I've seen, "gay social goals" consist of the desire to be treated like anyone else and not subjected to discrimination and bigotry, and to be allowed to live their lives in freedom, security and peace.

It appears to me, that recruiting people into Gay Culture is the main goal. Including many speaicla days in PUBLIC SCHOOLS to do that very thing.

Those that oppose this agenda are labeled and legislated into the hate crimes arena. There seems to be no choice given at all. Totalitarianism NOT from the right. As is the historical case.

The right to be married, to raise a family, and to pursue the profession of one's choice would seem to me to be part of that.

Whether it offends or discriminates against anyone else's life.

I fail to see why Christians or anyone else would need "protection" from those goals.

Homosexuality and the forced celebration of it is antithetical to Christian life. The pursuit of happiness of Christians is the ability to speak freely . . . according even to the Constitution of the United States. GLBT's and their support structure (Humanism-derived) have developed an extremely hostile world directed it appears to silencing the free speech of Christians and others that oppose the spread of a life and lifestyle that they have decided is immoral and repugnant.

What appears to need "protection" are the "rights" to preach prejudice and discrimination, to spread misinformation, mythology and outright lies, and to implicitly condone bigotry, violence and hatred.

There's THE EXAMPLE of denigrating Christians and even going so far as to implement the hatred of Christianity into law.

Logic and nature speak out against homosexuality and yet any person that dares speak out against Gay Goals is targeted, labeled and outlawed. Back to Sodom we go.

I'm not so sure that sort of speech ought to be protected. In another century, all of those "rights" were directed at Jews.

And overcome by reading the Bible as it was written and NOT allowing emotionalism drive political goals. Notice who the anti's are now. Look in the mirror for your start.

To make this perfectly clear: I see no moral difference between declaring that gays routinely recruit and debauch children and declaring that Jews routinely murder them and drink their blood.

Pederasty is in the history of homosexuality. An unescapable fact at the moment.

Jews never ate anyone's children, nor do any of their religious celebrations include the blood of human children.

Of course, the same cannot be said of liberalism.

Both are blatant untruths intended to foster and inflame unjustified outrage and hate.

And it took me just seconds to shatter your propaganda for the mistruth it is.

But, a set of social goals is showing.

[Mere_Christian]

The decay of a society is well-known throughout history. With the rise of debauchery and hedonism attached to the demise.

Really? Can you cite some bona fide historians?

It's tough to recall everything one reads.

Here's a work pointing the way to decadence* of society (a civilization) being its demise:

http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/sunic-spengler.php

Similarly, each culture undergoes various cycles or different historical "seasons": first appears the period of cultural blossoming or the spring-time of culture, followed by the period of maturation, which Spengler alternately calls summer or fall, and finally comes the period of decadence, which in Spengler's view is synonymous with "civilization." This "seasonal" flow of history is a predicament of all nations, although the historical timing of their decline varies with the virility of each nation, geographical area, or epoch. In the field of politics and statecraft, the process of decadence is very much the same. Thus, the closing years of the First World War witnessed the passing of the feudal rule of the landed aristocracy and the emergence of budding forms of parliamentary plutocracy - soon to be followed by the rise of rootless mobocracy and the "dictatorship of money" (2:633; 2:506). Undoubtedly Spengler was inspired by the works of Vilfredo Pareto and Gustave le Bon, who had earlier attempted to outline similar patterns of the rise and fall of political elites. In Pareto's and Le Bon's scheme, decadence sets in when the power elite no longer follows the established rule of social selection, and fails to identify internal and external enemies [4]. Once it becomes emasculated by economic affluence and debilitated by the belief in the boundless goodness of its political opponents, the elite has already signed its own obituary. In similar words, Spengler contends that the rise of Caesarism must be viewed as a natural fulfilment of the money-dictatorship as well as its dialectical removal: "The sword wins over money; the master-will conquers again the booty-will" (2:634; 2:506). Then a new cycle of history will begin, according to Spengler, although he remains silent about the main historical actors, their origins, and their goals.

Spengler was convinced, however, that the dynamics of decadence could be fairly well predicted, provided that exact historical data were available. Just as the biology of human beings generates a well-defined life span, resulting ultimately in biological death, so does each culture possess its own aging "data," normally lasting no longer than a thousand years - a period, separating its spring from its eventual historical antithesis, the winter, or civilization. The estimate of a thousand years before the decline of culture sets in, corresponds to Spengler's certitude that, after that period, each society has to face self-destruction. For example, after the fall of Rome, the rebirth of European culture started anew in the ninth century with the Carolingian dynasty. After the painful process of growth, self-assertiveness, and maturation, one thousand years later, in the twentieth century, cultural life in Europe is coming to its definite historical close.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

*decadence [deck-a-denss]
Noun
a decline in morality or culture [Medieval Latin decadentia a falling away]
decadent adj
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006

[Mere_Christian]

http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/sunic-spengler.php

And more on the totalitarianism we see rising from the Left. Though it may be life abundant for morally sound people . . . :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The fundamental issue, however, which Spengler and many other cultural pessimists do not seem to address, is whether Caesarism or totalitarianism represents the antithetical remedy to decadence or, rather, the most extreme form of decadence?

Current literature on totalitarianism seems to focus on the unpleasant side-effects of the bloated state, the absence of human rights, and the pervasive control of the police. By contrast, if liberal democracy is indeed a highly desirable and the least repressive system of all hitherto known in the West - and if, in addition, this liberal democracy claims to be the best custodian of human dignity - one wonders why it relentlessly causes social uprootedness and cultural despair among an increasing number of people?

As Claude Polin notes, chances are that, in the short run, democratic totalitarianism will gain the upper hand since the security it provides is more appealing to the masses than is the vague notion of liberty [7]. One might add that the tempo of democratic process in the West leads eventually to chaotic impasse, which necessitates the imposition of a hard-line regime.

Although Spengler does not provide a satisfying answer to the question of Caesarism vs. decadence, he admits that the decadence of the West need not signify the collapse of all cultures.

Rather, it appears that the terminal illness of the West may be a new lease on life for other cultures

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Is liberalism civilization's Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome?

Decadence and liberalism run hand in hand.

Is not Obama and his "Change" movement more like a new Caesar than a Messiah?