The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[lastcallhall]

Maybe you do not understand the essential essence of debate, but your feelings again, count for nothing. You are offering opinions that are unsupported statements that infringe upon the rights of a minority group. You vote in the direction of restricting the rights of that group with woefully poor justification

.

All your opinion, first I have all the proof I need for anything in the Bible. Many have called me an oppressor so go ahead you can too. It is odd that the NO state has voted for gay marriage, must be a ton of oppressors?

You are therefore oppressing them. Argue against my logic or just go ahead and cop to it. Everyone who reads what you write I am sure has already figured you out.

I don't hide who I am, a bible believing christian. I am a fundamentalist and make no apologies for it at all. Sorry if my logic, thinking, or comments offend you or you think I'm ignorant but honestly I could care less.

If you want to think that gays are 'bad', go right ahead. Just keep your bigoted poorly supported opinions to yourself and out of my secular government.

And keep your secular humanist views away from my kids

I'd expect any high school graduate to at least make an attempt to educate you on your obvious misunderstandings of the basic level essentials of biology when confronted with your obvious glaring misunderstandings. Your bible quote called me a 'fool'. At least have the gumption to admit to insults you directed at me. Perhaps you need to just keep them all backhanded so that you can feel morally superior?

First I hide nothing nor to I not say what I mean, yes the Bible calls you a fool.

Psalm 14:1
New King James Version (NKJV)


Psalm 14
"To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
1 The fool has said in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.


But I will let God say that because I also believe this verse.
Matthew 5:22
New King James Version (NKJV)

22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire.

So you see I am not being dishonest, I did not call you a fool, God does but I didn't.

You see, the difference between my position, and yours, is I am able to base mine on evidence. You base yours on irrationality, bible interpretations, and the opinions of people who (shocker) already believe exactly as you do.

Why does it bother you where I get my proof from? Because I have read many articles from the highly educated and reject them? You see the scientists and Ivy league educators as infallible and I see them as men with an opinion and an agenda.

Have you ever heard the tale of the Emperor with no Clothes? Your position is like that, except instead of being naked, you simply have no rational basis for your slanderous opinions. I am the guy telling you that you're naked when in your day to day life nobody else does.

Yes I have and you are the one who can't see that you are naked. If you have rejected Jesus, you reject truth.

Only limited in the minds of the vast majority.

Why do I care what the majority of your crowd thinks? I could put up a poll in church and they would not see me as limiting? Why should I listen to you, what makes you superior?

You absolutely are limiting your children's potential future options, but if you want to keep your children from becoming whatever they might dream of (like scientists, doctors, astronauts, whatever), then that's your right. I just pity your children to a great degree. I pity them for having a father who wouldn't give them 10 cents if they (by some miracle, given the crippling position you've put them in) got into MIT or Harvard.

They can do anything the wish as an adult but they will go to a good christina school. If you think that limits them I don't care. Quit trying to tell me how to raise MY kids. It is very arrogant of you to even suggest I am wrong. Lead your kids to the gates of hell that is your business but at least they will have a degree from MIT.

1) You can have a happy fulfilling career and accept Jesus. My boss does.

As do I

2) Success should be measured by personal fulfillment. Your children might not ever be personally fulfilled because of the position you have put them into.

Your biased opinion again

3) Your yardstick of success runs far more strictly than knowing Jesus, since you are limiting your children's options far more than simply instilling Christianity into them.

Another biased opinion

So, you concede that is conceivable that your children could be homosexual?

The desire I guess, live the lifestyle no. They would have to totally break away from me and my wife, my parents, the church to live a sinful lifestyle. I would not let my daughter live in open adultery to her husband either. You DO NOT flaunt a sinful lifestyle around me.

My impression was that the act of sodomy specifically was sinful. Can you explain the difference between the act of committing homosexual relations and living a homosexual lifestyle from your viewpoint please?

Both are sinful what I was saying is having homosexual feelings is not a sin acting on them is.

Stop trying to change the subject. We are talking about homosexuality insofar as you and your religious beliefs regard it as amoral. You want to cloister your children away from the 'sin' when ultimately that could do them more harm than exposure.

I'm not, it comes down to this the school will not be the ones to teach my children about homosexuality, period. If the teacher does they know to tell them what they believe from church and to call me immediately and I would take it from there.

My opinion with nothing to back it up, is in fact, meaningless. I, however (unlike you) was careful to keep it within the framework of sheer opinion and supposition. Notice I used works like 'assuming', 'perhaps', and phrases like 'I cannot know'.

And I fell I can know the truth

I suppose we are left to assume you couldn't use the 'History' tab at the top of your web browser. You could have noted that you were citing a different source (despite my challenge to back up the out of context quote). You could have also simply made some sort of reference to the website where you got it from, or spent more time trying to find it. Come now lastcallhall, I caught you in redhanded dishonesty. At *least* have the honor to admit it.

I am not being dishonest and resent the accusation. I did it just like I said I did. If you don't believe me I don't really care but the point is the articles said the children had to take muslim names and pray to Allah. Not acceptable.

I of course still notice you fail to cite where the original quote comes from.

Who cares, I provided another

I can just make up stuff too lastcallhall, or cite undocumented links saying all sorts of things.

You do all the time about my kids so why stop now

I don't give a rat's hairy rear end if you cite an article (peer reviewed and well cited by an educated individual in the field he is discussing) that is counter to my point. I'll argue it as it comes. You are just being horribly obviously glaringly dishonest in your portrayal of 'evidence'. Your argument is weak to the point of being pitiable.

Please show me the problems with the facts of the two articles, PLEASE

Your original position then was that there was utterly no situation, ever, that a fetus should ever be aborted? You had obviously pondered the complex issue a great deal and done much research so as to avoid a black/white logical fallacy. I am sure that you approach all such complex issues with the same diligence.

I have worked int he prolife movement for a decade so DO NOT tell me I have not studied this is great detail. I have volunteered and help run a fair booth. I am involved with our church and a crisis center. You speak from complete ignorance when you claim to know my level of knowledge on abortion. You sir have no place to question my level of devotion to the unborn.

People making unevidenced assumptions about me in order to marginalize me offends me, yes. You are extremely and consistently offensive in this manner.

I will not refer to you as liberal anymore

No clarification necessary. You were attempting to paint me in the light of a 'liberal', a group who you were clearly demonizing with unevidenced conspiracy theories. I simply wish to demonstrate not only your paranoid slanderous statements, but also your attempts to paint your opponent as belonging to the group you slander in order to belittle him, not his argument. That's an ad hominem fallacy, by the way. At the end of our debate, I might compile a list of your top ten fallacies.

List them all, I look forward to the list

Whatever. Concede or provide evidence. Saying 'you are wrong, but I can't prove it at all or offer any reasonable arguments', is just a really sad way of admitting defeat.

No defeat I just really don't care. It is not settled but I don't wish to debate something I don't care anything about.

I only seek to highlight this increasingly obvious fact, for the world to see.

Sure thanks

Fine. Don't worry. Don't change your truck. But don't spout biased unevidenced words that you can't even support with the most sparse of evidence. Or if you are going to spout your ignorant stance, don't do so in a forum where better informed people (like myself) can call a spade a spade.

I will make better notes for next time

You are seemingly willing to listen to the Theory of Evolution, like my cats are. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Start a thread man and I will be there, you can call me ignorant there too

I suppose that you make it quite clear that you wouldn't know a good source of evidence if it shook your hand and asked to marry one of your daughters.

spoken like a gentleman

If you want to just cop to basing all of your topical opinions on irrationality (like you seemingly do here), then my work is done. I don't care what opinions you have, lastcallhall, but don't pretend like they have any basis you can defend rationally.

The do have basis you just reject them

Do your discriminatory and bigoted statements end at some point? Now you want to try and marginalize anyone who uses critical thinking, to look like some sort of elitist atheist trying to subjugate you. Maybe you have a persecution complex, lastcallhall?

No not at all

Your opinion means nothing. I recommend that you either support your slanderous opinions, or you keep your words to yourself.

Just my personal experiences.

[lastcallhall]

Again, OT of this thread. You have no idea what the Theory of Evolution is. None. Until you understand what it is, do you think it's wise to reject it? How can you reject if if you don't know what it is?

Like I have told Deadclown start a thread and I will join in

Again, this is not based in fact. There are many Gay people who were raised in homes just like yours.

Sure but it is still sin

This is what I mean by slandering people. Atheists don't hate God; we don't believe there is any such thing. Wouldn't it be silly of me to hate something that doesn't exist?

Maybe you don't, some do hate God

[Ragna]

Like I have told Deadclown start a thread and I will join in

If I recall well, when you first entered here we had a brief talk about evolution. McCulloch did a comparison to languages and I thought you had understood the basics. If it was you who said something about ants giving birth to elephants, then I'm very disappointed. I hope this thread I created helps in understanding the strawman. Notice that that thread is merely for basic understanding of the concept of evolution. I'd appreciate if you took the time to understand and realize yourself why analogies like the ant-elephant, slime-to-man or dog-to-cat ones are so fallacious. Only after having understood the concepts can the theory itself be evaluated.

[Deadclown]

All your opinion, first I have all the proof I need for anything in the Bible. Many have called me an oppressor so go ahead you can too. It is odd that the NO state has voted for gay marriage, must be a ton of oppressors?

It is not my opinion, it is the rules of debate as to be used in the debate subforums. You are essentially doing nothing more than preaching, and it is obvious. You are acting in an oppressive manner. Also, I don't even see what the point here is. Are you trying to say equal rights for a minority group is oppression? Probably. I'd assume you mean that it somehow infringes on your religious beliefs somehow?

I don't hide who I am, a bible believing christian. I am a fundamentalist and make no apologies for it at all. Sorry if my logic, thinking, or comments offend you or you think I'm ignorant but honestly I could care less.

Look, lastcallhall, I don't care what you are. I don't care if you sing your views from the rooftop or go on national television to spout bigoted unevidenced opinions. However, this is a *debate* forum. Here you are forced to back up your words. You seemingly *cannot*, and you as much as admit it.

And keep your secular humanist views away from my kids

I probably will.

First I hide nothing nor to I not say what I mean, yes the Bible calls you a fool.
...
So you see I am not being dishonest, I did not call you a fool, God does but I didn't.

'I am not calling you a fool, I just say that the bible and God thinks you are a fool, and I agree with them.' Whatever. I demand an apology and a retraction of your rude insult.

Why does it bother you where I get my proof from? Because I have read many articles from the highly educated and reject them? You see the scientists and Ivy league educators as infallible and I see them as men with an opinion and an agenda.

You are spouting words that if unevidenced are hateful and bigoted. If you are fine with being hateful and bigoted, and wish to make that very clear to the readers, continue to speak your mind without rational backing.

Yes I have and you are the one who can't see that you are naked. If you have rejected Jesus, you reject truth.

Preaching.

Why do I care what the majority of your crowd thinks? I could put up a poll in church and they would not see me as limiting? Why should I listen to you, what makes you superior?
...
They can do anything the wish as an adult but they will go to a good christina school. If you think that limits them I don't care. Quit trying to tell me how to raise MY kids. It is very arrogant of you to even suggest I am wrong. Lead your kids to the gates of hell that is your business but at least they will have a degree from MIT.

Your complete inability to keep up with the conversation grows tiresome. Again, I made the statement 'you are limiting your children's options for their future' and you challenged me. You admitted I was right but claim that you are now fine with them having limited options. Deal with it. Raise your kids however you choose, but I am right.

The desire I guess, live the lifestyle no. They would have to totally break away from me and my wife, my parents, the church to live a sinful lifestyle. I would not let my daughter live in open adultery to her husband either. You DO NOT flaunt a sinful lifestyle around me.
...
Both are sinful what I was saying is having homosexual feelings is not a sin acting on them is.

Right. So my original point was that they would hide it from you, if it happened, which would no doubt be extremely emotionally difficult because they love you. Would you prefer that they remain celibate and unfulfilled in an intimate manner to other human beings?

Let me ask you this, since you hint at it. If your child began living an openly homosexual lifestyle, you would disown her and no longer even associate with her? When you say 'break away' it hints at this idea, but I find it hard fathom.

And I fell I can know the truth

I don't know what this means?

I am not being dishonest and resent the accusation. I did it just like I said I did. If you don't believe me I don't really care but the point is the articles said the children had to take muslim names and pray to Allah. Not acceptable.

The order of events was you making a vague reference to an event and some article you read. I then called you on this and asked you to cite evidence. You copy/pasted an obviously biased article but no link to where you got it from. When challenge you provide a link to a the court case which not only did not contain the referenced article you'd copy/pasted, but also showed some very clear differences attesting to your original attempts to over-inflate the 'wrong' that was done. When challenged on *that* point, you claim that you couldn't find the original article again and neglected to state that you were referencing a different article now. So when I point out such an inappropriate course of action your response (instead of admitting that you screwed up) is to get defensive.

So fine, get defensive. You just continue to paint yourself in a poor fashion.

Who cares, I provided another

I didn't ask for another. I asked for you to say where you were getting your original information from. It was a dishonest article, and probably written by a website with an extreme bias. So you hide it away and refuse to show it, because it demonstrates that your sources for your opinions are very poor.

You do all the time about my kids so why stop now

The only point I was trying to make, you agreed with. You said you were fine with it, and happy with their options.

Please show me the problems with the facts of the two articles, PLEASE

I already did. How many times do I need to repeat myself to you? They disagreed with one another. Since the second was from a reputable source, I can only assume that by the language of the first, they were exaggerating the events that occurred. Which means you were exaggerating because you propped it up as evidence.

I have worked int he prolife movement for a decade so DO NOT tell me I have not studied this is great detail. I have volunteered and help run a fair booth. I am involved with our church and a crisis center. You speak from complete ignorance when you claim to know my level of knowledge on abortion. You sir have no place to question my level of devotion to the unborn.

Nice question dodge, but whatever you say.

I will not refer to you as liberal anymore

Thank you.

List them all, I look forward to the list

Okay. I will when we are done. You might not be finished.

No defeat I just really don't care. It is not settled but I don't wish to debate something I don't care anything about.

'I can't prove you are wrong, but you are wrong anyway.' Your attitude does not bespeak a great level of maturity.

I will make better notes for next time

I hope that you do.

Start a thread man and I will be there, you can call me ignorant there too

A thread has been started. Although it looks like other people are lining up to do some explaining.

I suppose that you make it quite clear that you wouldn't know a good source of evidence if it shook your hand and asked to marry one of your daughters.

spoken like a gentleman

That was poorly said on my part, and I do apologize.

However the point still holds, that you show an inability to tell a good source from a bad one. A good source is one that is unbiased, cited thoroughly, and preferably one that originates from some peer reviewed source. A bad source is one that can be shown to come from a biased individual or organization (one pushing an agenda), one that is not well documented, or one that appears just online somewhere without any sort of peer review. The internet is a place where lots of people say all sorts of things. It is wise to approach things with a cynical attitude so that one doesn't get taken in.

The do have basis you just reject them

You base your opinions on the bible and people who already share your opinions (and who get their opinions from the bible). This is utterly circular reasoning and results in your opinions being irrational if you cannot justify them in any other way. These are not my rules, but the rules of logic, and the rules of this forum.

Your opinion means nothing. I recommend that you either support your slanderous opinions, or you keep your words to yourself.

Just my personal experiences.

Your personal experiences are no justification for what amounts to hateful speech. Even if you do not say what you say with hate in your heart, the words themselves are very hateful. My mother taught me that if I have nothing good to say, I should say nothing at all. I disagree with her to a point. Sometimes it is alright to say 'bad' things, but if one is going to do so, they should be well prepared to defend such words. You have not defended yours adequately.

So that we are clear, the major ones are...
1) The new law in California is a liberal conspiracy that will lead to children being indoctrinated as part of a homosexual agenda.
2) Homosexual couples are not as 'fit' as heterosexual couples to raise children.

If I have any of this wrong, correct me please.

You have not yet adequately defended these view points with evidence. So you can officially retract your opinions (with apologies to homosexual readers) or you can provide good supporting evidence. This doesn't mean that you are admitting that you think you are wrong, only that you are unable to defend them to the expected rigors that this forum demands. If you refuse to do either of these things, then I will conclude this conversation with a declared victory. You need to provide evidence for the following...

1) Evidence of a liberal and gay conspiracy.
2) Evidence that the implementation of the new law will lead to indoctrination of children.
3) Evidence that homosexual couples are less capable parents than heterosexual couples.

[Ragna]

So Lastcallhall:

Psalm 14
"To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
1 The fool has said in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

From this you concluded that:

So you see I am not being dishonest, I did not call you a fool, God does but I didn't.

The Bible claims God calls atheists fools. I agree.

Matthew 5:22
New King James Version (NKJV)

22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire.

Whoever says 'you fool' is in danger of hellfire. God has called atheists fools. You agree on that. God is personal.

Do you agree the Bible implies God is in danger of hellfire?
This is impossible with dogma, but the implication seems pretty clear to me. I have no doubt you will deny the implication. Once again double standards?

Everytime it makes more sense to me that people who believe in unjust entities with double standards have unjust beliefs and double standards themselves (like you demonstrated with the adultery/divorce issue).

I would also like to point out that your own unsupported beliefs have nothing to do with forum civility. If you're unable to support God exists, much less God is the Biblical God, claiming God calls you fool is a personal insult, because of what you believe (which makes it worse, not better). So you either retract it or accept an inability to remain civil because of your beliefs (and this itself speaks volumes about the beliefs). Drag your own conclusions.

By the way, what did you mean when saying 'keep your secular humanist views away from my children' to Deadclown? Do you think your children will never hear of secular humanist views? Are you going to imprison them away from the real world? I don't know how old your children are, but I myself have been indoctrinated since I was born and baptized, and I don't see anybody panicking because of that. I will leave this Marie Curie's quote here for you to reflect a bit if you see it pertinent:

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."

[lastcallhall]

It is not my opinion, it is the rules of debate as to be used in the debate subforums. You are essentially doing nothing more than preaching, and it is obvious. You are acting in an oppressive manner. Also, I don't even see what the point here is. Are you trying to say equal rights for a minority group is oppression? Probably. I'd assume you mean that it somehow infringes on your religious beliefs somehow?

It is your opinion that I am an oppressor is my point. You trot it out as fact but if you are honest it is an opinion. Tens of thousands of christians would agree with me and I am sure you can get many people to agree with you, it's all perspective.

Look, lastcallhall, I don't care what you are. I don't care if you sing your views from the rooftop or go on national television to spout bigoted unevidenced opinions. However, this is a *debate* forum. Here you are forced to back up your words. You seemingly *cannot*, and you as much as admit it.

I backup everything I say, if you don't like my use of the Bible I would suggest we stop debating. I do not jump into many debates on this site that don't allow use of the Bible because that is my source for info. If you wish to stop the debate that is ok by me.

I probably will.

Thanks

I am not calling you a fool, I just say that the bible and God thinks you are a fool, and I agree with them.' Whatever. I demand an apology and a retraction of your rude insult.

You are the one who brought up the fool line, go back through the thread and tell me where I spoke the word until you did. I was showing you the Bible verses and why I don't call people a fool. I'm sorry if you thought I did but I did not.

You are spouting words that if unevidenced are hateful and bigoted. If you are fine with being hateful and bigoted, and wish to make that very clear to the readers, continue to speak your mind without rational backing.

If you think I am hateful and bigoted, fine but please do not assume I have no thought out my opinion. You discount what I use for truth, fine but I may discount what you use for truth.

Preaching.

Just answering your story

Your complete inability to keep up with the conversation grows tiresome

.

Sorry I am not very smart. You must be a very patient guy to keep carrying me and trying to help me think correctly. It does not go unnoticed!

Again, I made the statement 'you are limiting your children's options for their future' and you challenged me. You admitted I was right but claim that you are now fine with them having limited options. Deal with it. Raise your kids however you choose, but I am right.

No you are not right but you are 100% correct that I will raise my children under the law of God and not your views.

Right. So my original point was that they would hide it from you, if it happened, which would no doubt be extremely emotionally difficult because they love you. Would you prefer that they remain celibate and unfulfilled in an intimate manner to other human beings?

I prefer they go to heaven

Let me ask you this, since you hint at it. If your child began living an openly homosexual lifestyle, you would disown her and no longer even associate with her? When you say 'break away' it hints at this idea, but I find it hard fathom.

I would not break away totally but they would not be allowed to bring the "partner" into my home or to any family function. I would not allow any open sin to be around the rest of the family and I will not allow an open offense to God in my home. I will still love her but she would need to repent before there would be a full acceptance.

The order of events was you making a vague reference to an event and some article you read. I then called you on this and asked you to cite evidence. You copy/pasted an obviously biased article but no link to where you got it from. When challenge you provide a link to a the court case which not only did not contain the referenced article you'd copy/pasted, but also showed some very clear differences attesting to your original attempts to over-inflate the 'wrong' that was done. When challenged on *that* point, you claim that you couldn't find the original article again and neglected to state that you were referencing a different article now. So when I point out such an inappropriate course of action your response (instead of admitting that you screwed up) is to get defensive.

So fine, get defensive. You just continue to paint yourself in a poor fashion

I found it just for you

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/ ... islam.html

I didn't ask for another. I asked for you to say where you were getting your original information from. It was a dishonest article, and probably written by a website with an extreme bias. So you hide it away and refuse to show it, because it demonstrates that your sources for your opinions are very poor.

Not really but you can have your opinion

Nice question dodge, but whatever you say.

What is the question again than? Remember I am slow.

Okay. I will when we are done. You might not be finished.

Thanks

I can't prove you are wrong, but you are wrong anyway.' Your attitude does not bespeak a great level of maturity.

Thanks for taking the high road

A thread has been started. Although it looks like other people are lining up to do some explaining.

Sweet, I may learn a thing or two

That was poorly said on my part, and I do apologize.

No problem

However the point still holds, that you show an inability to tell a good source from a bad one. A good source is one that is unbiased, cited thoroughly, and preferably one that originates from some peer reviewed source. A bad source is one that can be shown to come from a biased individual or organization (one pushing an agenda), one that is not well documented, or one that appears just online somewhere without any sort of peer review. The internet is a place where lots of people say all sorts of things. It is wise to approach things with a cynical attitude so that one doesn't get taken in.

You just miss one of our big differences, I don't see any value in peer reviewed work if they are not done by people that love the Lord. For some things fine, but for things like evolution they have a bend and I don't care for it.

Your personal experiences are no justification for what amounts to hateful speech. Even if you do not say what you say with hate in your heart, the words themselves are very hateful. My mother taught me that if I have nothing good to say, I should say nothing at all.

So I should be silent on tough issues because it may offend people? Sorry I won't. Jesus said the world will hate me so I expect it.

I disagree with her to a point. Sometimes it is alright to say 'bad' things, but if one is going to do so, they should be well prepared to defend such words. You have not defended yours adequately.

Like when you tell me how to raise my kids?

So that we are clear, the major ones are...
1) The new law in California is a liberal conspiracy that will lead to children being indoctrinated as part of a homosexual agenda.
2) Homosexual couples are not as 'fit' as heterosexual couples to raise children.

If I have any of this wrong, correct me please.

We are crystal clear, and in total agreement. Finally, thanks

You have not yet adequately defended these view points with evidence. So you can officially retract your opinions (with apologies to homosexual readers) or you can provide good supporting evidence. This doesn't mean that you are admitting that you think you are wrong, only that you are unable to defend them to the expected rigors that this forum demands. If you refuse to do either of these things, then I will conclude this conversation with a declared victory. You need to provide evidence for the following...

1) Evidence of a liberal and gay conspiracy.

I have provided a few articles

2) Evidence that the implementation of the new law will lead to indoctrination of children.

I provided a CA Islamic article that shows clear indoctrination

3) Evidence that homosexual couples are less capable parents than heterosexual couples.

You reject my sources and I am guessing you don't like Focus on The Family either

[McCulloch]

I backup everything I say, if you don't like my use of the Bible I would suggest we stop debating. I do not jump into many debates on this site that don't allow use of the Bible because that is my source for info. If you wish to stop the debate that is ok by me.

The one thing you do not backup is the one thing that you need to. Why is it that you consider the Bible a valid source of truth?

No you are not right but you are 100% correct that I will raise my children under the law of God and not your views.

How is it that you know that the views you inflict on your children are the laws of God? The Bible tells you so, right? That goes back to the one pivotal issue, which you imply is true, which you seem to accept axiomatically and unquestioningly. That is that the Bible is a true revelation from the god.

You reject my sources and I am guessing you don't like Focus on The Family either

Now why would Focus on the Family ever publish anything misleading?

Hint: A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the attempts by California and Massachusetts to impose same-sex "marriage" on the nation will result in legal chaos. Yet there has been no evidence of legal chaos in those jurisdictions allowing same-sex marriage.

Not equipped to deal with?
"Steve, there's a problem with this divorce case."
"Looks pretty standard to me, what's the problem?"
"It's a gay couple."
"DEAR GOD WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES. ABORT"

Even the Evangelical Pro-Life movement does not trust Focus on the Family: http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/ar ... the_fa.php

[lastcallhall]

The Bible claims God calls atheists fools. I agree.

I agree as well.

Whoever says 'you fool' is in danger of hellfire. God has called atheists fools. You agree on that. God is personal.

Yes God made a very personal comment there.

Do you agree the Bible implies God is in danger of hellfire?
This is impossible with dogma, but the implication seems pretty clear to me. I have no doubt you will deny the implication. Once again double standards?

Well you guessed that I disagree, God is perfect and the word fool used in the Bible is a very offensive word. I believe that God is showing how much he wants you to know that he is there. I think it is meant to be offensive to get people to really think about a belief in God.

Everytime it makes more sense to me that people who believe in unjust entities with double standards have unjust beliefs and double standards themselves (like you demonstrated with the adultery/divorce issue).

How are either a double standard you are just twisting them into a double standard. I was honest with McCulloch and said I would look into it and I did. I spoke to people way smarter than I and they were all in agreement. Do you think they are dishonest? If they are like me I never want to give an opinion if it would not match God's because then I could be responsible for sending someone to hell for eternity and I believe it. With the adultery issue my take once more is there is NO unforgivable sin, none. Jesus paid the price for all sin and when you ask forgiveness and you really repent your slate is wiped clean. If you have a clean slate and God has forgot your sin how can you sin by getting married again? It would not be adultery. There is no double standard, what would be a double standard is if you could sleep with 1,000 women before you found Jesus and be forgiven but not fogiven if you sleep with one person but got married that you are stuck for life? That is not how grace works my friend. If I really thought it was not true I would tell people to get divorced, heaven is worth it.

By the way, what did you mean when saying 'keep your secular humanist views away from my children' to Deadclown?

Deadclown is trying to tell me how to raise my kids and I just said I do not want my children to deal with a ton of secular humanist ideas.

Do you think your children will never hear of secular humanist views?

Not at all, I have. My goal is to get them solid in the word before they deal with people that have their own agenda.

Are you going to imprison them away from the real world? I don't know how old your children are, but I myself have been indoctrinated since I was born and baptized, and I don't see anybody panicking because of that. I will leave this Marie Curie's quote here for you to reflect a bit if you see it pertinent:

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."

I actually agree with the quote, I don't fear anything but I am not going to be stupid either. Would you want your kid to go to my kids christian school?

[Ragna]

Well you guessed that I disagree, God is perfect and the word fool used in the Bible is a very offensive word. I believe that God is showing how much he wants you to know that he is there. I think it is meant to be offensive to get people to really think about a belief in God.

Whatever the purpose, you have not provided a sound reason for rejecting my analogy. I just suggest that even if you yourself admit it is offensive, you stop using it altogether - it will get you nowhere in civil debate. Your vision of God seems to be offending God himself, something's wrong there, and I fear it's not the logic.

It is not insult what makes people reflect. It's a message given through thoughtful responses composed of well-supported arguments and evidence.

How are either a double standard you are just twisting them into a double standard. I was honest with McCulloch and said I would look into it and I did. I spoke to people way smarter than I and they were all in agreement. Do you think they are dishonest?

With what they believe no; and neither are you. However, you cannot modify what the Bible says. Neither can I. It's not my fault that book is the way it is. That's one of the reasons I'd never use it as a moral compass.

If they are like me I never want to give an opinion if it would not match God's because then I could be responsible for sending someone to hell for eternity and I believe it. With the adultery issue my take once more is there is NO unforgivable sin, none. Jesus paid the price for all sin and when you ask forgiveness and you really repent your slate is wiped clean. If you have a clean slate and God has forgot your sin how can you sin by getting married again?

Well again, we keep messing up our everyday definitions of marriage with the Biblical one. According to Jesus or whoever, the first marriage was the only valid one - but I don't want to argue this, I could not be less interested in what the Bible said. It does not affect me.

It would not be adultery. There is no double standard, what would be a double standard is if you could sleep with 1,000 women before you found Jesus and be forgiven but not fogiven if you sleep with one person but got married that you are stuck for life? That is not how grace works my friend.

I missed the Biblical verse about grace that did a numerical comparison. A double standard is when you use the book for some parts and your own socio-cultural view (from tradition) for others. It seems to fit here.

By the way, what did you mean when saying 'keep your secular humanist views away from my children' to Deadclown?

Deadclown is trying to tell me how to raise my kids and I just said I do not want my children to deal with a ton of secular humanist ideas.

I doubt he is trying to do so; he's giving his own opinion. As for your children, they will have to deal with them, unless they're somehow isolated. What's more, I suspect new generations will be much less religious.

Not at all, I have. My goal is to get them solid in the word before they deal with people that have their own agenda.

It looks more like indoctrinating them with an agenda before they get to deal with views not based on superstitious thinking. But do with them whatever you want.

I actually agree with the quote, I don't fear anything but I am not going to be stupid either. Would you want your kid to go to my kids christian school?

I don't speak from the parent's side. I spoke from the child's side. And I give you my own experience. I went to a school were I was taught Christianity and all their myths as truths.

In my view, a proper public education is that in which you are taught the reality about all religions. Some people seem to fear this, and that's very suspicious.

[lastcallhall]

The one thing you do not backup is the one thing that you need to. Why is it that you consider the Bible a valid source of truth?

I trust the Bible for my salvation so it is not a stretch to trust it for other things in life. I trust it because to me the prophecies about Jesus are on spot hundreds of years before he was born. It is written by many people over many years with a pretty consistent message. Sorry if I was preachy.

How is it that you know that the views you inflict on your children are the laws of God? The Bible tells you so, right?

Yes, I base it totally on the Bible

That goes back to the one pivotal issue, which you imply is true, which you seem to accept axiomatically and unquestioningly. That is that the Bible is a true revelation from the god.

Of course, when I did not believe it I thought much like you (from my observations on things you have said on various subjects on this site)

Now why would Focus on the Family ever publish anything misleading?

Hint: A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the attempts by California and Massachusetts to impose same-sex "marriage" on the nation will result in legal chaos. Yet there has been no evidence of legal chaos in those jurisdictions allowing same-sex marriage.

Not equipped to deal with?
"Steve, there's a problem with this divorce case."
"Looks pretty standard to me, what's the problem?"
"It's a gay couple."
"DEAR GOD WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES. ABORT"

Even the Evangelical Pro-Life movement does not trust Focus on the Family: http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/ar ... the_fa.php

I had not seen that, thank you for showing it to me that is terrible. I am shocked that Focus would push such a thing that is clearly against what most evangelicals would think. I stand corrected and thank you again for the article.