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?

[East of Eden]

You're quibbling. Signing up for a class isn't a public declaration.

Who said they signed up? It was part of the regular cirriculum.

Dodging the question. Opting out doesn't require a public declaration, and that was the point.

Dissenting opinions don't have the force of law, now do they?

Another straw-man, never said they did. Just saying Justince Stewart's argument is a serious one. IMHO the the court does whatever the elite's of the country want, regardless of the Constitution. They acquiesed in slavery in Dred Scott, in segregation in Plessy, in the 1962 prayer case, and in Roe v. Wade.

Non sequitur.

And the problem with that would be what?

If a person wishes his or her child to be taught in a particular manner, from a particular religious point of view, that parent has that right;

A non-sectarian prayer is not espousing a particular religious view.

Deleting the point and dodging the question; the nonsectarian prayer issue was dealt with earlier.

It is unfair to parents who pay taxes to support public schools to have to pay again for private schools. We need school choice badly.

As it happens, I support school vouchers; but this is still dodging the question.

But you are okay with the tyranny of the majority? What's wrong with this picture?

The fact you haven't demonstrated any tyranny of the majority?

Imposing your religious beliefs upon all, and justifying it because you are in the majority, as you have been advocating, IS tyranny of the majority.

More to the point, why did you delete and ignore my remarks proving that voluntary prayer IS legal and available in public school, and my question as to why that isn't enough?

Since voluntary prayer is already legal and available for every student who wishes to participate, what possible point is there to compulsory prayer for ALL students other than compelling the participation of students who do NOT want to participate?

A red herring, no reason to not have both if those in a particular district want to.

Blatantly ducking the question.

Non-Christians don't teach their children that Christians are going to Hell;

Telling the truth of that isn't despising someone, it is love, especially when you consider the ridicule gotten by doing so. Look what happened to Jesus.

Non sequitur.

Would you support compulsory discussions of, say, Islam (which has happened) or atheism, where a student who does
not wish to participate is required to stand up before his peers and announce that?

This isn't a Muslim or atheist nation, irrelevant question. Yes, the Muslim thing has happened, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=25997

Dodging the question.

How about in a school (and there are some) where the majority of students are Muslims?

Why would they be offended by a non-sectarian prayer?

Blatantly dodging the question, which was: Would you be OK with a Christian child being required to publicly refuse to participate in a Muslim prayer if he were surrounded by Muslim children?

That is not a response; that is a distractor. There is no evidence that the rise in violence has anything to do with the issue of school prayer. As a veteran educator, I can tell you that it has more to do with the lack of effective discipline. Further, when I was a kid, we had compulsory prayer and Bible reading every day, but voluntary prayer groups in the schools did not exist. I would bet that there is more actual prayer, as opposed to pro forma rote recitation, in the schools today than there was then.

Would reminding students there is a God (most Americans believe that) with all that entails, i.e. moral standards, reward and punishment, etc., help reduce such violent behavior? I think so.

Nonresponsive and begging the question.

Very well; I will ask you the same question. In light of all that, why are you so concerned with the absence of prayer in the public schools - especially since it is not absent?

It's one of many issues I'm concerned with.

Nonresponsive. I could say the same thing, couldn't I?

Considering that the California court is the most liberal circuit in the nation, and has the highest percentage of rulings overturned by the Supreme Court, it seems a reasonable explanation to me.

I think you're referring to the 9th Circuit, not the CA Supreme Court.

I stand corrected. The explanation is still a reasonable guess.

I'm asking why, if slavery is sinful, why the Bible didn't say so instead of give rules for how it was to be properly engaged in.

You can ask God on Judgement Day. Interesting Christianity was the first religion to ban slavery. Has Islam yet?

Blatantly nonresponsive, ducking the question, with a distractor thrown in.

God is much more concerned with whether or not a person is reconciled to Him or not than what that person's temporary earthly status is. I would rather be a slave on my way to heaven than Bill Gates on his way to hell.

Non sequitur.

Jesus didn't; he declared divorce absent adultery to be adultery itself.

In other words, He strengthened the moral law. Strange some think He would be OK with weakening the moral law on homosexual sin.

Deletiing and dodging the question.

Also, if Paul thought slavery itself was sinful, why did he advise slaves to be obedient to their masters?

You omit the part of masters to be kind to their slaves, and that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. That was a revolutionary thought in ancient Rome.

Non sequitur. He didn't declare slavery wrong there, did he?

The passage cited was patently not about "slave-trading," and that is a plain mistranslation. As I said, the vast majority of English translations have it correct; the Greek says, literally, "man-stealing."

Yes, slavetrading.

Ridiculously and transparently ignoring the point.

Sorry. Any fair reading of the Bible will show that slavery was accepted and endorsed by it.

William Wilberforce and the Christian abolitionists got it wrong, huh?

Slavery is WRONG; you just can't prove it directly from the BIBLE.

No. I mean exactly what you did; imposing religious (or non-religious) beliefs upon those who do not share them. If it's wrong for non-Christians, as you said, why is it not wrong for you?

No idea what you're talking about.

LOL!

I'm sure that's true. You have consistently refused to call your advocacy what it is - an effort to impose your own sectarian beliefs on everyone by the force of secular law.

You haven't responded to anything I've said here; you've ducked and dodged and refused to address my points, when you didn't just delete and ignore them.

I think we're done. You advocate imposing your religious beliefs on everyone, while protesting that it's wrong to have others impose theirs on you; you can't even admit, let alone deal with, the fact that school prayer is already legal and common; you can't show how gay marriage being legal affects you in any way; and you can't even acknowledge a simple translation issue from the New Testament.

All you can do is keep repeating points that have already been refuted and refusing to respond to points that others have made. Debate has ended here, and all that's left is dodging and preaching.

Have a nice day. I have better things to do.

As do I. Instead of a discussion you throw out cute little 'non-sequiter' charges etc. I can see why you're dancing, you have completely failed to show how a voluntary non-sectarian prayer constitutes the Federal government establishing a religion.

[East of Eden]

They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

Thank you for an example of the language I refer to in my post prior to this one.

Straight out of the Bible, Joey.

Obviously, seems that's all some theists know about is what the Bible tells them to think, say, and do.

I do like to have the thinking of the King of the Universe inform my own.

[JoeyKnothead]

They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

Thank you for an example of the language I refer to in my post prior to this one.

Straight out of the Bible, Joey.

Obviously, seems that's all some theists know about is what the Bible tells them to think, say, and do.

I do like to have the thinking of the King of the Universe inform my own.

Can you offer verifiable evidence there's a "King of the Universe" and that this "King" thinks?

Preaching may work for the gullible, as for me, I prefer evidence for claims.

[East of Eden]

They're not infiltrating the churches because they're dying to do God's will, it's because the churches are the last bastion of society opposing this perversity.

Thank you for an example of the language I refer to in my post prior to this one.

Straight out of the Bible, Joey.

Obviously, seems that's all some theists know about is what the Bible tells them to think, say, and do.

I do like to have the thinking of the King of the Universe inform my own.

Can you offer verifiable evidence there's a "King of the Universe" and that this "King" thinks?

Preaching may work for the gullible, as for me, I prefer evidence for claims.

I can't prove to you 100% God exists, just as you can never prove He doesn't.

[cnorman18]

As do I. Instead of a discussion you throw out cute little 'non-sequiter' charges etc.

Every single charge of dodging, deleting or ducking the question was absolutely accurate. Every non sequitur that I remarked upon was in fact unrelated to the question under discussion.

My points were cogent, on point and backed up by either Scripture or logic. You obviously failed to respond to them. You are the one substituting dodging and ducking for discussion, not me.

I'll stand by every word I've said.

I can see why you're dancing, you have completely failed to show how a voluntary non-sectarian prayer constitutes the Federal government establishing a religion.

From a few pages back:

CN: "That it establishes religion at all, which government-mandated prayer inarguably does, makes it unconstitutional."

EoE: "Which religion is thereby established?"

CN: "Religion is established, as opposed to non-religious unbelief, the profession of which is a Constitutionally protected freedom as well. The government may not favor generic religion over unbelief any more than it may favor Catholicism over Southern Baptist beliefs."

In other words, that issue has already been settled, as has the "voluntary" issue. My point has not been refuted by your refusal to acknowledge or address it.

Further, you have also refused to address my (absolutely true and notably undisputed) assertion that voluntary prayer is already legal and available in the public schools, and always has been - which of course invalidates your entire argument here.

So: This is, apparently, the only point you can dispute among the many I have made; and your means of disputing it is, shall we say, disingenuous. I can't even call that "dancing." It doesn't quite qualify as competent stumbling.

Ignoring points and ducking questions isn't debate. When you're ready to actually engage in debate, let me know. I'll be not holding my breath.

[cnorman18]

I think we're done. You advocate imposing your religious beliefs on everyone, while protesting that it's wrong to have others impose theirs on you; you can't even admit, let alone deal with, the fact that school prayer is already legal and common; you can't show how gay marriage being legal affects you in any way; and you can't even acknowledge a simple translation issue from the New Testament.

I've shown why gay marriage has affected society adversely but you've ignored it.

That would be correct; but the "you" addressed above was East of Eden, not you.

1)It entices our children who might be tempted to indulge in homosexuality to experiment with it.

2) It confuses our children on why they need a male and female role model in the home

3) It teaches our children that their highest value is their lust. Homosexuals don't care what God or anyone else thinks about their behavior. Their lust is more important than anything else, including what their behavior does to their "children."

4) It breeds families where none of the people are related to each other.

5) It teaches our children that humans are the highest power on earth which increases pride and arrogance

6) It fosters an entitlement mentality in our children which is being reflected in today's society to an ever-increasing degree.

7) it doesn't propagate the species

8) It causes more std's since the anus was meant for feces, not sexual union and is thus, the most bacteria-ridden area of the body

9) It teaches our children that sex is nothing more than an animal instinct rather than represents our union with God and the way he designed it to be used.

10) It discourages disciplined behavior, adopting values higher than bodily gratification and leads our children straight on the path to hell by fostering the above traits in them.

For starters.

I don't see a single one of those that isn't a matter of unsupported personal opinion and/or stereotype and prejudice and/or irrelevance.

Which is why I ignored them.

[McCulloch]

I've shown why gay marriage has affected society adversely but you've ignored it.

1) It entices our children who might be tempted to indulge in homosexuality to experiment with it.

This pre-supposes that homosexuality is a bad thing. You could say, for example, that current human rights legislation might entice our children who might be tempted to indulge in miscegenation to date and perhaps even marry outside of their racial group.

2) It confuses our children on why they need a male and female role model in the home.

Are you claiming that the children in traditional families of a mother and father will become confused by societal toleration of same sex marriage, because of the lack of a role model in the home from both genders?

3) It teaches our children that their highest value is their lust. Homosexuals don't care what God or anyone else thinks about their behavior. Their lust is more important than anything else, including what their behavior does to their "children."

This is just untrue. It is a lie and a falsehood.

4) It breeds families where none of the people are related to each other.

Yes indeed, adoption should be prohibited.

5) It teaches our children that humans are the highest power on earth which increases pride and arrogance

No it does not. It teaches that human society works best with the protection of human rights and toleration.

6) It fosters an entitlement mentality in our children which is being reflected in today's society to an ever-increasing degree.

I have no idea where you get this from.

7) it doesn't propagate the species

Are we having a shortage of human breeders? I must have missed the memo. Do you advocate that marriages should be dissolved if one partner is found to be infertile?

8) It causes more std's since the anus was meant for feces, not sexual union and is thus, the most bacteria-ridden area of the body

So the marriage vows, even for heterosexuals, should include a prohibition on anal sex?

9) It teaches our children that sex is nothing more than an animal instinct rather than represents our union with God and the way he designed it to be used.

Sex is an animal instinct. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

10) It discourages disciplined behavior, adopting values higher than bodily gratification and leads our children straight on the path to hell by fostering the above traits in them.

Another blatant lie and stereotype.

[kayky]

I've shown why gay marriage has affected society adversely but you've ignored it.

We're not ignoring it, Carico. We just can't see that it has any basis in reality.

1)It entices our children who might be tempted to indulge in homosexuality to experiment with it.

Children who are strongly heterosexual will not be tempted to engage in homosexual acts. Those who may have questions about their sexuality (bi-curious?) probably would experiment anyway.

2) It confuses our children on why they need a male and female role model in the home

There are already single parent homes. Legalizing gay marriage will not change that.

3) It teaches our children that their highest value is their lust. Homosexuals don't care what God or anyone else thinks about their behavior. Their lust is more important than anything else, including what their behavior does to their "children."

Once again you make judgments about the motivation of other people that you are not in a position to make. Homosexual relationships can be based on love just as heterosexual relationships can (and vice versa).

4) It breeds families where none of the people are related to each other.

Why is that important? As long as these people love and support each other, what difference does it make as to who is related to whom?

5) It teaches our children that humans are the highest power on earth which increases pride and arrogance

Humans are the "highest power" on earth. That's not arrogance--it's just a recognition of reality.

6) It fosters an entitlement mentality in our children which is being reflected in today's society to an ever-increasing degree.

So we wouldn't want to foster in our children the idea that all people deserve equal rights?

7) it doesn't propagate the species

And this, of course, is the most important reason of all since the human species is on the verge of extinction!

8) It causes more std's since the anus was meant for feces, not sexual union and is thus, the most bacteria-ridden area of the body

Diseases can be contracted vaginally as well. Safe sex is possible in either situation.

9) It teaches our children that sex is nothing more than an animal instinct rather than represents our union with God and the way he designed it to be used.

So, when other species mate, what does that represent?

10) It discourages disciplined behavior, adopting values higher than bodily gratification and leads our children straight on the path to hell by fostering the above traits in them.

Well, since there is no hell, no worries there...

For starters. So there's nothing good about homosexual marriages because they're destructive to everybody, including to homosexuals themselves, and especially to our children. So even though secular society doesn't understand why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, those who have values higher than bodily gratification understand why.

There's all kind of good associated with gay marriage if for no other reason than that it fosters an expectation of monogamy in the minds of young homosexuals. This would go a long way in preventing some of the ills you seem to care about.

[JoeyKnothead]

Preaching may work for the gullible, as for me, I prefer evidence for claims.

I can't prove to you 100% God exists, just as you can never prove He doesn't.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I have made such statements without proper qualification.

I do 'preciate the retraction though.

(edit cause them quote tags)

[Cathar1950]

Preaching may work for the gullible, as for me, I prefer evidence for claims.

I can't prove to you 100% God exists, just as you can never prove He doesn't.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I have made such statements without proper qualification.

I do 'preciate the retraction though.

(edit cause them quote tags)

I really do get bored with the preaching.
I have heard better if I haven't heard most of them that worth worth hearing or reading. This is getting to be nonsense around here.
Claims built upon claims backed up with more claims and dogma or what has been learned through indoctrination or tract like web sites from simple-minded apologist repeated around here like it was fact or the authority in such matters.
Even their use of the Bible is non-Biblical.

East of Eden doesn't seem to know of has conveniently forgot that a positive claim is not the same as doubt or no claim. A claim based on another positive claim isn't evidence or support, it is just another unsupported claim.

Even if God existed East of Eden's claim would need supporting.