Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4

[jgarden]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgarden
A true conservative would argue that the state has no business intruding into the bedrooms of the nation or presuming to dictate to American adults as to what constitutes a legal "marriage."

Actually my friend, you're more of a Libertarian than a conservative.

In what venue do you think all of the diseases and disorders that those who engage in homosexual behavior are afflicted with take place in? (besides public restroom toilet stalls, bathhouses and in the bushes of public parks).

And let's not forget that unless these lost souls repent, they'll spend eternity in damnation.

Regarding "treading on established conventions" (i.e. invaluable institutions) : Why not? Either their morally lost souls who engage in a deviant behavior (yet a changeable behavior) that God abhors, who need help through righteous laws and spirituality, or they should be afforded all of the rights that other citizens have.

Clinical social worker Caitlin Ryan's Family Acceptance Project (San Francisco State University) conducted the first study of the effect of family acceptance and rejection on the health, mental health and well-being of LGBT youth, including suicide, HIV/AIDS and homelessness. Their research shows that LGBT youths "who experience high levels of rejection from their families during adolescence (when compared with those young people who experienced little or no rejection from parents and caregivers) were
- more than eight times likely to have attempted suicide,
- more than six times likely to report high levels of depression,
- more than three times likely to use illegal drugs and
- more than three times likely to be at high risk for HIV or other STDs" by the time they reach their early 20s.

The Suicide Prevention Resource Center synthesized these studies and estimated that
- between 30 and 40% of LGBT youth, depending on age and sex groups, have attempted suicide.
A U.S. government study, titled Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, published in 1989, found that
- LGBT youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.

"More than 34,000 people die by suicide each year," making it "the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24 year olds with lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth attempting suicide up to four times more than their heterosexual peers."

In terms of school climate, "approximately 25 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual students and university employees have been harassed due to their sexual orientation, as well as a third of those who identify as transgender, according to the study and reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education."

"LGBT students are three times as likely as non-LGBT students to say that they do not feel safe at school (22% vs. 7%) and 90% of LGBT students (vs. 62% of non-LGBT teens) have been harassed or assaulted during the past year."
In addition, "LGBQ students were more likely than heterosexual students to have seriously considered leaving their institution as a result of harassment and discrimination."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth

Perhaps "aCultureWarrior" could enlighten us as to when he made a conscious decision concerning his sexual orientation.

Most of us don't remember making such a decision which would help explain why counciling and therapy to change one's orientation haven't proven successful.

Why would anyone deliberately choose a same-sex sexual orientation given the lifetime of rejection and abuse most are forced to endure?

 

[TheDuke]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
A person should be motivated to do good out of love, not hate. When I see all of the misery, disease, death and hatred brought on by homosexual behavior and the 'gay' agenda (be it the physical death of individuals, spirituality or invaluable institutions), I'm motivated by love to do something about it.

Hate will eat you alive. Love (be it through legislating righteous laws, being a good husband and father or using God's Word to witness to lost souls) will bring nothing but good results.

I would absolutely agree with your statement about motivation, however I hope that you also realize that your opinion about individual sexuality has an appearance of pure bigoted hate.

Now you don't see it that way, so I'd kindly ask you to elaborate a bit about your personal motivation (I sincerely hope it's not just because of your faith) in combating our modern society.

One only need to review the fairly extensive index on page 1 to see how those who engage in homosexual behavior are riddled with disease, disorders and premature death.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112309


Anyone that defends that behavior and lifestyle is the true hater.

Not a single word about your personal motivation there, I'm afraid. So my question still stands.
Furthermore you've labelled all people who are in favour of individual freedom and an end to discrimination as "haters". How does that work?

And I was about to ask how you figure that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle" when you're not bisexual, though this matter was already mentioned in the post above mine

Furthermore what terrible consequences do you reckon the "gay agenda" has brought about?

Where shall I start? Permeating and destroying invaluable institutions (government, marriage, the family, Education, the Church, the media/entertainment, the military, youth mentor groups).

I'll gladly discuss the above in detail if you wish (it was covered extensively in Part 1).

Yes, I do wish, no need for GREAT details, just a few key points will do. Since I don't quite see how the "agenda" influences those very institutions you mentioned that appear to be doing quite well, right?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Regarding this post:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4559996&postcount=1127

Perhaps "aCultureWarrior" could enlighten us as to when he made a conscious decision concerning his sexual orientation.
Most of us don't remember making such a decision which would help explain why counciling and therapy to change one's orientation haven't proven successful.

I'm glad that you asked (Art Brain usually brings this topic up in the dozens of homosexual threads that he's participated in).

I had an absolutely wonderful childhood. A loving mom and dad and brother and sister. I thanked my parents throughout their senior years and on their deathbeds for giving me such a wonderful childhood. I'm motivated by my memories to return to a time where children can once again live a life of innocence and not be subjected to sexual perversion.

To answer your question: Being that I wasn't sexually molested or grew up in a dysfunctional home (see page 1's index for what causes homosexual desires), I've always had natural sexual desires, the one's God gave me at birth.

Why would anyone deliberately choose a same-sex sexual orientation given the lifetime of rejection and abuse most are forced to endure?

I agree! Why on earth would anyone want to have same sex desires when there are so many organizations out there that can help people overcome them!

Thanks for helping the traditional family cause jgarden, I knew you'd come around .

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
One only need to review the fairly extensive index on page 1 to see how those who engage in homosexual behavior are riddled with disease, disorders and premature death.

Anyone that defends that behavior and lifestyle is the true hater.

Not a single word about your personal motivation there, I'm afraid. So my question still stands.

I wasn't aware that people who stand up for decency have to give reasons for doing so, but since you asked:

Even though you don't want to talk about Christianity, God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture has a huge influence on me. That being said: I have and can continue to make a secular argument against homosexuality (disease, disorders, early death for those who engage in it) and of course against the 'gay' agenda (the indoctrination of children, stealing away parental rights, the persecution of people who speak out against it, to name 3).

Furthermore you've labelled all people who are in favour of individual freedom and an end to discrimination as "haters". How does that work?

When you use the term "individual freedom", you're talking about the supposed freedom to engage in homosexuality and not Christians and people who just believe in decency having the "freedom" to speak out and take action against sexual perversion I assume?

In response to your question: If a mentally disturbed person was standing on the rail of a bridge ready to jump to his death, if you told him that he has a right to do so, would that be an act of love or hate?

And I was about to ask how you figure that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle" when you're not bisexual, though this matter was already mentioned in the post above mine

There is a 'culture' that goes along with homosexual behavior (at least for those that proudly engage in it). Hence my use of the world "lifestyle".

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Where shall I start? Permeating and destroying invaluable institutions (government, marriage, the family, Education, the Church, the media/entertainment, the military, youth mentor groups).

I'll gladly discuss the above in detail if you wish (it was covered extensively in Part 1).

Yes, I do wish, no need for GREAT details, just a few key points will do. Since I don't quite see how the "agenda" influences those very institutions you mentioned that appear to be doing quite well, right?

Pick an institution, any institution (marriage, the family, the Church, civil government, Education, the media/entertainment, youth mentor organizations, the military) and I'll show you the influence the LGBTQueer movement has had on it and the sad state that institution is currently in.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I suppose this is a good thing, as it shows how desperate the left wing media has become (i.e. they see Ted Cruz as a real threat to Mrs. Bill Clinton's hopes of being President).

A cartoonist for the ultra left wing Washington Post by the name of Mrs. David Lloyd (aka Ann Telnaes) drew the following in response to a traditional family values ad that the Cruz campaign ran.

One must remember that these pathetic people murder babies in the womb by the millions and sell their body parts if there is a easy buck to be made, it shouldn't surprise anyone when they mock 5 and 7 year old girls.

 

[TheDuke]

I wasn't aware that people who stand up for decency have to give reasons for doing so, but since you asked:

Even though you don't want to talk about Christianity, God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture has a huge influence on me. That being said: I have and can continue to make a secular argument against homosexuality (disease, disorders, early death for those who engage in it) and of course against the 'gay' agenda (the indoctrination of children, stealing away parental rights, the persecution of people who speak out against it, to name 3).

Well, first and foremost, it's great that you speak with conviction, but please tone down your arrogance a bit, if you will.
Every person has different opinions, beliefs and biases. For instance, I also stand up for decency, however it seems that we both have a very different concept of what that means. How dare you claim that you are somehow "more" decent than others?

Yes, of course your faith has a role to play, if you say that's the main reason for your position, it is up to you. I just want to know why.
Also I don't mind talking about religion.

Now you go on about "disease, disorders, early death", so why aren't you engaged much more in smoking and drug abuse prevention, humanitarian aid to the poor and homeless or perhaps even think about improving health services overall?

In other words, why do you target the LGBT people????

When you use the term "individual freedom", you're talking about the supposed freedom to engage in homosexuality and not Christians and people who just believe in decency having the "freedom" to speak out and take action against sexual perversion I assume?

In response to your question: If a mentally disturbed person was standing on the rail of a bridge ready to jump to his death, if you told him that he has a right to do so, would that be an act of love or hate?

Not quite, I mean individual freedom in general. That is the freedom of every person to conduct their lives as they see fit. That includes everything starting with religion, occupation, hobbies, political views and, among other things, love and sexuality.

Now you also have the freedom to speak out your mind, and that's fine, but how do you perceive it as an exclusive right, to claim that your view is decent and correct, whereas others are perverted?
How would you feel, if someone were to attack your freedom by claiming that your lifestyle is "wrong"?

Your loaded rhetorical question about jumping off a bridge is neither here nor there. It just demonstrates your bigoted worldview.
Let me ask you this: have you ever personally met someone who is gay? Because I have, and I can assure you that no matter what "disorder" you think they may have, these are regular people who are simply following their nature.
Now you may debate whether it's god or the devil responsible for it, but reality won't change.

Being that I wasn't sexually molested or grew up in a dysfunctional home, I've always had natural sexual desires, the one's God gave me at birth.

And that's exactly my point. You are as your god made you to be, just like gays, lesbians, bisexuals and queers are.
The issue that you have is your own bias and incredulity about the cause of homosexuality.
I strongly recommend you to engage with people from that community and you'll discover that their childhood has nothing to do with it!

There is a 'culture' that goes along with homosexual behavior (at least for those that proudly engage in it). Hence my use of the world "lifestyle".

For once, I agree. I understand now what you mean, and yes I also think that the LGBT "extremists" are overdoing it with their public appearances that seem to be more of a psychological compensation thing.

Pick an institution, any institution (marriage, the family, the Church, civil government, Education, the media/entertainment, youth mentor organizations, the military) and I'll show you the influence the LGBTQueer movement has had on it and the sad state that institution is currently in.

Ok, how about marriage & family?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I wasn't aware that people who stand up for decency have to give reasons for doing so, but since you asked:

Even though you don't want to talk about Christianity, God's Word as seen in Holy Scripture has a huge influence on me. That being said: I have and can continue to make a secular argument against homosexuality (disease, disorders, early death for those who engage in it) and of course against the 'gay' agenda (the indoctrination of children, stealing away parental rights, the persecution of people who speak out against it, to name 3).

Well, first and foremost, it's great that you speak with conviction, but please tone down your arrogance a bit, if you will.

I speak only the truth. Most who come into this thread are uncomfortable with the truth, you're no different.

Every person has different opinions, beliefs and biases. For instance, I also stand up for decency, however it seems that we both have a very different concept of what that means. How dare you claim that you are somehow "more" decent than others?

That is why there must be one set of morals that never changes. Yours can change from day to day (homosexuality is normal today, incest and bestiality tomorrow, man-boy "love" the next, etc. etc. etc.). There must be moral absolutes or mankind will destroy itself.

If you ever decide that God exists, you'll find that His Word is the Truth and nothing but the Truth.

Yes, of course your faith has a role to play, if you say that's the main reason for your position, it is up to you. I just want to know why.
Also I don't mind talking about religion.

God set the guidelines for human sexuality in Genesis: One man, one woman, united in matrimony. Societies that acknowledge that Truth and legislate accordingly prosper. Those that don't, destroy themselves (review history).,

Now you go on about "disease, disorders, early death", so why aren't you engaged much more in smoking and drug abuse prevention, humanitarian aid to the poor and homeless or perhaps even think about improving health services overall?

In other words, why do you target the LGBT people????

You are aware that those who engage in homosexual behavior disproportionately abuse tobacco, alcohol and engage in recreational drug use aren't you?

To answer your question: All of the above can be resolved by strengthening the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of man: The Church, the Family and Civil Government. All three are in dire straights, when they're strong, individuals and society as a whole will prosper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When you use the term "individual freedom", you're talking about the supposed freedom to engage in homosexuality and not Christians and people who just believe in decency having the "freedom" to speak out and take action against sexual perversion I assume?

In response to your question: If a mentally disturbed person was standing on the rail of a bridge ready to jump to his death, if you told him that he has a right to do so, would that be an act of love or hate?

Not quite, I mean individual freedom in general. That is the freedom of every person to conduct their lives as they see fit. That includes everything starting with religion, occupation, hobbies, political views and, among other things, love and sexuality.

You do realize that you just wrote a prescription for chaos and anarchy don't you? Refer to my earlier comment about moral absolutes.

Now you also have the freedom to speak out your mind,..

Actually I don't. If I were to tell a fellow employee that proudly engages in homosexual behavior that what he is doing is wrong, I'd be fired in a second for harassment. If I did the same to strangers on the street, I very well could be charged with a hate crime.

and that's fine, but how do you perceive it as an exclusive right, to claim that your view is decent and correct, whereas others are perverted?
How would you feel, if someone were to attack your freedom by claiming that your lifestyle is "wrong"?

It's back to moral absolutes and God's design for human sexuality.

Your loaded rhetorical question about jumping off a bridge is neither here nor there. It just demonstrates your bigoted worldview.

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of homosexuals who have died from AIDS and are currently living with HIV/AIDS, solely because of the behavior that they choose to partake in.

Let me ask you this: have you ever personally met someone who is gay? Because I have, and I can assure you that no matter what "disorder" you think they may have, these are regular people who are simply following their nature.
Now you may debate whether it's god or the devil responsible for it, but reality won't change.

I live in a city that I call "Sodom and Gonorrhea North" (Seattle WA) where more than 10% of the population identify themselves as being homosexual. I worked a vice detail years ago where I spent time arresting those who engage in homosexual behavior. I've not only met homosexuals, I've seen up close their mentality and the lifestyle that they engage in.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Being that I wasn't sexually molested or grew up in a dysfunctional home, I've always had natural sexual desires, the one's God gave me at birth.

And that's exactly my point. You are as your god made you to be, just like gays, lesbians, bisexuals and queers are.
The issue that you have is your own bias and incredulity about the cause of homosexuality.
I strongly recommend you to engage with people from that community and you'll discover that their childhood has nothing to do with it!

Is the shift button on your keyboard not working? If you push it down when typing the letter "g", you'll correctly spell "God".

Review the table of contents on page 1 to see what causes homosexual desires. While you're at it you can review testimonies of both people who have gone through spiritual and psychological therapy to leave homosexual behavior (and often times desires) behind, as well as those who still proudly engage in the behavior (they'll tell you that they were either molested or grew up in a dysfunctional home).


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There is a 'culture' that goes along with homosexual behavior (at least for those that proudly engage in it). Hence my use of the world "lifestyle".

For once, I agree. I understand now what you mean, and yes I also think that the LGBT "extremists" are overdoing it with their public appearances that seem to be more of a psychological compensation thing.

I've pointed out many times before that anyone who proudly engages in homosexual behavior (or acknowledges homosexual behavior and/or the LGBTQueer movement as legitimate) is "extreme". Only those who struggle with homosexual desires and are attempting to do something about it aren't (all of mankind struggles with sinful desires, those who have homosexual desires are no different).




Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Pick an institution, any institution (marriage, the family, the Church, civil government, Education, the media/entertainment, youth mentor organizations, the military) and I'll show you the influence the LGBTQueer movement has had on it and the sad state that institution is currently in.

Ok, how about marriage & family?

Sure: How do you strengthen the nucleus of society (the traditional family) which is in a world of hurt already (due to no fault divorce laws, etc.) by acknowledging that something that is inherently perverse/immoral is normal?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Gotta love Ted Cruz's retort to the WA Post depicting his 5 and 7 year old girls as monkeys on a leash.

 

[patrick jane]

View attachment 21228

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Being a student of our Founding Fathers and American history during the colonial days, I couldn't agree more.

Ted Cruz: A Founding Father Returned?

If we want to know something about Biblical doctrine, sound theology or anything else about the nature and attributes of God we would not call our congressmen or senators. Our first recourse would be to call a theologian or preacher with a solid foundation in every aspect of conservative biblical doctrine.

It is rare to find a politician who has a full knowledge of biblical principles and doctrine. It is just as hard to find a gospel preacher who is highly informed about every aspect of politics.

Look no more – you have just found one.

Read more: http://barbwire.com/2015/12/24/ted-cruz-founding-father-returned/

 

[Greg Jennings]

Being a student of our Founding Fathers and American history during the colonial days, I couldn't agree more.

Ted Cruz: A Founding Father Returned?

If we want to know something about Biblical doctrine, sound theology or anything else about the nature and attributes of God we would not call our congressmen or senators. Our first recourse would be to call a theologian or preacher with a solid foundation in every aspect of conservative biblical doctrine.

It is rare to find a politician who has a full knowledge of biblical principles and doctrine. It is just as hard to find a gospel preacher who is highly informed about every aspect of politics.

Look no more – you have just found one.

Read more: http://barbwire.com/2015/12/24/ted-cruz-founding-father-returned/

aCW, are you under the impression that, if elected, Ted Cruz will somehow usher in a new era of Christianity-dominated politics? He's a strict, strict Constitutionalist, as I thought you knew. As such, he's certainly not going to violate his own principles in order to enact policies that are purely religious, such as banning gay marriage. He'll do what he believes in strongly and leave it up to the states to decide such matters, and as long as that is done he will never intervene where he sees Christianity's values set aside in favor of more secular legislation. He may not personally agree with a decision to allow gay marriage, but he wouldn't dream of trying to usurp the will of the people of any given state.

 

[brewmama]

aCW, are you under the impression that, if elected, Ted Cruz will somehow usher in a new era of Christianity-dominated politics? He's a strict, strict Constitutionalist, as I thought you knew. As such, he's certainly not going to violate his own principles in order to enact policies that are purely religious, such as banning gay marriage. He'll do what he believes in strongly and leave it up to the states to decide such matters, and as long as that is done he will never intervene where he sees Christianity's values set aside in favor of more secular legislation. He may not personally agree with a decision to allow gay marriage, but he wouldn't dream of trying to usurp the will of the people of any given state.

Leaving it up to the states would be a huge improvement over what we have had, which is tyranny on the federal level. He would not have illegally thrown out the defense of marriage act and would have honored the states which voted against gay marriage, (the vast majority of them.)

 

[Greg Jennings]

Leaving it up to the states would be a huge improvement over what we have had, which is tyranny on the federal level. He would not have illegally thrown out the defense of marriage act and would have honored the states which voted against gay marriage, (the vast majority of them.)

Are you kidding? 37 states plus DC voted to legalize gay marriage independently, and prior to the ruling you mention. What in the world are you talking about?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html

 

[brewmama]

Are you kidding? 37 states plus DC voted to legalize gay marriage independently, and prior to the ruling you mention. What in the world are you talking about?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/same-sex-marriage-civil-unions-doma-laws-by-state.html

You should check your source. Don't you remember even California overwhelmingly voting against gay marriage, just to have it overturned by the gay judge in CA? The legal votes in those states were struck down by activist judges.

"Yet 32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage.* Thirty-eight states prohibit gay marriage in some fashion. Even in “blue” states like California, Oregon and Delaware, gay marriage bans stand. North Carolina’s Amendment One Tuesday night was just the latest in a long line of failures at the ballot box for proponents of gay marriage. (Support for bans is falling over time, according to HRC: in 2004 they passed on average 71 percent to 29 percent, but in 2008 the average was 57 percent to 43 percent.)

Gay marriage has had more success in courts and state legislatures. But still, only six states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...he-ballot-box/2012/05/09/gIQAzhlNDU_blog.html

"Voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Liberal California voted for that in 2008, and so did red Texas in 2005. From 1998 to 2012—not say, from 1870 to 1890, or some other long-gone time period—34 states voted on defining marriage as being between a man and a woman—and only three voted against it.

And now the will of the people is being struck down by judge after judge."
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/06/states-voted-gay-marriage-now-forced-upon/

"Just this week, North Carolina became the 31st state in the country to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They did so with 61 percent of the vote, despite the claim of gay advocates and liberal bloggers that the state was poised to deliver a big upset. An overwhelming majority said they wanted to prevent activist judges and politicians like President Obama from redefining marriage. Our victory was so impressive that the prominent Democratic Public Policy Polling company said this: "Hate to say it, but I don't believe polls showing majority support for gay marriage nationally. Any time there's a vote it doesn't back it up."

North Carolina isn't the only swing state with a marriage amendment. Voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado have enacted similar legislation. Now, because of President Obama, those laws are at risk of being overturned. The Obama administration has refused to defend in federal court the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the legal framework that allows a state to control its definition of marriage and avoid having to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. If the act is overturned, it's only a matter of time before marriage is redefined for the entire country."
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/w...ate-by-state-americans-dont-want-gay-marriage

 

[Greg Jennings]

You should check your source. Don't you remember even California overwhelmingly voting against gay marriage, just to have it overturned by the gay judge in CA? The legal votes in those states were struck down by activist judges.

"Yet 32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage.* Thirty-eight states prohibit gay marriage in some fashion. Even in “blue” states like California, Oregon and Delaware, gay marriage bans stand. North Carolina’s Amendment One Tuesday night was just the latest in a long line of failures at the ballot box for proponents of gay marriage. (Support for bans is falling over time, according to HRC: in 2004 they passed on average 71 percent to 29 percent, but in 2008 the average was 57 percent to 43 percent.)

Gay marriage has had more success in courts and state legislatures. But still, only six states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...he-ballot-box/2012/05/09/gIQAzhlNDU_blog.html

"Voters in 31 states voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Liberal California voted for that in 2008, and so did red Texas in 2005. From 1998 to 2012—not say, from 1870 to 1890, or some other long-gone time period—34 states voted on defining marriage as being between a man and a woman—and only three voted against it.

And now the will of the people is being struck down by judge after judge."
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/06/states-voted-gay-marriage-now-forced-upon/

"Just this week, North Carolina became the 31st state in the country to adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They did so with 61 percent of the vote, despite the claim of gay advocates and liberal bloggers that the state was poised to deliver a big upset. An overwhelming majority said they wanted to prevent activist judges and politicians like President Obama from redefining marriage. Our victory was so impressive that the prominent Democratic Public Policy Polling company said this: "Hate to say it, but I don't believe polls showing majority support for gay marriage nationally. Any time there's a vote it doesn't back it up."

North Carolina isn't the only swing state with a marriage amendment. Voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado have enacted similar legislation. Now, because of President Obama, those laws are at risk of being overturned. The Obama administration has refused to defend in federal court the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the legal framework that allows a state to control its definition of marriage and avoid having to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. If the act is overturned, it's only a matter of time before marriage is redefined for the entire country."
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/w...ate-by-state-americans-dont-want-gay-marriage

Fair enough. I said "states voted for" when I should've said "states legalized." That still is considered states' rights, however, and would be something that Mr. Cruz would uphold. What he would, according to his principles, want to overturn would be the Federal Enactment that made gay marriage legal everywhere. That enactment only truly affected 8 states (at the time of the ruling, 13 states had gay marriage as illegal, but 5 were in the legal process of changing that).

So I see your point that state courts did decide gay marriage legality in many states. But that's still filed under states' rights

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW, are you under the impression that, if elected, Ted Cruz will somehow usher in a new era of Christianity-dominated politics? He's a strict, strict Constitutionalist, as I thought you knew. As such, he's certainly not going to violate his own principles in order to enact policies that are purely religious, such as banning gay marriage. He'll do what he believes in strongly and leave it up to the states to decide such matters, and as long as that is done he will never intervene where he sees Christianity's values set aside in favor of more secular legislation. He may not personally agree with a decision to allow gay marriage, but he wouldn't dream of trying to usurp the will of the people of any given state.

Won't it be great when Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade (and let's not forget Obamacare) will be repealed under a President Ted Cruz and you secular humanists will no longer have a monopoly on immoral legislation?

 

[TheDuke]

I speak only the truth. Most who come into this thread are uncomfortable with the truth, you're no different.

There you go again with that unbearable arrogance of a person possessed.
Is it so difficult to use actual arguments?
Is it so difficult to accept that you may be wrong?

That is why there must be one set of morals that never changes. Yours can change from day to day (homosexuality is normal today, incest and bestiality tomorrow, man-boy "love" the next, etc. etc. etc.). There must be moral absolutes or mankind will destroy itself.

1) Moral absolutes have nothing to do with the topic, we can also discuss this proposition, if you wish, but I'd rather not stray from the main issue.

2) It is such a primitive view that you hold. What can I do to make you see the big picture, I wonder?
Maybe an analogy will suffice:
Freedom of religion is normal today, religious law will be tomorrow, theocracy then next, and before we know it, we'll be burning witches again. There must be forced secularism, or mankind will destroy itself.

Now I hope you have enough reason left, to perceive just how and why both examples are skewed.

God set the guidelines for human sexuality in Genesis: One man, one woman, united in matrimony. Societies that acknowledge that Truth and legislate accordingly prosper. Those that don't, destroy themselves (review history).

Care to give a few examples, maybe?
Because I certainly can, a society that bases their rules on a holy book is truly the most horrible place to be in. Look at Europe during the mediaeval time, look as ISIS today.
Is that what you wish for?

PS: It seems the answer to my question is indeed, that you are solely motivated by your faith. I guess that means, I'll never be able to convince you to change your mind

All of the above can be resolved by strengthening the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of man: The Church, the Family and Civil Government. All three are in dire straights, when they're strong, individuals and society as a whole will prosper.

How romantic, yet you still seem to overlook that our society today is as prosperous as humanity has ever been.

I mean individual freedom in general. That is the freedom of every person to conduct their lives as they see fit. That includes everything starting with religion, occupation, hobbies, political views and, among other things, love and sexuality.

You do realize that you just wrote a prescription for chaos and anarchy don't you?

I'm currently looking out the window, .......nope, no chaos & anarchy yet. But I'll keep on looking for them.

If I were to tell a fellow employee that proudly engages in homosexual behavior that what he is doing is wrong, I'd be fired in a second for harassment. If I did the same to strangers on the street, I very well could be charged with a hate crime.

Possibly, but that's not the point, if I were to tell you in person that you have a serious mental problem because you believe in fairies, I'd be fired as well, and for the same reason.
The great achievement of our society is that we can express our views as long as we don't forget about basic rules of mutual respect, especially while at work.
E.g. look at the Westboro people, they are the extreme example of religious bigotry and yet they are not being arrested for expressing their views, right?

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of homosexuals who have died from AIDS and are currently living with HIV/AIDS, solely because of the behavior that they choose to partake in.

Really, and the 100000s of heterosexuals who contract HIV, especially the African communities having been blessed by the pope's personal visit.
How about the lesbians, who have a considerably reduced change of getting Aids. eh?

I worked a vice detail years ago where I spent time arresting those who engage in homosexual behavior. I've not only met homosexuals, I've seen up close their mentality and the lifestyle that they engage in.

you must have very different experiences than I have. What I'm not sure I understand, is what exactly you mean by "arresting"
May I inquire about the details of what your were doing?

While you're at it you can review testimonies of both people who have gone through spiritual and psychological therapy to leave homosexual behavior (and often times desires) behind, as well as those who still proudly engage in the behavior (they'll tell you that they were either molested or grew up in a dysfunctional home).

Testimonials is the weakest evidence you can possibly have, just look at the scientific literature about the topic. But you know, I'll do you the favour and ask the successful lawyer/banker couple who live across the street, whether they had a bad childhood. I'll talk to them when they have their families over, let's see how the reactions will be.

How do you strengthen the nucleus of society (the traditional family) which is in a world of hurt already (due to no fault divorce laws, etc.) by acknowledging that something that is inherently perverse/immoral is normal?

Yet again, you're beating around the bush.
Tell me what makes you think, that the traditional family is in peril?

Is the shift button on your keyboard not working? If you push it down when typing the letter "g", you'll correctly spell "God".

Hope you're not offended, but we don't talk about the same god, hence I don't capitalize.



merry xmas!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I should point out that while Ted Cruz does stand for states rights, he also ardently is a defender of religious freedom. Cruz would back legislation that would protect people of faith from being persecuted solely because they stand for God's Word.

Cruz stood by Kim Davis, the Kentucky Court Clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue faux marriage licenses to proud and unrepentant homosexuals, as well as standing by Iowans Dick and Betty Odgaard, who were forced to close their business because they refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony.

In defense of religious liberty

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I speak only the truth. Most who come into this thread are uncomfortable with the truth, you're no different.

There you go again with that unbearable arrogance of a person possessed.
Is it so difficult to use actual arguments?
Is it so difficult to accept that you may be wrong?

I haven't seen someone take this thread so personal since Art Brain and WizardofOz aka GFR7 aka patrick jane posted in it.

Tell the many readers of this 4 part thread what personal ties you have to homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
That is why there must be one set of morals that never changes. Yours can change from day to day (homosexuality is normal today, incest and bestiality tomorrow, man-boy "love" the next, etc. etc. etc.). There must be moral absolutes or mankind will destroy itself.

1) Moral absolutes have nothing to do with the topic, we can also discuss this proposition, if you wish, but I'd rather not stray from the main issue.

Moral absolutes have everything to do with this topic.

2) It is such a primitive view that you hold. What can I do to make you see the big picture, I wonder?

This 4 part thread has painted the "big picture". While Part 1 & 2 have been deleted (I still have copies of the table of contents from both threads), Part 3 and now Part 4 tell the truth about the behavior and agenda that you're defending.

Refute anything in Part 3 and Part 4 (you can't).

Maybe an analogy will suffice:
Freedom of religion is normal today, religious law will be tomorrow, theocracy then next, and before we know it, we'll be burning witches again. There must be forced secularism, or mankind will destroy itself.

Terrible analogy, but why ruin a perfectly good track record?

Jesus' 2nd greatest Commandment is to love thy neighbor as you'd love yourself. Legislating righteous laws and returning to cultural mores' that promote decency will only help homosexuals, not physically harm them (they're doing great harm to themselves and society since homosexuality was decriminalized).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
God set the guidelines for human sexuality in Genesis: One man, one woman, united in matrimony. Societies that acknowledge that Truth and legislate accordingly prosper. Those that don't, destroy themselves (review history).

Care to give a few examples, maybe?

The Roman Empire is one example.


Gay Marriage—Nothing New Under the Sun

May 22, 2012

Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of the moral landscape faced by the first Christians in Ancient Rome.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1367/gay_marriagenothing_new_under_the_sun.aspx

Because I certainly can, a society that bases their rules on a holy book is truly the most horrible place to be in. Look at Europe during the mediaeval time, look as ISIS today.
Is that what you wish for?

Comparing Islam with Christianity. Your ignorance is duly noted.

PS: It seems the answer to my question is indeed, that you are solely motivated by your faith. I guess that means, I'll never be able to convince you to change your mind

As mentioned, my faith plays a huge role in this culture war, but if I were to look at it as a non-believer, I couldn't deny the harm that homosexuality does to the individual as well as the harm the homosexual agenda has done to society as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
All of the above can be resolved by strengthening the 3 institutions that God ordained for the governance of man: The Church, the Family and Civil Government. All three are in dire straights, when they're strong, individuals and society as a whole will prosper.

How romantic, yet you still seem to overlook that our society today is as prosperous as humanity has ever been.

You're been sniffing the lies that Obama's lamestream media has been promoting for the past 7+ years. Come up for some fresh air and face reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

You do realize that you just wrote a prescription for chaos and anarchy don't you?

I'm currently looking out the window, .......nope, no chaos & anarchy yet. But I'll keep on looking for them.

The foundation is rotting away. It's only a matter of time before it implodes on us all. You should thank your lucky stars that there are conservatives/Christians out there that look out for you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If I were to tell a fellow employee that proudly engages in homosexual behavior that what he is doing is wrong, I'd be fired in a second for harassment. If I did the same to strangers on the street, I very well could be charged with a hate crime.

Possibly, but that's not the point, if I were to tell you in person that you have a serious mental problem because you believe in fairies, I'd be fired as well, and for the same reason.
The great achievement of our society is that we can express our views as long as we don't forget about basic rules of mutual respect, especially while at work.

Review the table of contents for the amount of Christians (and even non believers) that have been persecuted for speaking out against homosexuality.

E.g. look at the Westboro people, they are the extreme example of religious bigotry and yet they are not being arrested for expressing their views, right?

I've often said if the inbreds at the Westboro Baptist Church didn't exist, the LGBTQueer movment would invent them. I've seen them up close here in Seattle, they've done more to promote the LGBTQueer cause than to harm it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of homosexuals who have died from AIDS and are currently living with HIV/AIDS, solely because of the behavior that they choose to partake in.

Really, and the 100000s of heterosexuals who contract HIV, especially the African communities having been blessed by the pope's personal visit.

African AIDS is a scam. You can do your own investigation into the matter or wait until I get to that segment (there's HUGE $ in AIDS).

How about the lesbians, who have a considerably reduced change of getting Aids. eh?

Many lesbos are bisexual and are at risk. I've pointed out many times that Black heterosexual women have been infected solely because the had sex with Black men "on the down low" (bisexuals who won't tell their heterosexual partner that they're a practicing homosexual).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I worked a vice detail years ago where I spent time arresting those who engage in homosexual behavior. I've not only met homosexuals, I've seen up close their mentality and the lifestyle that they engage in.

you must have very different experiences than I have. What I'm not sure I understand, is what exactly you mean by "arresting"
May I inquire about the details of what your were doing?

Enforcing public decency laws. It's a sick culture that you defend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While you're at it you can review testimonies of both people who have gone through spiritual and psychological therapy to leave homosexual behavior (and often times desires) behind, as well as those who still proudly engage in the behavior (they'll tell you that they were either molested or grew up in a dysfunctional home).

]Testimonials is the weakest evidence you can possibly have, just look at the scientific literature about the topic. But you know, I'll do you the favour and ask the successful lawyer/banker couple who live across the street, whether they had a bad childhood. I'll talk to them when they have their families over, let's see how the reactions will be.

I see, they're all liars except for the proud and unrepentant sodomites who live across the street from you and are close friends?

Have them sign up to TOL and I'll ask them many questions myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
How do you strengthen the nucleus of society (the traditional family) which is in a world of hurt already (due to no fault divorce laws, etc.) by acknowledging that something that is inherently perverse/immoral is normal?

Yet again, you're beating around the bush.
Tell me what makes you think, that the traditional family is in peril?

How about we start with over 1/3 of children grow up in a household with only one parent?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/t...-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Is the shift button on your keyboard not working? If you push it down when typing the letter "g", you'll correctly spell "God".

Hope you're not offended, but we don't talk about the same god, hence I don't capitalize.

I have to give you credit: unlike many homosexualists do, you don't bastardize God's Word to meet your own selfish desires.

merry xmas!

Jesus is the reason for the season. I thought you weren't sure if God/the Son of God exists?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Won't it be great when Obergefell v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas and Roe v Wade (and let's not forget Obamacare) will be repealed under a President Ted Cruz and you secular humanists will no longer have a monopoly on immoral legislation?

Well, I think (actually I know) that Roe v Wade was a bad ruling in a court case that was a procedural sham. And I think that obamacare was just too ambitious of an idea to work in the US right now, so if he repeals those then more power to him