How to criminalize Christianity.

[Blackhawk2001]

the Bible is against it. That's good enough for me.

I agree. But since professing my faith is evidently anathema to homosexual supporters and non-Christians, I try to argue from a humanistic perspective. Societies don't get "saved", but perhaps ours can yet be rescued from its decline.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

My point was that once the moral underpinnings of a society are undermined, the society tends to decline.

This is unmistakbly correct.

We can look at plenty examples where morality was not found, and the end result was failure.


Unfortunately, morality is subject to culture, time and societial mindset, which makes examination subject to bias opinion.


In short, Im just sick of the slights @ Christianity in name of liberation (Which is in name alone.). With Christianity's decline, we can also see the decline of America and the Western world.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I agree. But since professing my faith is evidently anathema to homosexual supporters and non-Christians, I try to argue from a humanistic perspective. Societies don't get "saved", but perhaps ours can yet be rescued from its decline.

A Christian cannot argue against Non-Christians, the fundamental bias is rampent, and is as blindly as the sun.

You must seek they're arguements, and spend alot of time researching.

I'll say this, the left wingers arguements are usually based on a 'feel' (Or fool, as I like to say, since they are unrealistic) arguements. They are defeatable, it just takes time.

 

[jbombelli]

LOL DS



What the Ancients did worked for thousands of years.


These new agey agenda is threatening to destroy Society.


If a man, women or animal wants to be gay, fine... I dont care, but keep it to yourself. Want to be married? Fine put a ring on your finger, and blammo, done deal.


Dont ask Politic's or Religion to change for you. The way it works is the Majority has the rule, not the minority.

The world is much angrier when it allows a minority to rule them. And think about it, Elementry kids vote for pizza, can you imagine the outcry is someone voted for raw fish?

I have to take exception to that. One of the reasons we have a Bill of Rights is to protect us from what could be called the "tyranny of the majority."

The majority does NOT get to make the rules simply because they're the majority. At least not ALL the rules.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

I have to take exception to that. One of the reasons we have a Bill of Rights is to protect us from what could be called the "tyranny of the majority."

The majority does NOT get to make the rules simply because they're the majority. At least not ALL the rules.

Yes, but when a minority rules, it's purely Elitism in it's best.

When a minority can exploit the majority, then we have more social division than the reverse.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. However, I also understand the Founders are rolling in they're graves at what they're beautiful dream has become.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Yes, but when a minority rules, it's purely Elitism in it's best.

When a minority can exploit the majority, then we have more social division than the reverse.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. However, I also understand the Founders are rolling in they're graves at what they're beautiful dream has become.

Interestingly you just stated a profoundly socialist viewpoint.

(Pure) Free-market capitalism accepts taking advantage of whatever or whoever one wants whenever it is to ones advantage. Preying on the weak, feeble or otherwise, whether they are in the majority or the minority, is fair game accordingly.

I also find it interesting that this would include pretending to be Christian in order to take advantage of others.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Interestingly you just stated a profoundly socialist viewpoint.

(Pure) Free-market capitalism accepts taking advantage of whatever or whoever one wants whenever it is to ones advantage. Preying on the weak, feeble or otherwise, whether they are in the majority or the minority, is fair game accordingly.

I also find it interesting that this would include pretending to be Christian in order to take advantage of others.

Im not talking about capitalism, or those with the honor of criminal.

I mainly speak of direction, agenda and policy.

America is ruled by a few, and those in the majority are foolish enough to think voting for red or blue will solve a single issue. Obama has taught us this fundamental lession.

 

[downzero]

I'll bet the ACLU is on the side of the folks who want to limit free speech in this way.

You'd be absolutely, dead wrong. The ACLU has a ruthless stance on free speech and would never stand for this.

 

[downzero]

(Pure) Free-market capitalism accepts taking advantage of whatever or whoever one wants whenever it is to ones advantage. Preying on the weak, feeble or otherwise, whether they are in the majority or the minority, is fair game accordingly.

Wrong. Read this article:
The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, by Milton Friedman

But the doctrine of "social responsibility" taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collectivist doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book Capitalism and Freedom, I have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

Emphasis added. If Milton Friedman didn't know what free market capitalism is, nobody does or has.

 

[downzero]

I'd divorce my wife in a heartbeat if she'd agree to stay together afterward.

I know where you're going with this, and I agree 100%

 

[junglerogue]

Why do we pander to the minority just because they scream louder?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Why do we pander to the minority just because they scream louder?

Minorities have rights enshrined in the Constitution because the Founders felt that everyone has certain rights that _no one_ should be able to take away. Unfortunately, certain minorities have had "rights" handed to them by our courts which are not "rights" at all, and the most vocal minorities who scream about their "rights" are perfectly willing to ignore or suppress other peoples' rights.

With so many groups on hair-trigger readiness to scream "-ism!",
we never get a chance to discuss the merits of various "rights" claims and their relation to the actual rights recognized by the Constitution.

Until we, as a society, redress this fundamental imbalance, we're going to continue to have this situation, and ridiculous claims to nebulous "rights" will continue to surface.

 

[Joe Williams]

I will continue to exercise and express my beliefs and my faith freely. No law can stop me, and I will defend to the death my right to do so against tyrants who try. They are anti-American, and are trying to overthrow the Constitution. Such people deserve only a short rope and a tall tree. They are traitors. Now, if someone wishes to disagree with my beliefs and statements, more power to them... but they do not have the right to use government force to stop me.

Death in this life isn't the end, anyway.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If I were a homosexual, I would likely see the financial & legal benefits that heterosexual couples receive as being unfair. I don't know why we think we must tether marriage to laws at all. Why can't we all just be treated equally under a flat-tax system with couples paying the same tax twice that a single person pays once? It's not only unfair to homosexuals, but it's also unfair to people who aren't coupled at all.

Remove the term "marriage" from all legal references & insert "civil union". Remove all preferential treatments from the tax codes. Let marriage be a religious ceremony & leave it out of or hospital visitation rights & tax codes.

 

[Fletch]

Remove the term "marriage" from all legal references & insert "civil union". Remove all preferential treatments from the tax codes. Let marriage be a religious ceremony & leave it out of or hospital visitation rights & tax codes.

Agree with everything but the "insert civil union". Government has no business taking notice of any of it, no matter what it's called. All of the rights & privileges & immunities should be completely created through contract. This is probably the only time you'll see me wanting throw work to lawyers.

 

[Garb]

the Bible is against it. That's good enough for me.

The Bible is against the very act of homosexual relations, which is already happening, and will happen regardless of whether or not gay marriage is made legal. Under that argument, it would seem logical to make being gay illegal, in which the government would be attempting to play God by enforcing laws infringing on personal liberties.

On a different note, the reason I posted this link has nothing to do with gay rights, I'm concerned about the oppression of the church, which I'm afraid will almost certainly happen in the case that gay marriage is passed. That is why I agree with some other people who have posted on this thread, that it should be up to the church and the people involved, and the government should recognize any couple regardless of their sexual orientation, or they should not recognize anyone at all.

 

[ironjaw]

you know, I read a few post that got the blood boiling and I thought about posting(preaching) to a couple posters in this thread. I have since calmed down. Now I'm gonna look for an ignore button, that will just make that person or ppl just not show up on my screen. Because after reading a few of their posts, there is no way in the future that anything those ppl have to say would in any way, shape, or form be an asset to this forum, IMHO. Not looking for an argument, just the ignore button for a few!

 

[OAK]

I see it like this if your a homosexual be the biggest, brightest shining rainbow you can be. There will be a day where you ceist to exist, that could be tomorrow. These politics and discussion will mount to absolutly nothing. No matter what your religious believes are, if you dont believe in god so be it, if you do belive in something more we all know there will be a time to answer for your action here and there will not be a discussion at that time!

OAK OUT

 

[Faceman675]

Well, for one thing, 30 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation; societal mores were opposed to homosexuality, bestiality, pederasty, and other forms of social behavior that were considered outside the norm (for some very good reasons). It is a true cliche that "marriage" has been universally understood as the union of men and women. If anyone can show me a society in history in which homosexual marriage was codified, I will consider myself enlightened.

Instead, for whatever cause, we've had this push to bring aberrant behavior into the societal mainstream, and as this aberration becomes acceptable, next comes NAMBLA asking why adult men shouldn't "marry" young boys.

There are a number of reasons why a society fails, historically, but no society will thrive if it fails to produce children and protect the same. Marriage between a man and a woman is the natural means by which children are brought into the world and protected until they can fend for themselves. A society which condones the murder of its children and weakens or demeans the societal value of traditional marriage is on the downhill slope to destruction. A society which values marriage and children will displace it.

My personal disclaimer: I don't care what consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their homes. I've had homosexual neighbors and acquaintances and have gotten along well with them. I don't preach at them and I don't hate them, but I don't agree that they are "normal" or should be able to marry.

Well said. I would also like to see a federal protection of marriage act that incorporates a requirement that each state provides for a civil union law that grants all the rights of marriage on same sex couples. I swear I am going scream the next time some homosexual rights advocate says "Separate but equal is not equal" Thats true if your talking about public schools but as long as the law infers all rights that come with marriage that argument does not hold up.

 

[Johnny C]

So Downzero,
Your telling me that the ACLU is going all out to PROTECT the free speech of preachers to say "the bible is against Gays" and other so-called Hate speech?

I DONT THINK SO!