Proof of a Homosexual Agenda

[Busheses]

Actually, yes Busheses! Though it's not about "passing yourself off" as heterosexual, it's simply about abstaining from sin. As some have tried to point out, being homosexual isn't wrong in and of itself. It's what you do with it that counts.

Psssst. That's easy man. As long as they don't ask me to stop loving my husband or to leave him. Sex, contrary to what many of them think is not the most important bond in our relationship. It is very important of course, but even if we did not have sex at all, I am confident that my husband and I would still be together, I would still be gay and so would he. My friends and family would still think of my as being homosexual and wackos like Fred Phelps (sp) and other posters here on TWeb would still condemn us. With or without the sex.

[Amazing Rando]

Psssst. That's easy man. As long as they don't ask me to stop loving my husband or to leave him. Sex, contrary to what many of them think is not the most important bond in our relationship. It is very important of course, but even if we did not have sex at all, I am confident that my husband and I would still be together, I would still be gay and so would he. My friends and family would still think of my as being homosexual and wackos like Fred Phelps (sp) and other posters here on TWeb would still condemn us. With or without the sex.

There's nothing wrong with love- in fact, it's commanded by the Lord!

That does raise an interesting question that I'd be curious to hear opinions on (from Christians please!):

If two men had a relationship like Busheses describes, yet was sexless, would this be sin according to the Bible? My current answer to that particular question would be no.

So then, is it really all about the sex? The more that I ask myself that question, the more I find the answer to this second question to be yes.

[Busheses]

Actually, yes Busheses! Though it's not about "passing yourself off" as heterosexual, it's simply about abstaining from sin. As some have tried to point out, being homosexual isn't wrong in and of itself. It's what you do with it that counts.

Psssst. That's easy man. As long as they don't ask me to stop loving my husband or to leave him. Sex, contrary to what many of them think is not the most important bond in our relationship. It is very important of course, but even if we did not have sex at all, I am confident that my husband and I would still be together, I would still be gay and so would he. My friends and family would still think of my as being homosexual and wackos like Fred Phelps (sp) and other posters here on TWeb would still condemn us. With or without the sex.

[Amazing Rando]

Psssst. That's easy man. As long as they don't ask me to stop loving my husband or to leave him. Sex, contrary to what many of them think is not the most important bond in our relationship. It is very important of course, but even if we did not have sex at all, I am confident that my husband and I would still be together, I would still be gay and so would he. My friends and family would still think of my as being homosexual and wackos like Fred Phelps (sp) and other posters here on TWeb would still condemn us. With or without the sex.

Pssst! Hey Busheses- you double posted! see my reply above your latest one.

[Busheses]

There's nothing wrong with love- in fact, it's commanded by the Lord!

That does raise an interesting question that I'd be curious to hear opinions on (from Christians please!):

If two men had a relationship like Busheses describes, yet was sexless, would this be sin according to the Bible? My current answer to that particular question would be no.

So then, is it really all about the sex? The more that I ask myself that question, the more I find the answer to this second question to be yes.

And yet, I bet there are same-sex couples out there who for whatever reason cannot be intimate with each other and are still condemned by many because the bible condemns homosexuals.

[Amazing Rando]

I'm going to start a new thread on this subject over in Christianity 201- feel free to drop by if you'd like!

[Snarf]

You bet!!

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04042002.html

Thank you for the reference, and I read it. Clearly the Gay Militia was way out of line and the situation was properly handled by the police. I don't doubt that there are a lot of wacko lefties as well.

OK, let me rephrase:
Can you cite an example in which a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means?

[Blemonds]

Thank you for the reference, and I read it. Clearly the Gay Militia was way out of line and the situation was properly handled by the police. I don't doubt that there are a lot of wacko lefties as well.

OK, let me rephrase:
Can you cite an example in which a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means?

Prove a liberal wrong and they change the parameters. that's exactly what they're doing to our Constitution

[AtheistArchon]

Snarf: Can you cite an example in which a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means?

Blem: Prove a liberal wrong and they change the parameters. that's exactly what they're doing to our Constitution

- So that would be a "no".

[Blemonds]

- So that would be a "no".

It's not a "no", it's a waste of time. when I cite the next example, I merely have to wait for the parameters to change once again. He asked for it, he got it.

[Blemonds]

Thank you for the reference, and I read it. Clearly the Gay Militia was way out of line and the situation was properly handled by the police. I don't doubt that there are a lot of wacko lefties as well.

OK, let me rephrase:
Can you cite an example in which a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means?

OK, I decided to prove my point about changing parameters. Here's a story about a preacher having to censor himself in the area of homosexaulity because of hate crime laws inclusive of homosexuals.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/103837.shtml

What are the new parameters?

[OneFollowingHim]

The problem with recognizing gay marriages along side traditional marriages as equal is in the long-term decline in morality. Sexual stimulation is progressive in that what was exciting yesterday is no longer exciting today. And in that desire to have high pleasure we will see how things will progress to more and more perverse things that maintain that same level of stimulation.

Moving on to more and more stimulating pleasures is not the way for every gay person. Some may actually live together for life. Some in fact already do that. But the argument for personal rights being used to promote gay marriage right now will be the same argument used by others for more perverse things in the quest for maintaining the high level of sexual stimulation. Many sexual behaviors are wrong, but having governmental and societal approval improperly justifies the action.

We really don't kow precisely how all this will play itself out. But one thing is for certain. We will contiune to see more and more moral decline for the mere fact that the line of reasoning used today for personal rights will be used again and again.

[salvationfound]

WHOOHOO!

Thanks Blemonds! Two examples of my home country showing that
us Christians do not deserve any rights. I think it is safe to say in Canada
even homosexuals have more rights than Christians. Christians are not
even allowed to tell the world how they feel in their hearts. Looks like
Canada is just a few years away from putting us Christians in concentration
camps.

Why am I excited? Cause we are suppose to feel thanks for being
persecuted for our beliefs. Acts 5:41
And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that
they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

[anthrogirl]

The problem with recognizing traditional marriages as equal is in the long-term decline in morality. Sexual stimulation is progressive in that what was exciting yesterday is no longer exciting today. And in that desire to have high pleasure we will see how things will progress to more and more perverse things that maintain that same level of stimulation.

Moving on to more and more stimulating pleasures is not the way for every straight person. Some may actually live together for life. Some in fact already do that. But the argument for personal rights being used to promote straight marriage right now will be the same argument used by others for more perverse things in the quest for maintaining the high level of sexual stimulation. Many sexual behaviors are wrong, but having governmental and societal approval improperly justifies the action.

We really don't kow precisely how all this will play itself out. But one thing is for certain. We will contiune to see more and more moral decline for the mere fact that the line of reasoning used today for personal rights will be used again and again.

[Snarf]

OK, I decided to prove my point about changing parameters. Here's a story about a preacher having to censor himself in the area of homosexaulity because of hate crime laws inclusive of homosexuals.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/103837.shtml

What are the new parameters?

The article you cite:
Canada Promotes 'Fascist' Attack on the Bible

Canada's House of Commons approved Wednesday a bill to include sexual orientation in the nation's hate-propaganda law.

"Bill C-250, sponsored by gay New Democratic Party MP Svend Robinson, has been described by some Alliance MPs and religious groups as a 'fascist' measure that could criminalize anyone for reading quotes on homosexuality from the Bible or the Koran," the Vancouver Sun reported today.

Brian Rushfeldt of Canada Family Action Coalition said: "Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of 'hate' speech by homosexual activists. When C-250 is passed into law later this fall, the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions."

Robinson pooh-poohed the criticism.

"The suggestion that including gays and lesbians in a law that protects against violence and hatred would touch religious beliefs and the right to quote from the Bible is utterly without foundation," he claimed. "What this bill is about is sending a message to the gay bashers, it's about sending a message to those who promote hatred, and violence and even death of gay men."

However, as we have previously noted, Parade magazine has reported that the Rev. Jerry Falwell already must tape a self-censored version of his TV program for Canada to avoid being charged with thought crimes.

I propose no new parameters, but what's wrong with oulawing hate speech directed against homosexuals or anyone else? In the US, can you legally threaten to kill people?

The first paragraph says that "Bill C-250, sponsored by gay New Democratic Party MP Svend Robinson, has been described by some Alliance MPs and religious groups as a 'fascist' measure that could criminalize anyone for reading quotes on homosexuality from the Bible or the Koran,"

Well, if you start emphasizing quotes that include stoning homosexuals and inciting followers to do such an act, yes that counts as threatening speech.

In short, if preachers say things that incite their followers to violence against gays, just like imams in Arabia who preach death to Israel, then yes such speech should be curtailed. But this is not about homosexuality; this is about preventing violence.

To be honest, evangelicals claim that God is love, then why the strong opposition to hate speech against homosexuals? This is an honest question, I really wonder why.