Thread: Proof of a Homosexual Agenda
May 20th 2004, 08:32 PM #61Originally posted by anthrogirl
You may not realize the profound truth in your post. You're absolutely right, in part. The part that recognizes sexual immorality as a bad thing, whether hetero or homo, is right on target. The part that is incorrect is the part that puts traditional marriage between a man and a woman for life together with any other "marriage".
When governments and societies cease to recognize the Source of marriage and recognize bad imitations of genuine marriage, they fail. And that is precisely what is going on with the whole gay marriage issue.
God has a plan for marriage and it doesn't include members of the same sex.Human embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells. Maureen L. Condic (Click Here)Government by the people is always preferable to government by the judiciary. Brian Fahling Senior trial attorney for the Center for Law & PolicyThe philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. Abraham LincolnUnless you say, "Yes, I'm a sinner who needs forgiveness" and accept God's free gift of salvation, your answer is "No" by default. We report, you decide.
May 20th 2004, 10:24 PM #62Originally posted by Snarf
Originally posted by Snarf
Here is your statements:
Please document a case where a preacher was actually bullied by homosexuals into silence
OK, let me rephrase:
Can you cite an example in which a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means?
May 20th 2004, 11:40 PM #63Originally posted by Snarf
Here's a clip from the article "Silenced in Saskatchewan" by Edward E. Plowman, World Magazine, March 1, 2003.
“Indeed, that has already happened: A federal court in Saskatchewan ruled in December that the Bible amounted to hate literature. The decision received next to no notice in the nation's press. The case involved Hugh Owens of Regina, who ran an ad in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on Gay Pride Day in 1997. It featured only four Bible references (Romans 1:26-32, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 21:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9) without quoting from them, an equal sign, and two stick men holding hands inside a red circle with a diagonal slash through it—similar to highway and street signs forbidding certain actions. Mr. Owens said he was seeking to draw the public's attention to biblical teaching about homosexuality.
Three homosexuals sued Mr. Owens and the newspaper under the provincial human-rights code. It forbids publication of text and symbols that would expose people to hatred, ridicule, or "affront of dignity" on account of their sexual orientation. A one-woman panel of the human-rights commission ruled in their favor, saying the inclusion of Bible verses elevated the ad to violation of the code. She ordered Mr. Owens and the newspaper to pay each man $1,500 (WORLD, July 21, 2001).
The federal court rejected Mr. Owens's appeal in December, noting that "the biblical passage which suggests that if a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to hatred."
If Bill C-250 becomes part of Canada's criminal code, preachers had better consult their lawyers before going into the pulpit to discuss homosexual behavior as sinful or read Bible verses dealing with homosexuality. (End of cite)God has chosen the foolish and the weak, and we need to live without the need to possess, to have, to seek prestige and to be recognized. The guiless and the childlike manifest the wisdom that defeats the powers (of the air). Art Katz
May 21st 2004, 12:01 AM #64Originally posted by c968
May 21st 2004, 07:34 PM #65Originally posted by OneFollowingHim
May 21st 2004, 07:52 PM #66Originally posted by Blemonds
But I point out that threatening speech is not protected by the First amendment. And yes, the Bible can be used in threatening speech. There is a big difference between saying homosexuality is a sin and implying that homosexuals should not exist. I admit, many homosexuals do exaggerate the threats posed, but that still does not justify insulting them.
May 21st 2004, 10:25 PM #67Originally posted by Snarf
Last edited by Blemonds; May 21st 2004 at 10:45 PM.
May 21st 2004, 10:31 PM #68Originally posted by Blemonds
Do you believe homosexuals should have less rights than Christians?Science cannot investigate supernatural causation for the same reason that you cannot score 5 runs on a single baseball play.
~ Moi, August 10th, 2004
May 21st 2004, 10:34 PM #69Originally posted by Snarf
Originally posted by SnarfHuman embryos are living human beings precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death—the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living human cells. Maureen L. Condic (Click Here)Government by the people is always preferable to government by the judiciary. Brian Fahling Senior trial attorney for the Center for Law & PolicyThe philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. Abraham LincolnUnless you say, "Yes, I'm a sinner who needs forgiveness" and accept God's free gift of salvation, your answer is "No" by default. We report, you decide.
May 22nd 2004, 12:29 AM #70Originally posted by DunnySaze
May 22nd 2004, 12:45 AM #71
Blemoonds your my favorite poster
May 22nd 2004, 12:49 AM #72Originally posted by Christianotaku
May 22nd 2004, 12:25 PM #73Originally posted by Blemonds
To answer your final two questions: I don't believe that homosexuals who are not Christians should have more rights than Christians. , but they should have equal rights. Two, Christians should be and are allowed to practice their religion freely and say what they want, within certain limits. These limits are the same that everyone else must follow, meaning that one cannot use their religion as a legal basis for committing crimes, physically attacking others, or threatening violence against others. Homosexuals aren't allowed to threaten Christians, so why should Christians be allowed to threaten homosexuals?
Being a Christian does not give license to say and do whatever one wants, while censoring or outlawing what others say or do. I'm not saying that you do this, but it's not a strawman. Until recently homosexual acts were considered crimes, the teaching of evolution was outlawed, and even now the fight to censor books continues. If conservative want to censor and outlaw what others say or do, they shouldn't complain about having to follow the same rules. Christians are not superior to anyone else.
Qualifier:even if homosexual is a sin, homosexuality no more disqualifies people from being Christians than practitioners of any other kind of sin. People don't become Christians by being good enough.
May 22nd 2004, 12:27 PM #74Originally posted by Christianotaku
By OneFollowingHim in forum Civics 101Replies: 24Last Post: August 13th 2006, 01:31 AM
By David Ben-Ariel in forum Unorthodox Theology 201Replies: 0Last Post: January 23rd 2006, 10:48 PM
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 98Last Post: May 4th 2005, 05:22 PM
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 83Last Post: September 23rd 2004, 01:39 AM
By Eyeheart Pumpkin in forum Civics 101Replies: 9Last Post: March 19th 2004, 05:52 PM