Proof of a Homosexual Agenda

[OneFollowingHim]

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.

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.

[Blemonds]

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

This is bizarre. I cited no such article

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?.

Yes you are changing the parameters.

Here is your statements:

Please document a case where a preacher was actually bullied by homosexuals into silence

I did that so you rephrased as follows:

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

I did that and now you're off on some tangent. Why don't you just admit that homosexuals are usisng any means possible, legal or otherwise, to silence Christian voices. After all, I proved it to you.

[c968]

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?

I resubmit:
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)

[Blemonds]

I resubmit:
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)

OK, let's wait for the new parameters

[Snarf]

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.

What is your definition of a genuine marriage, and what is an imitation? Also, do you consider it a genuine marriage if neither party recognizes God?

[Snarf]

OK, let's wait for the new parameters

Sorry for the mistake, I thought I had clicked on the link you sent. Still no new parameters. Yes, there are legal limits to what Christian preachers can say about homosexuals, and probably many others groups of people as well.
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.

[Blemonds]

Sorry for the mistake, I thought I had clicked on the link you sent. Still no new parameters. Yes, there are legal limits to what Christian preachers can say about homosexuals, and probably many others groups of people as well.
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.

The new parameters are that you are changing the subject and building your strawman (suggesting that we are discussing that my news story were about implying that homosexuals shouldn't exist). Back to what we were discussing, you wanted evidence (Don't tell Jimmy Higgins and BlackOpal that I provided evidence because they will cringe to realize how wrong they have been about me) that a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means? You've got your evidence, so what are you going to do with it rather than change the subject or build more strawmen. Do you believe that homosexuals have more rihghts than Christians? Should Christians be allowed to speak freely and practice their religion freely?

[DunnySaze]

Do you believe that homosexuals have more rihghts than Christians?

No.

Do you believe homosexuals should have less rights than Christians?

[OneFollowingHim]

What is your definition of a genuine marriage, and what is an imitation?

One man, one woman for life. An imitation is anything other than a man and a woman.

Also, do you consider it a genuine marriage if neither party recognizes God?

Yes.

[Blemonds]

No.

Do you believe homosexuals should have less rights than Christians?

No, and they do not

[Christianotaku]

Blemoonds your my favorite poster

[Blemonds]

Blemoonds your my favorite poster

Thanks Christianotaku

[Snarf]

The new parameters are that you are changing the subject and building your strawman (suggesting that we are discussing that my news story were about implying that homosexuals shouldn't exist). Back to what we were discussing, you wanted evidence (Don't tell Jimmy Higgins and BlackOpal that I provided evidence because they will cringe to realize how wrong they have been about me) that a Christian pastor was bullied into silence by legal means? You've got your evidence, so what are you going to do with it rather than change the subject or build more strawmen. Do you believe that homosexuals have more rihghts than Christians? Should Christians be allowed to speak freely and practice their religion freely?

When I said "no new parameters," that meant i was accepting your evidence as is. Yes a preacher was bullied into silence by legal means. But from the article, the sign witha red line crossing out the image of two stick men holding hands can imply "no homosexuals allowed," just like a sign showing a red line through a picture of a dog means "no dogs allowed." I'm sorry if you interpreted this as changing the subject, or building a strawman. I was simply trying to interpret why the person putting up the sign was sued.

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.

[Snarf]

Blemoonds your my favorite poster

I gather I'm your least favorite, but even though we may disagree I love and respect you and Blemonds (hug)