"Gay Rights" Bill Lets Courts Define Church's Purpose

[Mr. JOSHUA]

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

'Gay'-rights bill lets court define church's 'purpose'

'Most sweeping and culturally devastating law in Oregon history, establishing pagan morality'

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/govkulongoski%20(2).jpg
Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski
A plan being shoved down a fast track in the Oregon Legislature would give homo******s a vast range of new state laws they could use to impose their moral perspective on Christians across the state, according to opponents who fear for their speech and religious expression rights.

Senate Bill 2, on its face, is written to enshrine in state law special protections for homo******s by classifying them as a protected civil rights group. But hundreds of pastors – whose churches include tens of thousands of evangelical Christians – are horrified by what they see advancing virtually without opposition.

"Senate Bill 2, in the Oregon House of Representatives, if passed, will limit your free speech rights and rights of conscience; require public schools to teach that homo******/lesbian/bi****** behavior is 'okay' and 'moral'; impact your rights as a business owner; and put judges in authority on certain church matters," according to David

Crowe, of the Christian ministry called Restore America.


This bill is arrogantly, defiantly and deceptively crafted to accomplish a lot more than what it is saying," he told WND. "It definitely adds ****** orientation to the list of protected civil rights groups.


"But there is verbiage in the bill and the verbiage has to do with the primary purpose of a church. They're seeking really to gain a foothold for homo******s into the Christian church with the court's approval," he said.

"It's more than the nose of the camel, they want the whole camel in the tent to ruminate around however they would like," he said. "The word we've gotten from attorneys is that of all the bills around the country this is the worst," Crowe said.

"The bottom line this is a total effort by the left to subvert our morality, our Judeo-Christian morality and impose on us a morality they consider superior. What it is really is challenging everything we as Christians stand for."

The bill would affect churches even though it has a so-called church exemption, he said, because it would require every church operation that isn't directly in support of its primary mission goal to be subject to mandatory homo****** hiring requirements and other restrictions.

And it would leave the determination of what is in support of a church's primary mission to be determined by a secular judge. It is possible, for example, that a lesbian could sue a church if not hired to be a pastor's secretary.

For Christian business owners, it would require them to hire and promote homo******s irrespective of the religious beliefs the owner might hold -- or whether the employee agrees with the products, in a Christian bookstore for example.

For parents, it means their children in public schools would be subject to the state-sponsored and state-required indoctrination that the homo****** lifestyle choice is moral – even if the parents hold religious beliefs that contradict that.

"The law – and this is onerous – has a clause that talks about developing a program of education to change our attitudes," Crowe said. "To change our attitudes? Is it the government's business to change attitudes? But that's precisely what's in the bill."

"They want to put into law [their] view of morality, and that's a small minority view of morality. They are seeking to impose that on the rest of us," he said.

Nearly 500 Christian pastors from across the state recently gathered with representatives of the Legislature to express their opposition to the proposal, and afterwards issued a statement that the law, if approved, would be "the most sweeping and culturally devastating law in Oregon history, establishing pagan morality under the guise of a 'civil right,' and imposing it upon all Oregonians under the cover of 'law.'"

Crowed noted that of the 14 states that have added "****** orientation" to their protected classes, all except Senate Bill 2 provide clear protection for churches. "Not one includes wording that allows courts to determine the 'primary purpose' of a church, but SB 2 does," he noted.

"The majority of our legislators have chosen to believe the lie that those who engage in homo****** activity cannot help themselves, and that they are being unjustly and wrongly discriminated against, when in fact, neither is true," Crowe said.

The proposal "clearly opens the door to liberal judges to redefine and decide the 'primary purpose' of a church, and violates the rights of everyone," said Crowe, who recommends people sign a petition to encourage legislators to oppose the plan.

The governor had appointed a commission to study the issue, but included only representatives of liberal or "gay" churches, leaving members of 2,500 Bible-believing and teaching churches unrepresented on the panel, he said.

Individual leaders from Christian organizations already have begun contacting not only their lawmakers, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski too.

A letter from Vernon M. Marks, superintendent of the Oregon Assemblies of God churches, told Kulongoski that the more than 30,000 members of those churches are urging the rejection of the plan.
His letter told the governor the bills will:

Violate the very moral and ethical foundations of our culture.

Restrict the rights of our citizens to make moral distinctions and to speak freely.

Disregard fundamental biblical guidelines for the sanctity of traditional family.

Promote dysfunctional family structures that will rob the next generation.

Ignore the overwhelming vote of Oregonians to preserve traditional marriage.

Discriminate against parents raising mentally and physically challenged adult children.

Provide special rights for a few and ignore the civil rights of the majority of Oregonians.

Discriminate against parental moral values and convictions.

Promote behaviors that clearly violate common sense and social stability.

Will create a huge strain on Oregonians economically.

Will elevate the already taxed judicial system in dealing with lawsuits over these issues.

Infringe on the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion.

John Fortmeyer, publisher of the Christian News Northwest reported that the Legislature has given the appearance of allowing public input, but it doesn't appear to impact any decisions.

Nick Graham of the Oregon Family Council told him a March hearing on the plan lasted seven hours and had 126 people register to oppose it. Sixty-five supported it.

"We had fantastic testimony in opposition, such as from legal firms and executive pastors," Graham said. "But to no avail, that evening, the bill was passed out of committee and sent to the floor of the Senate ... We were given the appearance of public input, but ultimately it meant nothing."

"Also, PRAY!" said a message from Marks to the church group's pastors. "This is possibly the most dangerous piece of legislation to come from Oregon's legislature."

The Constitution Party said the plan is a "recipe for civil war."
"Everyone should read this legislation. It clearly gives those who choose non-traditional ****** behavior preference over those with traditional moral values," said state Chairman Jack Brown. "This legislation will lock religious people inside their church buildings and let perversion occupy the rest of the landscape!"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55084

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

[Dasein]

Why didn't the article cite the legislation itself?

[shocker1]

The Constitution Party said the plan is a "recipe for civil war."
"Everyone should read this legislation. It clearly gives those who choose non-traditional ****** behavior preference over those with traditional moral values," said state Chairman Jack Brown. "This legislation will lock religious people inside their church buildings and let perversion occupy the rest of the landscape!News flash from a Christain, the World according to the Word is full of perversion and temptation. Change your life and effect those around you. All attempts to legislate God have ended badly and often in blood.

Now that said I am totaly against putting any lables on my faith and disqust at such perverted ****** things. They have no place being forced on church doctrine by thought police. Nor is it my business if two GAY people want legal protections for estate and insurance but why force all churches to accept it as some holy union to be embraced. :cantbeli: That seperation of church and state should work both ways. Heck start a Cowboy church or Gay Chapel it is a free country.

[akd]

Why didn't the article cite the legislation itself?

x2 Be vary wary of an article loaded with quotes from one side about the content and impact of a bill, but not willing to include even a single line of the text.


"It's more than the nose of the camel, they want the whole camel in the tent to ruminate around however they would like," he said. "The word we've gotten from attorneys is that of all the bills around the country this is the worst," Crowe said.


Come now. They would certainly leave the camel's toes out of the tent.

[Firetxmi]

Why didn't the article cite the legislation itself?

Because it is World Net Daily!

[Durandal]

The Constitution Party said the plan is a "recipe for civil war."
"Everyone should read this legislation. It clearly gives those who choose non-traditional ****** behavior preference over those with traditional moral values," said state Chairman Jack Brown.

Gosh, the Constitutional Party hating this bill is like the KKK loathing civil rights for Blacks. Noooo....you mean I cannot refuse to hire someone if they are gay? I cannot openly discriminate? The world is coming to an end!


"This legislation will lock religious people inside their church buildings and let perversion occupy the rest of the landscape!"

Well, lets be honest, Church buildings and homes, and only the radicals at that. Most people have little issues with homo******s.

Now on to find a copy of the Bill which like our politicians no one seems to be able to do.

[PPSH41]

I won't copy and paste as its pretty long but here is a link to the official bill.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0002.intro.html

[Laworkerbee]

I have bigger worries than dudes banging each other

Not to mention the more gays there are the more women for me and since the gays are in good shape physically and are better dressers its a win-win for us breeders woot

[PPSH41]

{ - However, this section shall not be
construed to prevent - } { + Nothing in this chapter
prohibits + } a bona fide church or sectarian religious
institution, including but not limited to a school, hospital or
church camp, from preferring an employee or applicant for
employment of one religious sect or persuasion over another when:

...
(c) The employment involved is closely connected with or
related to the primary purposes of the church or institution and
is not connected with a commercial or business activity
{ - which - } { + that + } has no necessary relationship to the
church or institution, or to its primary purposes.




(1) A program of public education calculated to eliminate
attitudes upon which practices of discrimination because of race,
{ + color, + } religion, { - color, - } ***, { + ******
orientation, national origin, + } marital status { + , + }
{ - or national origin - } { + age or disability + } are
based.



Theres a lot in this bill, but those are the ones I see glancing through that the church and friends were complaining about.

And I have to agree with them that it will be left up to judges to define a churches "primary purpose" in regards to this bill.

[Durandal]

I am reading that right now. This bill also adds, origin nationality, age, and disability...as well as ******ity...

Also...
(From Section 3)


(4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a bona fide church or sectarian religious institution from taking any action with respect to employment, housing or the use of facilities based on a bona fide religious belief about ****** orientation.
(5) Subsection (4) of this section applies only if the employment, housing or the use of facilities is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or institution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity that has no necessary relationship to the church or institution, or to its primary purposes

In a nut shell this has absolutely NO effect on churches. You can teach the Congregation the ills of homo******ity and you can hire all heteros to staff the immediate jobs related to the running of the church itself...the building and staff etc.

Smart as hell. Essentially the ONLY churches this screws are the mega-churches who have a LOT of crap that has NOTHING to do with teaching of faith to its members. Your small run of the mill Presbyterian or or Methodist is effected little if at all.

It also means the Church can be racist, anti-wheel chair, and pro-single.

It also makes subtle changes to wording of laws, such as this:

It changes this passage:


(8) In the sale, lease or rental of real estate, no person shall disclose to any person that an occupant or owner of real property has or died from human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

To this:


In the sale, lease or rental of real estate, a person may not disclose to any person that an occupant or owner of real property has or died from human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

The sky is ƒucking falling now...

[cover2]

I thought Christians should accept people no matter what their issue. Was Jesus not a Jew and discriminated against in his own land?

Bunch of hypocrites anyway. Tomorrow there'll be a news article how some reverend out there is banging 3 year olds.

[PPSH41]

I thought Christians should accept people no matter what their issue. Was Jesus not a Jew and discriminated against in his own land?

Bunch of hypocrites anyway. Tomorrow there'll be a news article how some reverend out there is banging 3 year olds.

That is true, but should it be up to the government to decide who they feel they can trust in teaching it?

[sidman69]

amazing people waste time on this issue hen there are more important issues. I think if same *** marriage is made legal Church's/religious institutions should have the choice as to whether or not to marry gay's.

[Durandal]

amazing people waste time on this issue hen there are more important issues. I think if same *** marriage is made legal Church's/religious institutions should have the choice as to whether or not to marry gay's.

Completely irrelevant to this topic since this bill has nothing to do with marriage.

This Bill is nothing more than ADDING "homo******ity" "Nation of Origin" and "Disability" to an existing "rights ordinance".

The argument boils down to this:

Can we discriminate against people that either through design or by choice appear to be or are, in fact, homo******s?

Lots of opinions on this one.

The article above says its OK to discriminate then goes on to scare people into thinking that the entire world is going to explode as a result and that churches are going to be forced to change. When in reality, Churches can discriminate to their hearts content so long as it is done within the church in regards to specific church events that pertain to the main function of the church (a place of worship and gathering I am assuming).

This bill says its also OK for a Church to not hire a pastor because he has been divorced but it is illegal for me as a business owner to fire an employee because I found out he had been divorced.

I think these laws are silly, but we have a lot of people in the world with hard-ons for hating folks different from them and thus we need pu such laws in place.

[annihilation]

News flash from a Christain, the World according to the Word is full of perversion and temptation. Change your life and effect those around you. All attempts to legislate God have ended badly and often in blood.

Now that said I am totaly against putting any lables on my faith and disqust at such perverted ****** things. They have no place being forced on church doctrine by thought police. Nor is it my business if two GAY people want legal protections for estate and insurance but why force all churches to accept it as some holy union to be embraced. :cantbeli: That seperation of church and state should work both ways. Heck start a Cowboy church or Gay Chapel it is a free country.

Well I guess when one starts infringing on the other, i guess it can go the other way too.

I like what my sister thought off. The government does only common law unions for men and women, or same ***, no more marriage by the judge. It would be called a common union. But the church will continue to do marriage as it is. So under the government everyone is a common union but only the church will view who is married or not. Hope it makes sense a little.

[dangerclose]

I say screw it. Let's just start killing people.

[SonKev]

I am clearing this up, Us Christians do not hate homo******s, we hate the sin of the person, not the person and try whole heartedly to help the person. (people who claim they are Christians and hate homo******s are normally imature dumb children or are not Christians as all)

Christians do not want all homo******s dead. We follow the Bible, Gods Word, in the believe that homo******ity is a sin against the Lord, He commands us not to not have the immoral standards and accepting this sin.

From my point of view, this Country is Christian...whats left of it... It was found UNDER God, and we should follow His commands, they have kept us alive this long.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV)


9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the ******ly immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homo****** offenders

[Durandal]

From my point of view, this Country is Christian...whats left of it... It was found UNDER God, and we should follow His commands, they have kept us alive this long.

Well this is neither here nor there, but anyone that has actually READ the writing of our founding fathers will know that the more influential ones, including George Washington were all pretty much intellectual Deists. The United States, at its birth was just as fractured when it came to religion as it is today...maybe even more so. We like to claim this is a Christian nation but lets be honest, most Christians have two things in common. They believe Jesus is the son of God and that there is a God. Everything else goes in a thousand different directions...

[Aerosoul]

Looking at the bill, I'm not sure I see what the fuss is all about.



I say screw it. Let's just start killing people.
Who, exactly?

[dangerclose]

People confuse tolerance with agreement. They're not content with freely practicing their perversion, they want others to be forced to approve of it. Say or think otherwise and it's off to re-education err .. sensitivity counseling for you.


Try this tactic with another religion like say ... islam and see what happens.

[Ordie]

Christians do not want all homo******s dead. We follow the Bible, Gods Word, in the believe that homo******ity is a sin against the Lord, He commands us not to not have the immoral standards and accepting this sin.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you."
-Luke 6:37-8


From my point of view, this Country is Christian...whats left of it... It was found UNDER God, and we should follow His commands, they have kept us alive this long.

The US Consititution, a secular document, contains no reference to God, Jesus or Christianity. The preamble invokes the people of the United States, not God.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
-US Constitution Article 6 section 3

[PPSH41]

(1) A program of public education calculated to eliminate
attitudes upon which practices...


This is the line that DOES scare me. Eliminate attitudes? Brainwashing basically. I don't think its the schools right to teach any lifestyle, homo****** or hetero******. Teach the necessary material pertaining to reproduction and basic health (STD's and all that) but leave out the lifestyle crap. That is the parents responsibility.

[Laworkerbee]

This is the line that DOES scare me. Eliminate attitudes? Brainwashing basically. I don't think its the schools right to teach any lifestyle, homo****** or hetero******. Teach the necessary material pertaining to reproduction and basic health (STD's and all that) but leave out the lifestyle crap. That is the parents responsibility.

well said.......

[annihilation]

I am clearing this up, Us Christians do not hate homo******s, we hate the sin of the person, not the person and try whole heartedly to help the person. (people who claim they are Christians and hate homo******s are normally imature dumb children or are not Christians as all)

Christians do not want all homo******s dead. We follow the Bible, Gods Word, in the believe that homo******ity is a sin against the Lord, He commands us not to not have the immoral standards and accepting this sin.

From my point of view, this Country is Christian...whats left of it... It was found UNDER God, and we should follow His commands, they have kept us alive this long.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV)


9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the ******ly immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homo****** offenders

What about priest molesting little boys?

[Laworkerbee]

Christians do not want all homo******s dead. We follow the Bible, Gods Word, in the believe that homo******ity is a sin against the Lord, He commands us not to not have the immoral standards and accepting this sin.

Not to disrespect your religion or anything but you have left me an opening here.

How can you possibly claim the bible is the word of God? It was written by people who did not know Jesus nor live in his time; most stories in the bible were written decades and in some cases over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

Don't also forget that the bibles contents were voted on, did God get a vote? did God dictate the words to be written by Mark and Luke......I think not.

So lets drop the whole "Gods word" thing

My two cents

[Gauntlet]

Christians should only be worried when the state forces a church to marry a gay couple. THAT would be forcing the "Gay Agenda" on Christianity and a constitutional infringment for forcing a church to do something they don't believe in.

So far, no gays are being married in churches without the church's will. All is well.

[Redguy]

People confuse tolerance with agreement. They're not content with freely practicing their perversion, they want others to be forced to approve of it. Say or think otherwise and it's off to re-education err .. sensitivity counseling for you.


Try this tactic with another religion like say ... islam and see what happens.

Like say.. be tolerant of the intolerant? thanks i'll continue being intolerant thank you for the support.

[Redguy]

Not to disrespect your religion or anything but you have left me an opening here.

How can you possibly claim the bible is the word of God? It was written by people who did not know Jesus nor live in his time; most stories in the bible were written decades and in some cases over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

Don't also forget that the bibles contents were voted on, did God get a vote? did God dictate the words to be written by Mark and Luke......I think not.

So lets drop the whole "Gods word" thing

My two cents

"the Bible was written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span."

[Ordie]

Christians should only be worried when the state forces a church to marry a gay couple. THAT would be forcing the "Gay Agenda" on Christianity and a constitutional infringment for forcing a church to do something they don't believe in.

So far, no gays are being married in churches without the church's will. All is well.
True:
In some states, couples are required to have a marriage license, and signed after the ceremony with witnesses. It's really up to the couple to decide which denomination, or ceremony they would like to have.

[Hollis]

Not to disrespect your religion or anything but you have left me an opening here.


So lets drop the whole "Gods word" thing

My two cents

Your beginning to sound like a Californian.......... Egads..

My thoughts on this issue, anything with "GAY" in it will cause a lot of emotions to flair.


The fringe in the "gay" movement are just as whacked out as the fringe in the "anti-gay" movement. Seems people who are not something want to define other people. Christianity should be defined by Christians, Gay couples/marriages by Gays.


No body should be messed with, other words leave other people alone. So they are religious, Gay, liberals, neo-con, etc......... just leave people alone. Too many people are too involved in other people's business.

[KaceCoyote]

Who I love has no bearing on my moral fiber nor does it dictate my worth as a human being.

I'm Gay. I'd like to get married, just not by any church. I still fully intend to join the army, and serve the country which I love.

I dont give a **** what christians think, its none of their goddamn business -what- I do on my own time as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. What pisses me off, is the bull**** over the"Homo****** agenda" yeah damn right we have a ****ing agenda. not to be second class citizens. The bible is a book, and its followers are people. They are no more or less people than Muslims, Jews, gays, or anyone else.

Christians were responsible for stonewall. Rev phelps is a christian. Dont envoke your religion and expect everyone is just gonna assume your a good guy because you profess to be christian. if somone said "I'm Muslim" or "I'm White" or "I'm black" like it was some testiment to the strenght of their character you'd say they were retarded.

This isnt about god, or gays. This is about law, and the belief that all men are created equal.


"All animals are equals, some animals are more equal than others"

[shocker1]

Who I love has no bearing on my moral fiber nor does it dictate my worth as a human being.

I'm Gay. I'd like to get married, just not by any church. I still fully intend to join the army, and serve the country which I love.

I dont give a **** what christians think, its none of their goddamn business -what- I do on my own time as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else. What pisses me off, is the bull**** over the"Homo****** agenda" yeah damn right we have a ****ing agenda. not to be second class citizens. The bible is a book, and its followers are people. They are no more or less people than Muslims, Jews, gays, or anyone else.

Christians were responsible for stonewall. Rev phelps is a christian. Dont envoke your religion and expect everyone is just gonna assume your a good guy because you profess to be christian. if somone said "I'm Muslim" or "I'm White" or "I'm black" like it was some testiment to the strenght of their character you'd say they were retarded.

This isnt about god, or gays. This is about law, and the belief that all men are created equal.


"All animals are equals, some animals are more equal than others"
You know I don't really care what you do. However Phelps is no Christian and your use of GD and other explitives are uncalled for. Just keep your *** habits off your shoulder and we Christians will(should) do the same with highmindedness.

I as a parent am sick and tired of this agenda pro or con being plastered all over media. Can you understand why some of the extremist from your view point cause just as much trouble as extremists of mine? Can you understand the anger when a Christain parent is confronted with questions of this nature from a 9 year old? All because a school board somewhere thinks they know better than parents.

These legal needs that drive the logical part of your argument are fine. All other parts are personal and should be as discreet as I think hetero******s should be about private things.

[KaceCoyote]

You know I don't really care what you do. However Phelps is no Christian and your use of GD and other explitives are uncalled for. Just keep your *** habits off your shoulder and we Christians will(should) do the same with highmindedness.

I as a parent am sick and tired of this agenda pro or con being plastered all over media. Can you understand why some of the extremist from your view point cause just as much trouble as extremists of mine? Can you understand the anger when a Christain parent is confronted with questions of this nature from a 9 year old? All because a school board somewhere thinks they know better than parents.

These legal needs that drive the logical part of your argument are fine. All other parts are personal and should be as discreet as I think hetero******s should be about private things.

Extremists are everywhere, from every side. Rarely do they have anything to do with the root cause of their movement, this is true for gays and christians. I object merely to the extreme christian right's demonization of homo******ity, and if the moderate christian center is at all bothered by it I have yet to see much in the way of tangible proof aside from yourself and a handfull of others.

Granted, there are gays who have done just as much damage.

[Aerosoul]

Generally speaking, I don't think the government should be dictating anything to churches.
I'm not interested in having any rights in a church, the gays that are can fight that battle on their own. I think it's just damaging the "gay movement" and the fight for equality in other places.

[shocker1]

I understand your view point to an extent of course. To us your choice is a sin, that is plain to most Christian sects. However I should never judge you but I must according to my faith judge actions. These actions can be personal, family or world(church and secular) and must be viewed in that context. So as long as your choice in question is not forced upon me to accept as right. I will accept that it is your free will and none of my business. This aspect transends the legal aspects. If the two groups can agree on this and keep this in the proper places(church,private home/other) we should never have any problems. Other than those extremists.

[dangerclose]

Not to disrespect your religion or anything but you have left me an opening here.


Thank you. You've left me an opening here.



How can you possibly claim the bible is the word of God?

Fulfilled prophecy for one. Just two examples out of many:


Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the Lord your God.

Written: about 750 BC
Fulfilled: Since 1948

In Amos 9:14-15, the prophet said that there would come a time when the exiles of Israel would again have Israel as their own land and that they would never be uprooted again. Amos lived about 2700 years ago, during a time when the people of Israel were being forced out of their homeland by a succession of foreign invasions. Despite many centuries of exile, many Jews returned to Israel and reclaimed sovereignty over a portion of their ancient homeland. This declaration of independence, in 1948, triggered a war with the surrounding countries, which objected to the presence of a Jewish state. On May 15, 1948, the day that armies from the surrounding countries invaded, Azzam Pasha, the Secretary General of the Arab League, said "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Similar quotes were uttered by others during the war of 1948-49 and during the two major wars that followed. Despite its tiny size, Israel prevailed in these wars, preventing its people from being uprooted again, as they had been in ancient times.



Isaiah 66:7-8
"Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children."

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
In Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet foreshadowed the re-birth of Israel in 1948. Isaiah describes a woman giving birth before going into labor, and he speaks of a country being born in one day. This accurately describes what happened on May 14, 1948 - when the Jews declared independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2900 years.

During that same day, the United States issued a statement recognizing Israel's sovereignty. And, only hours beforehand, a United Nations mandate expired, ending British control of the land. During a 24-hour span of time, foreign control of the land of Israel had formally ceased, and Israel had declared its independence, and its independence was acknowledged by other nations. Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.

Isaiah said the birth would take place before there would be labor pains. And that too is precisely what happened. A movement called Zionism began in the 1800s to encourage Jews worldwide to move to Israel, which at that time was called Palestine. Within hours of the declaration of independence in 1948, Israel was attacked by the surrounding countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

When reading Isaiah 66:7-8, keep in mind that Israel's status as a sovereign nation was established and reaffirmed during the course of a single day, and that it was born of a movement called Zionism, and that its declaration of independence was not the result of a war but rather the cause of one.



It was written by people who did not know Jesus nor live in his time; most stories in the bible were written decades and in some cases over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.


And as far as the New Testament is concerned it was written before the close of the first century by either those who knew Jesus, had encountered Him or were under direction of His disciples. The four gospels were written before 70 A.D. as none of them mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. which was the literal fullfillment of Jesus' prophecy when He said: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold.

The book of Acts was written by Luke and documents the early christian church but fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem (79 A.D.), the death of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Acts 9 speaks of the conversion of the Apostle Paul to Christianity so Paul's epistles were all written before A.D. 64.


http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

The writers of the new Testament wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information. The books of the New Testament make claims such as the following:

Luke 1:1-3
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


Acts 2:22
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know."

The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of first-hand testmony and appealed to it time and again. "We are witnesses of thse things," was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.

And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said "We are witnesses of these things," but also, "As you yourselves also know" (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.

[LaoSexMachine]

God doesn't hate a certain type of person. Man does that.

[SonKev]

Thank you. You've left me an opening here.



Fulfilled prophecy for one. Just two examples out of many:


Amos 9:14-15
I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the Lord your God.

Written: about 750 BC
Fulfilled: Since 1948

In Amos 9:14-15, the prophet said that there would come a time when the exiles of Israel would again have Israel as their own land and that they would never be uprooted again. Amos lived about 2700 years ago, during a time when the people of Israel were being forced out of their homeland by a succession of foreign invasions. Despite many centuries of exile, many Jews returned to Israel and reclaimed sovereignty over a portion of their ancient homeland. This declaration of independence, in 1948, triggered a war with the surrounding countries, which objected to the presence of a Jewish state. On May 15, 1948, the day that armies from the surrounding countries invaded, Azzam Pasha, the Secretary General of the Arab League, said "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Similar quotes were uttered by others during the war of 1948-49 and during the two major wars that followed. Despite its tiny size, Israel prevailed in these wars, preventing its people from being uprooted again, as they had been in ancient times.



Isaiah 66:7-8
"Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children."

Written: perhaps between 701-681 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
In Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet foreshadowed the re-birth of Israel in 1948. Isaiah describes a woman giving birth before going into labor, and he speaks of a country being born in one day. This accurately describes what happened on May 14, 1948 - when the Jews declared independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2900 years.

During that same day, the United States issued a statement recognizing Israel's sovereignty. And, only hours beforehand, a United Nations mandate expired, ending British control of the land. During a 24-hour span of time, foreign control of the land of Israel had formally ceased, and Israel had declared its independence, and its independence was acknowledged by other nations. Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.

Isaiah said the birth would take place before there would be labor pains. And that too is precisely what happened. A movement called Zionism began in the 1800s to encourage Jews worldwide to move to Israel, which at that time was called Palestine. Within hours of the declaration of independence in 1948, Israel was attacked by the surrounding countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

When reading Isaiah 66:7-8, keep in mind that Israel's status as a sovereign nation was established and reaffirmed during the course of a single day, and that it was born of a movement called Zionism, and that its declaration of independence was not the result of a war but rather the cause of one.




And as far as the New Testament is concerned it was written before the close of the first century by either those who knew Jesus, had encountered Him or were under direction of His disciples. The four gospels were written before 70 A.D. as none of them mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. which was the literal fullfillment of Jesus' prophecy when He said: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold.

The book of Acts was written by Luke and documents the early christian church but fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem (79 A.D.), the death of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Acts 9 speaks of the conversion of the Apostle Paul to Christianity so Paul's epistles were all written before A.D. 64.


http://www.carm.org/questions/written_after.htm

The writers of the new Testament wrote as eyewitnesses or from firsthand information. The books of the New Testament make claims such as the following:

Luke 1:1-3
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

2 Peter 1:16
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


Acts 2:22
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know."

The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of first-hand testmony and appealed to it time and again. "We are witnesses of thse things," was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.

And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said "We are witnesses of these things," but also, "As you yourselves also know" (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.

Wow!!! You know so much! That is so amazing, i dont know what to say...

Who is your teacher?

[Dasein]

I fail to see how any of that comes close to establishing any divine origin for the Bible - prophecy is easy to fulfill, and demonstrated nothing at all about the source of a document.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Your beginning to sound like a Californian.......... Egads..

My thoughts on this issue, anything with "GAY" in it will cause a lot of emotions to flair.


The fringe in the "gay" movement are just as whacked out as the fringe in the "anti-gay" movement. Seems people who are not something want to define other people. Christianity should be defined by Christians, Gay couples/marriages by Gays.


No body should be messed with, other words leave other people alone. So they are religious, Gay, liberals, neo-con, etc......... just leave people alone. Too many people are too involved in other people's business.


I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is you don't see very many articles on how hetero******s are trying to force their ways on homo******s or trying to indoctrinate homo******s or their children (oxymoron), or hardly see any "Straight Pride" parades going on promoting and championing hetero******ism.

I think, if the homos would just go about their business and would stop trying to provoke something with their constant demands of indoctrination in our childrens schools, dismantling of the sanctity of marriage between and man and a woman and demands for special rights, there wouldn't be as much resentment or hate towards them.

The only people that would be left are of course radical elements of certain religions and the occasional whacko who already targets certain people for their own twisted reasons.

They would most obviously be outcast in todays American society, the whackos that is.

[Durandal]

The logic you are using is failed. White hetero****** couples are a majority, not a minority.

A "Pride Parade" is more like a "they can't keep us in closet parade".

The last "White Pride" parade I saw was preaching hate and claiming mixing of races was wrong and that whites are the "better" race.

Edit:

A better analogy would be if the gays kept us from marrying, adopting or having children, voting en masse to prevent us, in the Constitution from having the same rights as them. I would be as pissed as you IF they told my children that hetero******ity was wrong and that we were nothing but a bunch of breeders.

Las time I checked, this whole thing is simply, they wanted to be treated like you. Straight couples kiss in the park they want to be able to kiss in the park. Straight couples can marry and raise a family, they should be able to raise a family. Every one else has protections from discrimination, they should have those same protections.

That's it, but Joshua, if you think your rights as a White Christian Male are somehow being stepped on, by all means, show us the REAL abuses.

Oh, no, you cannot fire someone from your workplace calling them homo on the way out because the appear to be or are gay.

Such a horrible thing.

[akd]

Generally speaking, I don't think the government should be dictating anything to churches.
Then you don't think that churches should be exempt from taxes, right?

[Mr. JOSHUA]

The logic you are using is failed. White hetero****** couples are a majority, not a minority.

A "Pride Parade" is more like a "they can't keep us in closet parade".

The last "White Pride" parade I saw was preaching hate and claiming mixing of races was wrong and that whites are the "better" race.


Never said they were a minority.

"They can't keep us in the closet parade" is what is used to be, now, its nothing but filth, blatent ****** acts, partial or practically full nudity, and they want the rest of us normal people to go out as a family and watch the parade?

Why do you keep bringing up whites and racist?

Where am I talking about racists?

And where do you see these parades, because I surely don't around here, all I hear about is the gay pride parades, gay rights marches, gay rights seminars and so on and so on.

If the KKK started beefing up public rhetoric like the radical homo****** groups, I'd be posting articles on their dumbasses too.

Its a totally different topic.

[Durandal]

Never said they were a minority.

That is my point. Hetero******s are a majority and thus we tend to control things from that aspect. There mere state of being in the majority and wanting to say, increase the number of successful hetero marriages, and giving tax incentives and benefits focusing on straight male and female relationships shows a WHOLE LOT of pride in hetero******ity...so much in fact that we consider those pesky homos in the wrong for wanting the same thing.


"They can't keep us in the closet parade" is what is used to be, now, its nothing but filth, blatent ****** acts, partial or practically full nudity, and they want the rest of us normal people to go out as a family and watch the parade?

There is a local business area here in Cincinnati called North Side. There is a pretty cool bar I go to over there called the Comet. Great burritos and the best beer selection in Tri-State area. Their business area has a parade every year which includes a pride parade. Never heard anything bad about it ever. Maybe like everything else, assuming you are the West Coast, things simply so radically different that you assume the rest of the country is that way also.


Why do you keep bringing up whites and racist?

Where am I talking about racists?

Yeah, I'll withdraw that comment. Seriously, I could have sworn I saw white pride in addition to straight pride.


And where do you see these parades, because I surely don't around here, all I hear about is the gay pride parades, gay rights marches, gay rights seminars and so on and so on.

I live in the Midwest. We have a neo-nazi white pride march coming up here in Cincinnati. Its a "White Pride" march.


If the KKK started beefing up public rhetoric like the radical homo****** groups, I'd be posting articles on their dumbasses too.

Its a totally different topic.

It is and it isn't. FOr right now though, I'll agree to take out the racial elements since I clearly misread something you typed and apologize for that.

Edit: I would like to see you respond to the my edit though.

You sound like you listen to Savage and think every gay parade out there are gay person is like some sort of San Francisco loon. California is nuts and not even close to a litmus test of what the rest of the nation is like.

Hell, here in Ohio, we have the Pink Pistols and the Log Cabin Party, all of whom are fairly conservative, pro-republican, and pro-gun.

We had one of the Pink Pistols shoot with us at an AR15.com shoot and the guy was pretty damn cool. I hate to think that the State treats him differently, just because he is gay (and it does...).

That is not what America is about.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

That is my point. Hetero******s are a majority and thus we tend to control things from that aspect. There mere state of being in the majority and wanting to say, increase the number of successful hetero marriages, and giving tax incentives and benefits focusing on straight male and female relationships shows a WHOLE LOT of pride in hetero******ity...so much in fact that we consider those pesky homos in the wrong for wanting the same thing.

I see your point, but believe me, I do not view it that way, I view it more as a means and ways to slap christianity and any religion or group for that matter in the face that is intolerant of that particular behavior.




There is a local business area here in Cincinnati called North Side. There is a pretty cool bar I go to over there called the Comet. Great burritos and the best beer selection in Tri-State area. Their business area has a parade every year which includes a pride parade. Never heard anything bad about it ever. Maybe like everything else, assuming you are the West Coast, things simply so radically different that you assume the rest of the country is that way also.

Thats fine, I still believe it is foolish and immature to have a parade in honor of someones ****** orientation.





Yeah, I'll withdraw that comment. Seriously, I could have sworn I saw white pride in addition to straight pride.


I've seen 'em before and know they do exist, had one couple years ago up in Huntsville, TX, them and the Black Panthers were gonna go at it with firearms and everything, the police broke it up, it was sad, I wanted them to destroy eachother.





I live in the Midwest. We have a neo-nazi white pride march coming up here in Cincinnati. Its a "White Pride" march.



It is and it isn't. FOr right now though, I'll agree to take out the racial elements since I clearly misread something you typed and apologize for that.

Edit: I would like to see you respond to the my edit though.


I understand one of the basic fundamental "hate laws" of the neo nazi are to be rid of homo******s, i'm not that hateful, I don't label myself as hateful at all towards homo******s, its when I hear about the certain radical homo****** groups making something outta nothing because all of their air came out of their hot air balloon back in the 90's when coming outta the closet was cool. I think people accepted it and moved on, I think certain elements didn't want to move on, they wanted to get the attention the received back in the 90's, they want to see if they can push the envelope even more by testing the waters even more with gay marriage.

Bottom line, to me, there is the homo****** who is probably just like you and me, he just wants to go about his business with his or her partner as does anybody, and then there is the radical element of that particuar group who wants to instigate "chaos" so to speak to avenge some sort of negative event in their lives involving their homo******ity or to just do it to spite another particular group.


You sound like you listen to Savage and think every gay parade out there are gay person is like some sort of San Francisco loon. California is nuts and not even close to a litmus test of what the rest of the nation is like.

I do listen to him, to me, he's the only one who really tells the truth, even if it involves opening Pandoras Box on himself, but thats not where I derived my political train of thought, I've collected my beliefs from experiences with family members who ultimately came out of the closet and friends who I really, really tried to tolerate but in the end, could not.

It wasn't their open affection for one another, it was the constant attempts in instigating and engaging in political confrontations, condemnations and insults towards religion, towards certain people and blatent disgusting acts in public that were done to spite the heteros, acts that should not be done by heteros or homos.

Maybe you have not had encounters with these types of people, I have, it has shaped my view of them.



Hell, here in Ohio, we have the Pink Pistols and the Log Cabin Party, all of whom are fairly conservative, pro-republican, and pro-gun.

We had one of the Pink Pistols shoot with us at an AR15.com shoot and the guy was pretty damn cool. I hate to think that the State treats him differently, just because he is gay (and it does...).

That is not what America is about.


Thats cool and all that stuff, he wants to shoot and be pro gun and vote for republicans, thats cool, more power to him.

I place The Log Cabin Party in the same boat and the RINO's, there to garner conservative support only to turn around and use that support for their own political agenda.

But thats just me.

.........And by the way, not that it matters, but, I am not white, I'm hispanic, perhaps this is why my blood boils hotter...................

[Firetxmi]

I see your point, but believe me, I do not view it that way, I view it more as a means and ways to slap christianity and any religion or group for that matter in the face that is intolerant of that particular behavior.

Or it is maybe to bring attention to the fact that they are still treated as second class citizens?






Thats fine, I still believe it is foolish and immature to have a parade in honor of someones ****** orientation.

So is it foolish to have a march because of skin color (i.e. the Million Man March)?

[WARPIG]

As a Christian, I can understand the fear that legislation such as this would create. But, Christian religion is just that.. religion. Religion is man's dialogue for faith and morality. Men are flawed, as is religion. That being said.. Religion is a protected right in this country. It is protected under the US constitution and the US Civil Rights act (title VII.) ****** orientation is not protected. No matter the religion, most people still view homo******ity as immoral or as a sin. Homo******s are not a protected class. For a state to justify infringing the Constitutional rights of Freedom of religion to placate an unproctected and unrecognized class of people is pretty bold and in my opinion stupid. I don't deny this creates a rather unfair environment for homo******s. But, granting civil rights protection to a group of people based on their ****** behavior is absolutley insane. That is the truth of the matter here. Homo******ity is a ****** orientation, a preference, a behavior. If behavior is to be a civil right.. where is the line drawn? Homocidal behavior? Schizophrenic behavior? Pedophiles? What about suicidal behavior? I mean it causes no harm to anyone but the person with that behavior. Shouldn't someone that wishes to end their own life be afforded that right? I mean, who are we to judge pedophiles as criminal because they like to look at child ****ogrophy? If a 37 year old man has consentual *** with a 13 year old girl why should the government have to punish them for that? I mean, is it that man's fault that his ****** preference happens to be immoral in our culture? If ****** preference is to be a protected right.. then why not add the pedophile too?

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I really believe that opening this can of worms is going to become harmful.

[Firetxmi]

Homo******ity is a ****** orientation, a preference, a behavior.

I have a question. Can you tell me at what age you "chose" to be straight and be attracted to women. When did you say, "I think I prefer to be with women?"

I don't recall ever making that "choice."

[Hollis]

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I really believe that opening this can of worms is going to become harmful.


I think that is excactly what is happening. There is the old statement, "Never ask a question where you don't want to hear the answer."

"Don't ask/Don't tell" works. That does not apply to just homo******ity, it can apply to politics, religion, etc.

[Laworkerbee]

I have a question. Can you tell me at what age you "chose" to be straight and be attracted to women. When did you say, "I think I prefer to be with women?"

I don't recall ever making that "choice."

Which is an argument I have used with Muslim friends who are truly anti-gay and think being Gay is a choice.

I always tell them gay people I know were born that way, and if this is the case then it must be Gods will and therefore a part of Gods plan p-)

[WARPIG]

I have a question. Can you tell me at what age you "chose" to be straight and be attracted to women. When did you say, "I think I prefer to be with women?"

I don't recall ever making that "choice."

I don't choose my behavior either . Do some research on behavioral science before you get all condescending. Learned behavior is both voluntary and involuntary. I laugh like my father. I didn't study his laugh and practice immitating it... it was something I picked up by being around him. My speech patterns, my mannerisms, my ****** preference, my taste in food.... all are learned from my environment and the people in it.

Before you go into what teaches a person to be homo******.. that isn't a known theory yet. There is no "gay" gene, there is no specific influencer that causes homo******ity. Just like any other behavior. It is a combination of influencers, environment, and biological factors. No more , no less.

[Laworkerbee]

A man's ****** orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm

This is not rock solid scientific proof as far as I'm concerned but it does help me argue my case...

[WARPIG]

Which is an argument I have used with Muslim friends who are truly anti-gay and think being Gay is a choice.

I always tell them gay people I know were born that way, and if this is the case then it must be Gods will and therefore a part of Gods plan p-)

Not the case. People aren't born gay. People aren't born hetero****** either. ****** behavior is a learned behavior. There are some things that are instictual and therefore biologically inherrent... but that is just part of what factors into behavior. Now.. I will say that there are theories revolving around isolating certain genomes that influence ****** behavior in certain ways.. but no valid "gay gene" theory. But, the same types of studies and theories exist for other behavior indicators in genes.

Now, gender confusion at early ages might be a more arguable theory.. but that's a different issue altogether.

[shocker1]

Which is an argument I have used with Muslim friends who are truly anti-gay and think being Gay is a choice.

I always tell them gay people I know were born that way, and if this is the case then it must be Gods will and therefore a part of Gods plan p-)
Amazing how that genetic "trait" seems to keep going. In light of the scientifiic realites of that evolution thing and all. "I was born that way" My God please tell me your birth socio specs. Whoops the supplied package is not made for such programming. Or is it a random genetic occurance due to moon phase and such.

You know it is one thing to want this for yourself, it is another to blame your parents genes. One is procreation the other recreation thats the bottom line in my book.

Some people do not like men or women, you are born with the basic instincts and genetic traits of your parents. Your social choices, habits, drive whatever are a creation of enviroment.

[WARPIG]

A man's ****** orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5120004.stm

This is not rock solid scientific proof as far as I'm concerned but it does help me argue my case...

Not much help. But like I said.. biological influencers are factors in human behavior. Not rock solid by anymeans.. but behavior isn't a science you can pin an equation to.

[Laworkerbee]

We are going to have to agree to disagree as I have been told repeatedly by friends who are gay that they were born that way.

The link I posted supports that theory however I do not discount learned behaviors either in forming someone’s ****** preference

[Aerosoul]

Threads like this make me wish more and more that we could all realistically leave each other the f*ck alone when it comes to faith, bedroom activities, and every damn thing else.

But since that's not going to ever happen I'm left completely unsure of what to say.

[akd]

Just like any other behavior. It is a combination of influencers, environment, and biological factors. No more , no less.

Okay, but that does not qualify as choice. Choice is probably a poor word to use when it comes to this behavior, as it is heavily loaded with a moral dimension for most people. I think that was the poster's intent.


If behavior is to be a civil right.. where is the line drawn? Homocidal behavior? Schizophrenic behavior? Pedophiles? What about suicidal behavior? I mean it causes no harm to anyone but the person with that behavior. Shouldn't someone that wishes to end their own life be afforded that right? I mean, who are we to judge pedophiles as criminal because they like to look at child ****ogrophy? If a 37 year old man has consentual *** with a 13 year old girl why should the government have to punish them for that? I mean, is it that man's fault that his ****** preference happens to be immoral in our culture? If ****** preference is to be a protected right.. then why not add the pedophile too?


Now this really gets at me. I truly detest this argument as it is one of the most intellectually dishonest and exploitive ways to try to sway opinion on the issue. Homicide infringes on the rights of another person who did not consent to being killed. It's not illegal to be schizophrenic (do you even know anyone with this medical condition?) Pedophilia and child ****ography both exploit children, who are legally unable to consent to these activities. You have no point with the issue of suicide, as it is not a crime and is not even socially shunned in all circumstances.

[Laworkerbee]

Threads like this make me wish more and more that we could all realistically leave each other the f*ck alone when it comes to faith, bedroom activities, and every damn thing else.

But since that's not going to ever happen I'm left completely unsure of what to say.

Just say you love me :hug:

I find this thread quite interesting

[Mr. JOSHUA]

We are going to have to agree to disagree as I have been told repeatedly by friends who are gay that they were born that way.

The link I posted supports that theory however I do not discount learned behaviors either in forming someone’s ****** preference


I view it more as taking the easy way out, my family members that turned out that way have never said that they were born that way, they have never had the guts to say why they are that way, the way I see it and from what my grandmother used to tell me and what my mother tells me is what WARPIG said, it behaviorial, a bad habit so to speak.

It seems to be some where along the lines of male not wanting to become a man, however you define being a man or a female not wanting to be a typical woman.

My family was pretty typical, and my moms side were Jehovahs Witnesses, you can't get much more orthodox than that and my dads are Catholic. So alot of the older men in my family are straight forward men, with wives and kids, hardworkers, faithful, religous, the certain family members i'm mentioning, despised all of them, and in the end outright disowned them, I forgot to mention the fact that this started happening after they started hanging out with a particular group.

[Elemental666]

Threads like this make me wish more and more that we could all realistically leave each other the f*ck alone when it comes to faith, bedroom activities, and every damn thing else.

But since that's not going to ever happen I'm left completely unsure of what to say.

X2.

Pretty much sums it all up.

[WARPIG]

Okay, but that does not qualify as choice. Choice is probably a poor word to use when it comes to this behavior, as it is heavily loaded with a moral dimension for most people. I think that was the poster's intent.



Now this really gets at me. I truly detest this argument as it is one of the most intellectually dishonest and exploitive ways to try to sway opinion on the issue. Homicide infringes on the rights of another person who did not consent to being killed. It's not illegal to be schizophrenic (do you even know anyone with this medical condition?) Pedophilia and child ****ography both exploit children, who are legally unable to consent to these activities. You have no point with the issue of suicide, as it is not a crime and is not even socially shunned in all circumstances.


Actually, suicide is a crime and is socially shunned widespread. Pedophellia is a crime but isn't socially shunned in ALL circumstances. That doesn't make it right. A few decades ago it was common for young girls to be married to older men by arrangement or otherwise. So social acceptance is a relative thing.


This arguement isn't intended for shock value. But the aruement is valid regardless of the emotions it incites. I don't actually mean to lump homo******s in with criminals. But, behavior is behavior. Just because some homo****** people you know say "they were born gay" doesn't mean it is scientific fact. People tell me they were born with their parents good sense.. not exactly something you pick up in the womb. Murderer's don't pass on behavioral genes nor do pedophiles. Yes, it was a rather disturbing analogy, but the point remains valid. Behavior isn't a civil protected right. Nor should it be. Whether it is ****** or otherwise.

Social acceptance is the major factor here. My comments on homo******ity as a learned behavior are rock solid and not a matter of my opinion. Maybe my comparison left something to be desired, but are no less pointed. If social acceptance of pedophillia and polygamy are relative and have changed over time.. what is to stop them from becoming accepted again?

[DaGreatRV]

Pedo******ity is in it's own harmless, molesting children is harmfull. (a pedo****** isn't automaticly a child molestor)

Polygamy is harmless, just make sure you and your partners agree;-).

Homo******ity is just as harmless as hetero******ity(or bi******ity, a******ity and pan******ity for that matter). :|

[Durandal]

I have to take this on...at first I was right there agreeing with you.


For a state to justify infringing the Constitutional rights of Freedom of religion to placate an unproctected and unrecognized class of people is pretty bold and in my opinion stupid.

I have yet to see where this is infringing on a someone's religious rights. Nor has anyone actually pointed to any part of the bill and pointed out EXACTLY where it says such.

[/QUOTE]If ****** preference is to be a protected right.. then why not add the pedophile too? [/QUOTE]

The good old "pedophile argument". You know why this analogy is horrible? Because this entire discussion assumes one important thing that this analogy completely ignores. The law is applied equally to everyone. Thus, its JUST as illegal for a homo****** female that is considered an adult in our society to sleep with a child of any *** just as it is illegal for a hetero****** female to engage in ****** acts of a child of a different ***.

Being a homo****** is not illegal. Two homo******s living together in a relationship is not illegal. A dude kissing another dude is not illegal but YOU want to be able to discriminate against them because the are two guys kissing. Hell this law prevents an employer from firing someone they THINK is gay. Look at the wording of the bill.

I have no problem making that form of discrimination illegal.

The other alternative is putting hem on a map like we do ****** predators, because that is what a pedophile is. A pedophile is no different than a rapist...even worse in my book.

And I guess that is where I find this whole thing confusing. I am not too sure how a Christian who thinks homo******ity is amoral (right up there between theft and murder) yet do not want it punished..


...likewise for all those adulterers too...but hey, that's another topic.

[WARPIG]

I have to take this on...at first I was right there agreeing with you.



I have yet to see where this is infringing on a someone's religious rights. Nor has anyone actually pointed to any part of the bill and pointed out EXACTLY where it says such.


If ****** preference is to be a protected right.. then why not add the pedophile too?


The good old "pedophile argument". You know why this analogy is horrible? Because this entire discussion assumes one important thing that this analogy completely ignores. The law is applied equally to everyone. Thus, its JUST as illegal for a homo****** female that is considered an adult in our society to sleep with a child of any *** just as it is illegal for a hetero****** female to engage in ****** acts of a child of a different ***.

Being a homo****** is not illegal. Two homo******s living together in a relationship is not illegal. A dude kissing another dude is not illegal but YOU want to be able to discriminate against them because the are two guys kissing. Hell this law prevents an employer from firing someone they THINK is gay. Look at the wording of the bill.

I have no problem making that form of discrimination illegal.

The other alternative is putting hem on a map like we do ****** predators, because that is what a pedophile is. A pedophile is no different than a rapist...even worse in my book.

And I guess that is where I find this whole thing confusing. I am not too sure how a Christian who thinks homo******ity is amoral (right up there between theft and murder) yet do not want it punished..


...likewise for all those adulterers too...but hey, that's another topic.

Again, horrible as the analogy is.. it's not off. The law does apply equally to all. So, by that.. gay marriage isn't being discriminated against. A man, gay or otherwise, can marry a woman, gay or otherwise.
My comment about relgious rights being infringed is based on the point of view that the religious opposition has. Obviously. Basically they feel like government legislation is looking to overrule their beliefs on morality. But, the civil rights of homo******s appears to be given audience while the bible thumpers are having to fight for a voice.

My analogy and comparison of homo******s might be pretty distastful, and likely unfair. But, the point is still that civil rights protection isn't based on behavior. If it becomes so, even unwanted behavior is protected. Catagorizing whether pedophilia is legal or not is based on our cultural view of it's morality. Homo******ity easily could have been a behavior that was deemed illegal. I mean, dancing used to be illegal because it was viewed as indecent, blasphemous, or ******ly suggestive behavior.

That being said.. there is a pretty valid arguement on whether "behavior," ****** or otherwise can be grounds for civil protection. I mean, what is religion? It's a cultural basis of moral behavior based on spiritual faith isn't it?

[Durandal]

My comment about relgious rights being infringed is based on the point of view that the religious opposition has. Obviously. Basically they feel like government legislation is looking to overrule their beliefs on morality. But, the civil rights of homo******s appears to be given audience while the bible thumpers are having to fight for a voice.

You have still not shown me WHAT in the legislation actually infringes on a person's religious rights.

I mean, how far are we claiming a person's religious rights go? A person can pray in a public school, but are their rights being violated because they cannot lead the class in prayer? If the government decides that pork MUST be served as a choice in the lunchroom or that foods will not be Kosher are muslims and jews somehow having their religious rights infringed upon?

What I see are excuses...

... or illogical fear (If we let homo******s have the same rights as all of us then we are somehow going down a path so horrible that it will destroy us as a people).

[Kant]

From my point of view, this Country is Christian...whats left of it... It was found UNDER God, and we should follow His commands, they have kept us alive this long.


I find the 1796 U.S peace treaty with Tripoli remarkably relevant to this argument.

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense , founded on the christian religion; as it has no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitian nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interuption of the harmony exsisting beetween the two countries."

Drafted and signed by George Washinston in 1796, signed by John Adams in 1797.


1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)

New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31) (NIV)


9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the ******ly immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homo****** offenders
No offence is intended, but if you take the Bible literally, it leads to all sorts of complications.This is one of my favourite passages.


(Ezekiel 5:7-10)' Since you have refused to obey my laws and regulations and have behaved even worse than your neighbors, I myself, the Sovereign LORD, am now your enemy. I will punish you publicly while all the nations watch. Because of your detestable idols, I will punish you more severely than I have punished anyone before or ever will again. Parents will eat their own children, and children will eat their parents. And I will punish you by scattering the few who survive to the far reaches of the earth.'

Reading the bible is a good thing. It's a good set of stories on which to live your life. But it's not literal.
However, this is irrelevant to the point at hand.


My opinion is that church and state were seperated for a reason.
You should keep it that way.

[WKD]

... If behavior is to be a civil right.. where is the line drawn? Homocidal behavior? Schizophrenic behavior? Pedophiles? What about suicidal behavior? I mean it causes no harm to anyone but the person with that behavior. Shouldn't someone that wishes to end their own life be afforded that right? I mean, who are we to judge pedophiles as criminal because they like to look at child ****ogrophy? If a 37 year old man has consentual *** with a 13 year old girl why should the government have to punish them for that? I mean, is it that man's fault that his ****** preference happens to be immoral in our culture? If ****** preference is to be a protected right.. then why not add the pedophile too?

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I really believe that opening this can of worms is going to become harmful.

I think this slippery slope argument is spurious, unless you want to argue that pedorism is something other than rape. Equating consensual homo****** acts between adults with the rape and exploitation of a minor is a remarkable stretch of the imagination, and to my mind, a dishonest one. You can't actually apply the reasoning that makes pedorestic acts illegal to the situation with homo******ity. The rationale cannot be construed as being the same thing; making pedorism illegal protects the lives of children.


I view it more as taking the easy way out, my family members that turned out that way have never said that they were born that way, they have never had the guts to say why they are that way, the way I see it and from what my grandmother used to tell me and what my mother tells me is what WARPIG said, it behaviorial, a bad habit so to speak.

It seems to be some where along the lines of male not wanting to become a man, however you define being a man or a female not wanting to be a typical woman.

My family was pretty typical, and my moms side were Jehovahs Witnesses, you can't get much more orthodox than that and my dads are Catholic. So alot of the older men in my family are straight forward men, with wives and kids, hardworkers, faithful, religous, the certain family members i'm mentioning, despised all of them, and in the end outright disowned them, I forgot to mention the fact that this started happening after they started hanging out with a particular group.

Your family is obviously very religious and from denominations that do not tolerate homo******ity. How accepting of the homo****** members exactly have they been? Not having the guts to say why they are that way is something I can understand. Maybe you shouldn't be blaming them so much; the entire faith they were raised with and that their family adheres to condemns their very existance. If your grandmother's attitude is typical of the family I wouldn't expect anything else from the gay relatives.

As for a behaviour, well, if that's the case then why are all these homo******s coming from hetero****** families and parents?

On a personal note, I have know homo******s from catholic families and what they have had to go through. It made no difference how much they reached out to their families, their own parents could not get past church doctrine and ostracised them. I also have a lesbian friend in exactly the same boat, if she came out of the closet her family, which is very religious, would disown her overnight, essentially hate her overnight because she falls in love with women rather than men.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Your family is obviously very religious and from denominations that do not tolerate homo******ity. How accepting of the homo****** members exactly have they been? Not having the guts to say why they are that way is something I can understand. Maybe you shouldn't be blaming them so much; the entire faith they were raised with and that their family adheres to condemns their very existance. If your grandmother's attitude is typical of the family I wouldn't expect anything else from the gay relatives.

As for a behaviour, well, if that's the case then why are all these homo******s coming from hetero****** families and parents?

On a personal note, I have know homo******s from catholic families and what they have had to go through. It made no difference how much they reached out to their families, their own parents could not get past church doctrine and ostracised them. I also have a lesbian friend in exactly the same boat, if she came out of the closet her family, which is very religious, would disown her overnight, essentially hate her overnight because she falls in love with women rather than men.

They never had the guts because they know they are in the wrong, my grandmother and mother and my aunts always told them, watch out who you hang out with because it will determine who you become in life.

Why shouldn't I others in my family be blaming them, because of our faith?

So because a few did not want to follow that faith, we should now choose which morals we should and should not follow to accomadate their feelings?

My family's attitude was typical of that of my grandmothers, why is that you don't expect anything else from my gay relatives because of my family's attitude towards gays?

Why is it that the rest of us that didn't want to be different and attract attention to ourselves have to now take time out of our lives to deal with this waste of time.

Because a guy did not want to become a man and a girl did not want to become a woman we now have to take time out our busy lives which include working, raising children, dealing with creditors and the tax man and all other things that involve the typical, normal life here in America to deal with a couple of immature people who want to make a "political statement" towards their family and for their like minded friends because they despised the homes they where raised in.

A bunch of ungrateful bastards if you ask me, I seriously doubt that if we lived in a third world country where life is a lil less plentiful and lazy that the same outcome would have happened, even with the certain religions thrown in.

Its all about garnering attention, making themselves feel important and "one upping" the people they despised because they know they never had the guts or the will to rise or surpass the level of respect my elders had earned.

[Durandal]

So to all the Christians reading this thread who think Homo******ity is wrong...a moral wrong, a sing against god.

You leave the rest of us with a choice...and it always seems to come down to this.

We let YOU define right and wrong in this nation and if not, if we have the gall to disagree we are somehow depriving you of your 1st Amendment rights?

I'm still lost on this whole thing. All we (we meaning, ANY person, religious or not) want to do is add homo******s to a human rights bill that affords them the same fair standards in regards to employment and housing as any other person.

How is that stepping on your rights?

I mean I've had this argument before, but it seems like this is a new group, so I am curious about it. I've had people tell me that the 10 Commandments are cool to put up in a government facility, independent of other legal documents since we all follow them anyways (which is hardly the case) and these arguments ALWAYS seem to simply be a smoke screen.

I am the first to step in and defend some one's rights, be it the right to vote or own a gun or protect their property and the right to worship, I still cannot understand how these types of laws and this Oregon Bill in specific somehow denies you a civil right.

I've asked these two or three times now and still yet to get an answer.

[Hollis]

Durandel, I think some of the logic, is from "victimless crime" thinking.

Personally, we all have the right to our opinions. Part of the political process is to sort all of this out. What keeps things from getting to far one way or the other is the constitution.

One problem is that too many people have a chip on their shoulder, part is from power merchants like Jesse Jackson who has convinced them they are perpetual victims.

The other aspect people saying I need your blessings. I still like the notion, "don't ask/Don't tell." and that does not only apply to ****** preferences.

Don't ruin my view of the neighborhood because of your need to mow your law in the ****, put some cloths on, or put up a sight obscuring fence. I could care less if you need to mow the lawn wearing a Tu Tu. As long as I don't see it, you don't ask for my blessings, Just keep it to yourself.

Christians can dictate to themselves all they want, same with any other group, it is when it spills over and those group can start telling me how to live my live, when my actions don't effect them, than I get irritated.

With regards to victimless crimes, if that is truly the case, no problem. Some So-called victimless crimes does have a victim. In that situation society needs to act upon it.

The news in Oregon, is that both sides are working on language to insure religious institutions are not "forced" to disobey their teachings and yet prevent needless discrimination based on some one's private preferences.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Why is it that certain groups get special rights?

If the democrats and the left really wanted to be really PC, they grant special rights to every group, every single type of group you can think of.

Hetero******s - No one has the right to say anything bad about this group.

Neo Nazi's - No one has the right to say anything bad about this group.

Trekki's - No one has the right to say anything bad about this group.

Fat People - No one has the right to say anything bad about this group.


People that are compulsive cat owners - No one has the right to say anything bad about this group.

Why stop with the homo******s, why not take it a step further.

If there is a black history month, why is there not white history month.
Why is there not Hispanic, Asian, Arab, Jewish history month.

If were gonna be a PC nation, lets be PC to the fullest.

Lets start by making a rule that everytime we let some radical black activiest like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson have airtime, were gonna let the grand wizard of the KKK or that Duke guy have equal air time.

Everytime the left has a cross or the Ten Commandments removed from public, the right should have the right to have gay pride parades removed from public.

[Durandal]

Why is it that certain groups get special rights?

Because the world is $hitty place Joshua and people do bad things like "never ent an apartment to those damn ******s" or "never hire fags and queers."

Like it or not, that is discrimination. How do you write a law that says, you are not allowed to discriminate against people but at the same time allow for proper hiring and firing and tenant/landlord rights?


If the democrats and the left really wanted to be really PC, they grant special rights to every group, every single type of group you can think of.

It not JUST the democrats man, why do you keep beating this drum? There are plenty of democrats opposed to stuff like this and there are Republicans who aren't. This is not political party ideology its a civil rights vs. discrimination, nothing more and nothing less.


No one has the right to say anything bad about this group.

Actually no one is saying you cannot say anything bad. You can still preach how fags are going to hell in church. Heck, you can even kick 'em out of the church, be they a lowly member or a leader.


Why is there not Hispanic, Asian, Arab, Jewish history month.

May is both Asian Pacific American (APA) Heritage Month and Jewish American Heritage Month (declared by George W)
September is Hispanic American Heritage Month.
And while the Muslims get the shaft nationally, regionally there are hundreds of place all across the country that have one...


Every time the left has a cross or the Ten Commandments removed from public, the right should have the right to have gay pride parades removed from public.

Not too sure this is a good analogy...placing the 10 Commandments inside on government office on on government property where it is NOT part of a historical study in documents that have formed this nation's laws is clearly a violation of Church and State if, for the only reason, you are telling WE WILL WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD [than the Christian God]...oh, and that thing about the idols too, silliness. Yet we compare that to a minority group asking for the SAME rights as everyone else.

You still, however did not answer my question. We all know that the government loves to make new special days and special heritage months to garner support from those groups and to raise awareness...like it or not. It ultimately effects you little.

How does protecting homo******s from discrimination violate YOUR civil rights?

[Durandal]

Personally, we all have the right to our opinions. Part of the political process is to sort all of this out.

I agree with this Hollis.

We are both ALLOWED to have our own opinions but that does not mean they are both correct?

Lets use an example that is pretty easy for us to examine and agree on.

"It is my opinion that the Earth is flat. It is your opinion that the world is round."

We both have our opinion, which is our right, but does that make me right?

Lets take it a step further. You decide, democratically or through a representative that you have elected, to teach something that my opinion disagrees with.

Are you violating my civil rights?

Not at all.

Now, I am using very simple and very black and white example here.

Morality gets a whole lot more prickly.

[Hollis]

Durandel, You right is gets real sticky and some issues are very very emotionally charged which adds a whole new dimension to it.

I think part of the frustration is that NO group is "with-out" sin. Each side has members who hammer the other side.

[Durandal]

I think part of the frustration is that NO group is "with-out" sin. Each side has members who hammer the other side.

No argument there. Have you seen some of the comments of the people that think the French ban on worn religious icons is a good thing?

Its nuts...both sides have wackos.

Me, I just want to go shoot targets. I could care less if the guy next to me is gay or bible thumper...so long as neither tries to shove something down my throat. :)

[Hollis]

Me, I just want to go shoot targets. I could care less if the guy next to me is gay or bible thumper...so long as neither tries to shove something down my throat. :)


No kidding, Heck maybe I will go find some beers in town and reminisce about those cute hippy chicks of my youth.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Because the world is $hitty place Joshua and people do bad things like "never ent an apartment to those damn ******s" or "never hire fags and queers."

Like it or not, that is discrimination. How do you write a law that says, you are not allowed to discriminate against people but at the same time allow for proper hiring and firing and tenant/landlord rights?

Where? Show me where. Its pretty well known that if you do something like that, that you will be lynched in the media whether you are a nobody or a celebrity and the fact of the matter is, is that there are already hate crime laws in place that pretty much resolve that issue.

I have never heard of anyone not hiring/firing or not renting or evicting someone because of their ****** preference. And if they were, it was dealt with by the media and activist groups, as usual. This is nothing more than making something outta nothing.





It not JUST the democrats man, why do you keep beating this drum? There are plenty of democrats opposed to stuff like this and there are Republicans who aren't. This is not political party ideology its a civil rights vs. discrimination, nothing more and nothing less.

Democrats are pretty much the face of the homo****** movement, I've rarely seen a republican promoting a homo****** agenda and if they are its because of the state and voter base.




Actually no one is saying you cannot say anything bad. You can still preach how fags are going to hell in church. Heck, you can even kick 'em out of the church, be they a lowly member or a leader.

The legislation i've mention before is doing this, censorship of negative remarks towards homo******ity.

And lets say it isn't in any of the current legislation, whats to say they won't take it farther, they have the momentum from being granted these special rights, why not take it a lil further and see what other special rights they can push for or who else they can censor.





May is both Asian Pacific American (APA) Heritage Month and Jewish American Heritage Month (declared by George W)
September is Hispanic American Heritage Month.
And while the Muslims get the shaft nationally, regionally there are hundreds of place all across the country that have one...


Okay so two different minority groups have to share one month.......
.....thats not PC enough, lets find out about everysingle nationality, creed and religion and if we have to divide it up into weeks because of the vast amount of different ethnicities and soforth, then we shall divide up the weeks in the year and have "X" heritage week this week and then next week will be "Y" heritage week and soforth, that should accomodate everyone in the socalled melting pot.




Not too sure this is a good analogy...placing the 10 Commandments inside on government office on on government property where it is NOT part of a historical study in documents that have formed this nation's laws is clearly a violation of Church and State if, for the only reason, you are telling WE WILL WORSHIP NO OTHER GOD [than the Christian God]...oh, and that thing about the idols too, silliness. Yet we compare that to a minority group asking for the SAME rights as everyone else.

That still does not answer the question in regards to Joeshmo not wanting my God and beliefs imposed on him and me not wanting Tinkerbells beliefs imposed on me in a public venue, after all, fair is fair.


You still, however did not answer my question. We all know that the government loves to make new special days and special heritage months to garner support from those groups and to raise awareness...like it or not. It ultimately effects you little.

How does protecting homo******s from discrimination violate YOUR civil rights?


Because of the censorship like on the legislation I mentioned, if it starts to affect my right of freedom of speech, is that not a violation of my civil rights?

[DaGreatRV]

Ok, lets take it to a higher level for you guys 'n galls. (just to give you something to ponder about)

Hetero****** men often say that it is OK that the other guy is homo******, but then they'll add "as long as he doesn't try something with me".
Assuming they mean by that "I don't want him to be attracted to me".
They would have to surpress their ******ity.

But here comes the clou, arn't hetero****** men surpressing their ******ity? From my experience at the places I've worked hetero men and women can work together normally without constant flirting, wisteling or making avances. Both genders can work together proffesionally, unforced.

So back to the issue, why would you think a homo****** guy you work with, be more inclined to flirt with you than a hetero****** gall? (assuming that most of you are male)

On a further note why would one take offence? You can always politely decline. :|
(personally I would be flattered, it's good for my ego :roll:)


Just a little something to make you think, you can do this yourself asswell, I just picked one of the many issues and questiones.

BTW, I just think it's important to think about topics wich I hold an opinion on. :|

[seraosha]

Ok, lets take it to a higher level for you guys 'n galls. (just to give you something to ponder about)

Hetero****** men often say that it is OK that the other guy is homo******, but then they'll add "as long as he doesn't try something with me".
Assuming they mean by that "I don't want him to be attracted to me".
They would have to surpress their ******ity.

But here comes the clou, arn't hetero****** men surpressing their ******ity? From my experience at the places I've worked hetero men and women can work together normally without constant flirting, wisteling or making avances. Both genders can work together proffesionally, unforced.

So back to the issue, why would you think a homo****** guy you work with, be more inclined to flirt with you than a hetero****** gall? (assuming that most of you are male)

On a further note why would one take offence? You can always politely decline. :|
(personally I would be flattered, it's good for my ego :roll:)


Just a little something to make you think, you can do this yourself asswell, I just picked one of the many issues and questiones.

BTW, I just think it's important to think about topics wich I hold an opinion on. :|

I have yet to work with an "out" homo****** male that has not made a pass at me. I have worked with many hetero****** women that have not made a pass at me. I do not understand why. I am hetero, married, kids, the whole typical hetero-male thing. I am not macho, nor am I feminine...just a regular guy who really doesn't care if someone is gay or not, as long as they do their job while at work. In their off time, I couldn't care less.

So I'm left with two possible answers...either "out" homo****** men cannot be around straight men without making ****** advances, or I am a fag-magnet. And thats just too unthinkable to contemplate, so I'm going with "homo****** men cannot be around straight men without making ****** advances".

So yes, they need to suppress their ******ity when at work, renting an apartment, registering their vehicle, buying groceries, and not when surfing gay ****.

[Aerosoul]

So I'm left with two possible answers...either "out" homo****** men cannot be around straight men without making ****** advances, or I am a fag-magnet. And thats just too unthinkable to contemplate, so I'm going with "homo****** men cannot be around straight men without making ****** advances".
And you would be completely wrong.
Sure, there are gays that make passes at others, so what. Doesn't mean they all do.

[Laworkerbee]

And you would be wrong.

He could be very wrong...am I the only one with gay friends?

Does that sound gay? :)

[seraosha]

*shrug*
In my experience I'm right, certainly doesn't mean it's the only answer, nor that it is all encompassing in it's correctness...very subjective question, really.

But I am not wrong.

And if having gay friends makes you gay I had better borrow the imaginary aerosol can my daughter uses to get rid of cooties and get it filled with homo-away-anti-cootie spray.

And would that look gay?
p-)

[Aerosoul]

*shrug*
In my experience I'm right, certainly doesn't mean it's the only answer, nor that it is all encompassing in it's correctness...very subjective question, really.
You claim in your experience that all the gays you come across have made passes at you. It does not mean every gay guy cannot keep from doing so. I'm not sure how it's a subjective matter.


But I am not wrong.
Actually, yes you are.

[Durandal]

Because of the censorship like on the legislation I mentioned, if it starts to affect my right of freedom of speech, is that not a violation of my civil rights?

Again Joshua, who is limiting your freedom of speech? Who is violating it? Where is it being violated in the Oregon Bill or existing laws similar to it.

You can yell "I hate fags" till you are blue in the face for all I care or the law cares. A church can STILL picket 500' from a funeral of a dead soldier claiming he died because we allow gays to breath.

The Bill deals, specifically with discrimination, specifically in renting, selling, buying homes, providing services, and hiring and firing.

Freedom of speech does not even enter into it.

So AGAIN Joshua, and I am not trying to hit you any harder than anyone else, but I need to have some sort of a common dialogue to discuss this. You have to SHOW me, tell me, where this law violates YOUR free speech or a church's.

[Durandal]

So yes, they need to suppress their ******ity when at work, renting an apartment, registering their vehicle, buying groceries, and not when surfing gay ****.

Does that mean us straight men have to do the same thing? Because we don't, I am sure, to many women's dismay.

[Hollis]

I have yet to work with an "out" homo****** male that has not made a pass at me. .

Many many moons ago when I was a mere boot at Camp Pendleton. So other boots came back from leave with tales similar to you. I mentioned I have live in Calif, for over 9 years and never had a problem, Yet these boot in their first few hours free in Calif did. The only thing I could think of,............. Maybe they were....

I have never had a problem with a gay person in my life. I have been to parties where some rooster figure he could have his way with any of the ladies who where there. There I had a problem.

So maybe if gay men find you appealing, you need to seriously think about how YOU act...... Babe.

[LaoSexMachine]

People who have problems with gays should look deep inside themselves and question their own ******ity.

[California Joe]

seraosha must be wicked hot. His milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

Joshua can yell "fag" all he wants but he better not yell "nappy headed hoe"

My wife is always whining that she doesn't have a cool gay male friend. She wants one. Like a puppy or some sh*t.

[Laworkerbee]

seraosha must be wicked hot. His milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

Joshua can yell "fag" all he wants but he better not yell "nappy headed hoe"

My wife is always whining that she doesn't have a cool gay male friend. She wants one. Like a puppy or some sh*t.

I've got plenty hanging around my house with my fag hag girlfriend I should be able to spare one or two but no more since they are very valuable decoys that allow me to do man things...

I recently bought tons of clothes for the new job and had a couple gay men in my room looking over everything....those boys looked over my clothes the way we jump for joy a new M1 Garand entering the family.

[California Joe]

All the gay dudes I know are cool. My wifes step brother is gay. He runs a horse ranch in Arizona. He's a helluva good guy. They probably all secretly want me because I'm dreamy.

[boone]

All the gay dudes I know are cool. My wifes step brother is gay. He runs a horse ranch in Arizona. He's a helluva good guy. I secretly dream they all want me.
............................

[California Joe]

rofl Oh look who wants to get hit with the gay ban stick.

[WKD]

They never had the guts because they know they are in the wrong, my grandmother and mother and my aunts always told them, watch out who you hang out with because it will determine who you become in life.

Why shouldn't I others in my family be blaming them, because of our faith?

So because a few did not want to follow that faith, we should now choose which morals we should and should not follow to accomadate their feelings?

My family's attitude was typical of that of my grandmothers, why is that you don't expect anything else from my gay relatives because of my family's attitude towards gays?

Why is it that the rest of us that didn't want to be different and attract attention to ourselves have to now take time out of our lives to deal with this waste of time.

Because a guy did not want to become a man and a girl did not want to become a woman we now have to take time out our busy lives which include working, raising children, dealing with creditors and the tax man and all other things that involve the typical, normal life here in America to deal with a couple of immature people who want to make a "political statement" towards their family and for their like minded friends because they despised the homes they where raised in.

A bunch of ungrateful bastards if you ask me, I seriously doubt that if we lived in a third world country where life is a lil less plentiful and lazy that the same outcome would have happened, even with the certain religions thrown in.

Its all about garnering attention, making themselves feel important and "one upping" the people they despised because they know they never had the guts or the will to rise or surpass the level of respect my elders had earned.

Well, there we go.

Instead of trying to reach an accord with them because they are family, you osctracise them because they are gay.

And why should they accomodate your feelings because you hate them? And yet you denounce them for it.

Apparently, it is alright for you to hold them in contempt for their ******ity, and yet not ok for them to hold you in contempt for your bigotry. No, instead they should bend over backwards (lol) to please the rest of you.

That's laughably hypocritical. But not as funny as the fact that you don't even see this.


seraosha must be wicked hot. His milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

Joshua can yell "fag" all he wants but he better not yell "nappy headed hoe"

My wife is always whining that she doesn't have a cool gay male friend. She wants one. Like a puppy or some sh*t.

Oh ****ing LOL rofl

[Durandal]

All the gay dudes I know are cool. My wifes step brother is gay. He runs a horse ranch in Arizona. He's a helluva good guy. They probably all secretly want me because I'm dreamy.

Does anyone remember a "21 Jump Street" commercial from the late 80s that went something like...

"Greeko, Depp, Greeko, Depp...I'm the furthest thing from gay but these guys are hot!"

Maybe we got a different style advertisements in the Midwest. :)

Joe, I straight as they come but I think you are dreamy. p-) How could a gay man not want to simply hop in the sack with you balls to chin?

[seraosha]

Hmm, why yes, actually I am wicked hot.

I have no problems with gay folks, I just don't think it needs to be an identifier for a political/human right issue. It's just ***. I feel the same way about gay marriage...hell, who cares? Equal rights for every American, black, white, gay, lesbian, male, female and everything else in between.

I like doggy style, do I need to advertise that fact to people I'm interviewing with for a job? Or renting an appartment? Is it relevant? Do I need to get a bunch of other folks that like that kind of position and start marching, and trying to raise awareness for the difficulties people that like doggie style encounter? Who fVcking cares?

Likewise, as long as some guy/gal isn't in-your-face about how they like to have ***, who cares?

"Don't ask, don't tell, don't care" is my motto in that regard.

[Durandal]

...do I need to advertise that fact to people I'm interviewing with for a job? Or renting an appartment? Is it relevant? Do I need to get a bunch of other folks that like that kind of position and start marching, and trying to raise awareness for the difficulties people that like doggie style encounter? Who fVcking cares?

Actually, most people live their lives like everyone else. Few actually do the parade thing.

That said, I doubt there is some guy going into a job interview saying "I am gay you better hire me."

THe issue comes around when like everyone else in the office he puts pictures of family and friends...his boy friend, say a picture of them skiing in vale r on the beach or something, who cares.

Does he have a right to show it just a a guy would have a picture of him and his wife or girlfriend?

Is it ok to then fire him, because the boss, thinks gays are sinners, going to hell, and immoral?

[WARPIG]

Actually, most people live their lives like everyone else. Few actually do the parade thing.

That said, I doubt there is some guy going into a job interview saying "I am gay you better hire me."

THe issue comes around when like everyone else in the office he puts pictures of family and friends...his boy friend, say a picture of them skiing in vale r on the beach or something, who cares.

Does he have a right to show it just a a guy would have a picture of him and his wife or girlfriend?

Is it ok to then fire him, because the boss, thinks gays are sinners, going to hell, and immoral?

You're right Durandal. Most EO and ****** Harassment in the workplace policies in this country don't have protection for Homo******s. The lack of US Civil Rights acknowledgment is why that is. But, that doesn't make it right. As far as your view of Christians and other people who feel homo******ity is a sin.. so are many other things. Christians want our culture and moral basis for our countries laws to mirror Christian belief.. then again, the other side of that coin wants the country to support it's beliefs as well. What I believe is sin doesn't make it legal or right to opress or take away from one person to the next. I don't get to judge people. But, our laws cannot support the beliefs of all people. Putting the government in the business of legislating morality is obviously going to make some people upset. Unfortunately, we seem to have this trend of placating a minority of people at the expense of the majority.

[Firetxmi]

. Christians want our culture and moral basis for our countries laws to mirror Christian belief...

The irony comes along when Muslims want our country to mirror their beliefs and everyone gets all up in arms....

Both are not right if you ask me.