PDA

View Full Version : McDonald's to support hom*ose*xual agenda



Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 04:42 PM
Anyone else seen this?

----------------------------------------------

McDonald's CEO: Company will put full resources behind ga*y agenda
McDonald's has signed on to a nationwide effort to promote "ga*y" and "le*sbian" business ventures.

According to McDonald’s CEO Jim Skinner, McDonald’s will aggressively promote the hom*ose*xual agenda. In remarks on McDonald's Web site concerning the company becoming a member of the National G*ay & Les*bian Chamber of Commerce (NG**LCC), Skinner wrote: "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world … and we do."

The company gave an undisclosed amount of money to the NG*LC*C in return for being recognized as a major promoter of the hom$ose%xual agenda. In return, NG%LC&C placed Richard Ellis, vice president of communications of McDonald’s USA, on the NG#L%CC Board of Directors.

Ellis was quoted as saying: "I'm thrilled to join the Na$tio#nal Ga&y & Les(*bian Chamber of Commerce team and ready to get to work. I share the NG(LC$C's passion for business growth and development within the L$G%B@T community, and I look forward to playing a role in moving these important initiatives forward."

McDonald's refused to comment to World Net Daily on the placement of its executive on the board of the "g#ay" advocacy organization but did send an e-mail confirming the corporation's support for the agenda of the hom^ose#xual business lobby.

"McDonald's is indeed a Corporate Partner and Organizational Ally of N$GLC@C. Our vice president of U.S. communications, Richard Ellis, was recently elected to its board of directors," said Heidi M. Barker, senior director of media relations for McDonald’s. N#$CC describes itself as promoting the L@G%B#T community first and always, including sa$me se%x marr#iage.


Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon,
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 04:47 PM
Good for McDonalds. About time they did something decent, even if it is with largely selfish reasons (profits, increasing customer base, etc.). It's good to see hom#sexu#l liberation proceeding as well as it is.

And who cares what WorldNetNews daily thinks?

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 04:58 PM
Good for McDonalds. About time they did something decent, even if it is with largely selfish reasons (profits, increasing customer base, etc.). It's good to see homosexual liberation proceeding as well as it is.

And who cares what WorldNetNews daily thinks?

Yeah, or that pesky Bible, either! :rolleyes:

You're kidding, right?

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:01 PM
Absolutely not. I'm very much in support of the h@m@sexual community.

The Bible doesn't say anything about homosexual rights, just h@m@sexuality itself.

Theophilus
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:10 PM
Absolutely not. I'm very much in support of the homos*xual community.

The Bible doesn't say anything about homos*xual rights, just homos*xuality itself.
Yes, but if we promote/support homos*xual "rights"...we're tacitly giving consent to homos*xuality as a practice, aren't we?

For example, if I choose to support a pro-choice political candidate, it's the same as me giving consent to abortions.

We are to love those who sin...but we don't condone the sin they're in by supporting their so-called rights...rights that have no Biblical basis.

:2cents:

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:15 PM
Yes, but if we promote/support homos*xual "rights"...we're tacitly giving consent to homos*xuality as a practice, aren't we?Nah. If we said that, then we'd have to say that buying a bottle of wine is giving consent to alcoholism. We'd have to say that being friends with somebody who has drug problems is supporting the cartels.

Everybody has rights. You have to mess up real bad to lose them.


For example, if I choose to support a pro-choice political candidate, it's the same as me giving consent to abortions. Not really. If you say that then you have to say that if you vote for a candidate that wants to cut welfare programs, then you're a non-supporter of giving money to the poor. There's always gonna' be somethin' you don't like.


We are to love those who sin...but we don't condone the sin they're in by supporting their so-called rights...rights that have no Biblical basis."Give to God what is God's and to Ceaser what is Ceaser's"

And yes, I know I'm opening this one up...

http://skugg.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/can-of-worms.jpg

:lol::lol:

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:24 PM
"Give to God what is God's and to Ceaser what is Ceaser's"

:lol::lol:

Not funny in the least.

So, is what you are saying is to be Godly when the moment presents itself, and while we are here on earth to embrace the world because after all we are stuck in "what is Ceasar's" ?

moonglow
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:25 PM
I wonder what is going to happen to all these groups when the homosexuals get their rights? :hmm: There will be a huge sudden stop in the flow of money...then what? They can't have that happen!

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we (everyone including nonbelievers) said ok sure go ahead and do whatever you want..and simply let the chips fall where they may.

This huge momentum would suddenly go into a huge train wreck! That is what would happen.

Personally the more I study scriptures I don't see that we have the right to interfer with this...not saying we should vote for it, but simply not vote at all on this issue. Jesus said, give to Cesar what is Cesar's...He never tried to change the Roman's way or their laws. He never held up picket signs saying down with crucifixion as being cruel and inhumane. He never protested their horrible treatment of the Jews in fact. His idea wasn't to force His views on others through government laws but to change the hearts of men.

And all we do is drive a wedge between us and them by trying to force our morals on them. Paul lived in a time when homosexuality and adultery and all sorts of immoral behavior was going on. Yet he never tried to change anything politically. Why do we?

Let the debate begin.

God bless

Free Indeed
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:27 PM
What exactly is this "homosexual agenda", anyway? And is there a "heterosexual agenda"? This terminology really doesn't make much sense to me, so hopefully someone can enlighten me.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:32 PM
Not funny in the least.

So, is what you are saying is to be Godly when the moment presents itself, and while we are here on earth to embrace the world because after all we are stuck in "what is Ceasar's" ?

No, please pardon if I didn't make it clear. My mistake. I'm saying that the secular world (governments and the like) gives people rights, and we are not to interfere with that even if we disagree with it.

I think that when Jesus said that, one of the things that He was saying was that church and state just ain't supposed to mix. A lesson that can be well-seen in the RCC in it's younger days. Terrible tradgedy that few centuries was for the faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder what is going to happen to all these groups when the homosexuals get their rights? :hmm: There will be a huge sudden stop in the flow of money...then what? They can't have that happen!

Many people said the same thing about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There were bumps, but it went over chill in the end. I think we have to agree that giving African-Americans their rights was a good thing.



Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we (everyone including nonbelievers) said ok sure go ahead and do whatever you want..and simply let the chips fall where they may.

This huge momentum would suddenly go into a huge train wreck! That is what would happen.

Why do you say that?



Personally the more I study scriptures I don't see that we have the right to interfer with this...not saying we should vote for it, but simply not vote at all on this issue. Jesus said, give to Cesar what is Cesar's...He never tried to change the Roman's way or their laws. He never held up picket signs saying down with crucifixion as being cruel and inhumane. He never protested their horrible treatment of the Jews in fact. His idea wasn't to force His views on others through government laws but to change the hearts of men.

Yes, very good. Indeed true.

I do have to go to class now, but I will be back! I promise. :hug:

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:36 PM
What exactly is this "homosexual agenda", anyway? And is there a "heterosexual agenda"? This terminology really doesn't make much sense to me, so hopefully someone can enlighten me.

Err...ambiguous terms. When somebody is said to have an "agenda" it has gotten the meaning changed to mean "gross alterior motives". Many people believe that the homosexual community is using the excuse of civil rights in order to gain a bunch of government money, disrupt churches, paint everythign in rainbow, dye chili pink, etcetera. There are about a million different claims, and yes, I was jesting about some of them.

There is really no heterosexual agenda, unless you count the one where heterosexuals add to the still-increasing global population.:lol:

Okay, goodbye for real this time. I'll be back tonight.

karenoka27
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:37 PM
Good for McDonalds. About time they did something decent, even if it is with largely selfish reasons (profits, increasing customer base, etc.). It's good to see hom#sexu#l liberation proceeding as well as it is.

And who cares what WorldNetNews daily thinks?


why do you say decent?


I have two words: Burger King...

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 05:56 PM
No, please pardon if I didn't make it clear. My mistake. I'm saying that the secular world (governments and the like) gives people rights, and we are not to interfere with that even if we disagree with it.

I think that when Jesus said that, one of the things that He was saying was that church and state just ain't supposed to mix. A lesson that can be well-seen in the RCC in it's younger days. Terrible tradgedy that few centuries was for the faith.


Far before what you mentioned - Israel was ruled only by God. He was their King. However, Israel wanted a worldly king. God allowed it, even though He knew the outcome.

What it comes down to is people and self serving desires they can gain from demanding rights when they think they are entitled. We are so far removed from God's people being ruled only by God that any attempt to go against it is futile. Christians need to continue to do what we are called to do - preach the gospel.

No, we can't stop it. No, there isn't anything we can do to stop McDonalds or any agenda such as this on any conceiveable topic. We shouldn't be afraid of things becoming less Godly and evil more prominent to entice the worldly further into the world. Christians will not be the majority. Where we make our impact is one person at a time, through relationship with Christ and turning around and sharing that with our neighbor and anyone who will listen.

Honestly, we hardly eat there. Does funny things to my tummy. Kinda like the information in the OP.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 06:00 PM
Far before what you mentioned - Israel was ruled only by God. He was their King. However, Israel wanted a worldly king. God allowed it, even though He knew the outcome.

What it comes down to is people and self serving desires they can gain from demanding rights when they think they are entitled. We are so far removed from God's people being ruled only by God that any attempt to go against it is futile. Christians need to continue to do what we are called to do - preach the gospel.

No, we can't stop it. No, there isn't anything we can do to stop McDonalds or any agenda such as this on any conceiveable topic. We shouldn't be afraid of things becoming less Godly and evil more prominent to entice the worldly further into the world. Christians will not be the majority. Where we make our impact is one person at a time, through relationship with Christ and turning around and sharing that with our neighbor and anyone who will listen.

Honestly, we hardly eat there. Does funny things to my tummy. Kinda like the information in the OP.

Well...good. It doesn't seem that we disagree on enough in this thread to warrant a debate here.

We can sit chill wit' 'dat junk. God's blessings to yours and your family, threebigrocks.:hug:

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 06:03 PM
Well...good. It doesn't seem that we disagree on enough in this thread to warrant a debate here.

We can sit chill wit' 'dat junk. God's blessings to yours and your family, threebigrocks.:hug:

Oh no, there's plenty of room for debate. ;)

That is still something that is seperate from the world. Give Ceasar what's his, but give to God what is God's. Open support of this by a Christian is directly against the faith. If we are living in the faith, we need to abide by the laws which govern us as a testimony of submission. We are not to accept with a glad heart the promotion of things which are clearly unscriptural.

moonglow
Apr 2nd 2008, 06:35 PM
[QUOTE] Originally Posted by moonglow
I wonder what is going to happen to all these groups when the homosexuals get their rights? There will be a huge sudden stop in the flow of money...then what? They can't have that happen!


Many people said the same thing about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There were bumps, but it went over chill in the end. I think we have to agree that giving African-Americans their rights was a good thing.


The civil rights wasn't backed by huge amounts of money or big businesses...no one lost profits when they got their rights. This is much like the abortion industry...its all about money! Hidden behind 'the right thing to do' for a group presented as being picked on by the Christians.

I will tell you what, when the gay marriage was voted down by many states, it was voted down by mostly nonbelievers! Not Christians. You know who really hates gays? I mean HATES them...its nonbelievers. I am talking about death threats, harassment, on and on...its all coming from nonbelievers. All you have to do is get on youtube, find a video made by anyone gay and read the comments...check those commenting channels and you will see they are not Christians. They say the most vile disgusting nasty things imaginable. Now here we are constantly told we are the haters and withhold their rights...not true. Even if we stepped aside and didn't vote one way or another on this marriage issue it would still be voted down by these other people.


Quote:
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we (everyone including nonbelievers) said ok sure go ahead and do whatever you want..and simply let the chips fall where they may.

This huge momentum would suddenly go into a huge train wreck! That is what would happen.


Why do you say that?

Because there is more going on here then just homosexuals wanting the right to get married. I mean seriously...WHY would any major company get involved in this issue where less then 3% of the population is even gay to start with? Money, money, money..manipulation, power, money...but they are stupid too cause now every Christian in the US and many nonbelievers will suddenly stop going to MD's and they will be retracting their support in no time...(or at least hiding it like any smart business person should have the sense to do in a case like this).

It would actually mess them up seriously (cash flow) if all the homosexuals suddenly got the right to marry. Their 'cause' would dry up...and they can't let that happen....

God bless

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 07:10 PM
Many people said the same thing about the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There were bumps, but it went over chill in the end. I think we have to agree that giving African-Americans their rights was a good thing.

The Bible does not say being an African American is sinful.

The Bible DOES say homosexual behavior is sinful.

The world says homosexual behavior is NOT sinful.

Who's side should we be on?

Athanasius
Apr 2nd 2008, 07:33 PM
Absolutely not. I'm very much in support of the h@m@sexual community.

The Bible doesn't say anything about homosexual rights, just h@m@sexuality itself.

This is blatant double speak. It's like saying the Bible speaks about sin but not in 'specifics'.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:03 PM
This is blatant double speak. It's like saying the Bible speaks about sin but not in 'specifics'.

No, it's saying that it doesn't speak about the specifics of homosexual sin.

Just a little FYI, and I'm not being sarcastic or rude here, don't try to accuse me of being an orwellian fascist (doublespeak), because if that was the case, I'd have a stricter moral code than most of the fundies here.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:11 PM
The Bible does not say being an African American is sinful.

The Bible DOES say homosexual behavior is sinful.

The world says homosexual behavior is NOT sinful.

Who's side should we be on?

Well in point of fact, many pastors, parsons, preachers, priests, etcetera, did claim that being an African American was sinful back in their days. Well...not sinful but that they were cursed. This is why this country ended up in the mess that we did on that front.

During the Civil Rights movement, many honestly believed that if blacks got their rights, then society would completely collapse in on itself. They said that it would be the worst decision that the country ever made. Well, they were wrong.

Many Christians believe drinking to be sinful, and they pushed and pushed and pushed for the government to ban alcohol. The government did. What happened? Problems related to alcohol increased and the nation ended up with a huge crime issue.

Bottom Line: You cannot legislate ethics, they will legislate themselves, and you cannot legislate morality, because it has always been around, and it always make the best decision for itself.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:16 PM
Oh no, there's plenty of room for debate. ;)

That is still something that is seperate from the world. Give Ceasar what's his, but give to God what is God's. Open support of this by a Christian is directly against the faith. If we are living in the faith, we need to abide by the laws which govern us as a testimony of submission. We are not to accept with a glad heart the promotion of things which are clearly unscriptural.

People have certain inalienable rights, one of which is the persuit of happiness. If g@yness is really what one believes will make them happy, they are entitled to persue it, and we are entitled to allow them to.

And...if those means are restricted, it is the duty of those who really do love to break down those barriers.

If a father's son insists on studying a certain way that the father knows will not help him pass his test, then the best thing the father can do is allow the child to learn by failure. Spare the rod, spoil the child. It'll work.

So yes, I have been to gay pride week in Atlanta, and have marched openly in support of h%mosexuals. There are Christian orginizations who are in support of g@y rights. I went and worked with them.

Because if these people are truly wrong, then they have to learn.

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:18 PM
No, it's saying that it doesn't speak about the specifics of homosexual sin.

When it says a man shouldn't do with a man the things which he would normally do passionately with a woman - that's pretty specific. Don't do it. It's an abomination to God.

We have the right to choose to walk a life pleasing to God or not. Thing is - if we don't - there are consequences. If we do - results.

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:19 PM
Well in point of fact, many pastors, parsons, preachers, priests, etcetera, did claim that being an African American was sinful back in their days. Well...not sinful but that they were cursed. This is why this country ended up in the mess that we did on that front.

During the Civil Rights movement, many honestly believed that if blacks got their rights, then society would completely collapse in on itself. They said that it would be the worst decision that the country ever made. Well, they were wrong.

Many Christians believe drinking to be sinful, and they pushed and pushed and pushed for the government to ban alcohol. The government did. What happened? Problems related to alcohol increased and the nation ended up with a huge crime issue.

Bottom Line: You cannot legislate ethics, they will legislate themselves, and you cannot legislate morality, because it has always been around, and it always make the best decision for itself.

I'm not asking what I think, you think, or preachers in the 60's thought about African Americans. I'm asking what the Bible says.

Does the Bible say it is sinful to be African American?

If the answer is "no," then there is no real comparision from a Christian standpoint between rights for African Americans and the kinds of concessions the ga&y community is asking for.

It is one thing to stand up and defend civil rights for an oppressed ethnic or racial group. It is totally another to stand up for practicing sinners to have the legal right to practice their vile sins.

If there was a movement for special rights for murderers, would you join their ranks? How about supporting a group called "The Child Molestor's Chamber of Commerce?" Would you support that?

Or better yet: Would Christ support that?

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:22 PM
People have certain inalienable rights, one of which is the persuit of happiness. If g@yness is really what one believes will make them happy, they are entitled to persue it, and we are entitled to allow them to.

And...if those means are restricted, it is the duty of those who really do love to break down those barriers.

If a father's son insists on studying a certain way that the father knows will not help him pass his test, then the best thing the father can do is allow the child to learn by failure. Spare the rod, spoil the child. It'll work.

So yes, I have been to gay pride week in Atlanta, and have marched openly in support of h%mosexuals. There are Christian orginizations who are in support of g@y rights. I went and worked with them.

Because if these people are truly wrong, then they have to learn.

Politically Ben. Politically. But if hey choose homosexuality - they choose against God. And our fleshy pleasures will bring us happiness until we need to face judgement. Then we won't be so happy.

When we walk beside a sinner, should we not be telling them about salvation? Should we not warn them? I'll help my kids, show them the way - and THEN if they fall it's their fault. That is our responsibility as Christians which should be more to us at the very least than a political movement.

If they are truly wrong, why not love them enough to show them their error? Are we not to be in the world but not of it?

HisLeast
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:25 PM
How about supporting a group called "The Child Molestor's Chamber of Commerce?" Would you support that?


Scary fact of the day: Its called "NAMBLA" - North American Man Boy Love Association. Very very real organization.

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:29 PM
Scary fact of the day: Its called "NAMBLA" - North American Man Boy Love Association. Very very real organization.
Yikes.

I wonder how long before McDonald's gets in on that?

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:31 PM
The civil rights wasn't backed by huge amounts of money or big businesses...no one lost profits when they got their rights. This is much like the abortion industry...its all about money! Hidden behind 'the right thing to do' for a group presented as being picked on by the Christians.

No, but the government had to spend large amounts of money to help with the integration process.

And the only reason that gays are supported that way now is becuase they have the ability to be. It takes massive amoutns of money these days to enact social change.



I will tell you what, when the gay marriage was voted down by many states, it was voted down by mostly nonbelievers! Not Christians. You know who really hates gays? I mean HATES them...its nonbelievers. I am talking about death threats, harassment, on and on...its all coming from nonbelievers. All you have to do is get on youtube, find a video made by anyone gay and read the comments...check those commenting channels and you will see they are not Christians. They say the most vile disgusting nasty things imaginable. Now here we are constantly told we are the haters and withhold their rights...not true. Even if we stepped aside and didn't vote one way or another on this marriage issue it would still be voted down by these other people.



Well, I know that there are Christian hater. I'm not so sure that it's more nonbelievers. In fact, I very much doubt that. I'd have to see some figures to convince me otherwise.

As for the nonbeliever haters, well...they're just as wrong. Bottom line.



Because there is more going on here then just homosexuals wanting the right to get married. I mean seriously...WHY would any major company get involved in this issue where less then 3% of the population is even gay to start with? Money, money, money..manipulation, power, money...but they are stupid too cause now every Christian in the US and many nonbelievers will suddenly stop going to MD's and they will be retracting their support in no time...(or at least hiding it like any smart business person should have the sense to do in a case like this).

I'll agree to the three percent figure, give or take. Sounds about right...maybe. Debateable. These findings are usually based on surveys in which many wouldn't even tell about their h@mosexuality (closeted). The data is just too...shaky. There's never any guaruntee. Doesn't really matter though, I'll go with the three percent figure, which is about all I'm going to get.

Plus, I'm not quite understanding your argument. You're making the claim that it's all about money, but I don't see your evidence to support that.


It would actually mess them up seriously (cash flow) if all the homosexuals suddenly got the right to marry. Their 'cause' would dry up...and they can't let that happen....

Huh? The orginizations are non-profit. They don't use the money for themselves. They use it for demonstrations, marches, events, etcetera. They're not worried about losign money, that's why most of them have jobs.

Theophilus
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:32 PM
People have certain inalienable rights, one of which is the persuit of happiness

That's from (as you know) the US Constitution...a fine document, but not Scripture.

What's more, the whole sentence says these rights are given by the "Creator"...If that's true, do you really think He gives people the right to be happy even if their happiness relies in part on sinful behavior?:hmm:

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:33 PM
When it says a man shouldn't do with a man the things which he would normally do passionately with a woman - that's pretty specific. Don't do it. It's an abomination to God.

We have the right to choose to walk a life pleasing to God or not. Thing is - if we don't - there are consequences. If we do - results.

Yes, it's declaring it as a sin, nto talking about state governements regulating that. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt use this book as the foundation of every government in the world, and thou shalt not deviate". It don't. It only did that for Israel.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:37 PM
I'm not asking what I think, you think, or preachers in the 60's thought about African Americans. I'm asking what the Bible says.

Does the Bible say it is sinful to be African American?


No


If the answer is "no," then there is no real comparision from a Christian standpoint between rights for African Americans and the kinds of concessions the ga&y community is asking for.

What kinds of concessions have you heard about, because the ones I have sound pretty reasonable. Where is this information you're getting coming from?


It is one thing to stand up and defend civil rights for an oppressed ethnic or racial group. It is totally another to stand up for practicing sinners to have the legal right to practice their vile sins.

Why are their sins more vile than mine or yours?


If there was a movement for special rights for murderers, would you join their ranks? How about supporting a group called "The Child Molestor's Chamber of Commerce?" Would you support that?

No, but that's a Red Herring. We're not talking about people who make a deliberate attempt to hurt others.



Or better yet: Would Christ support that?


Those two? Of course not.

Matthew
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:37 PM
Well in point of fact, many pastors, parsons, preachers, priests, etcetera, did claim that being an African American was sinful back in their days. Well...not sinful but that they were cursed. This is why this country ended up in the mess that we did on that front.

During the Civil Rights movement, many honestly believed that if blacks got their rights, then society would completely collapse in on itself. They said that it would be the worst decision that the country ever made. Well, they were wrong.

Many Christians believe drinking to be sinful, and they pushed and pushed and pushed for the government to ban alcohol. The government did. What happened? Problems related to alcohol increased and the nation ended up with a huge crime issue.

Bottom Line: You cannot legislate ethics, they will legislate themselves, and you cannot legislate morality, because it has always been around, and it always make the best decision for itself.

But indeed we do legislate morals all of the time. It's simply an undeniable fact.

What homosexual rights do you speak of? For some reason there are people that think that because they want something (like homosexual marriage) that it is automatically a right. How in the world homosexuality went from something that until very recently could be prohibited by law to a right completely baffles me.

If states want to grant homosexuals the right to marry, fine. I don't agree with it, but I don't run this country. But, to circumvent the will of the people through the courts is absolutely infuriating and is the same thing that gave us Roe v. Wade. If you want homosexuals to have specific rights then change the laws or amend the Constitution.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:37 PM
:lol::lol:PEOPLE....SLOW DOWN...GIVE ME A CHANCE TO BREATHE!!!:lol::lol:

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:41 PM
Politically Ben. Politically. But if hey choose homosexuality - they choose against God. And our fleshy pleasures will bring us happiness until we need to face judgement. Then we won't be so happy.

That's between them and God. I am an active supporter because of the way I feel about them, and their plight. That's between me and God.


When we walk beside a sinner, should we not be telling them about salvation? Should we not warn them? I'll help my kids, show them the way - and THEN if they fall it's their fault. That is our responsibility as Christians which should be more to us at the very least than a political movement.

Yes, if they'll listen. But I'll still love and give my full support to someone who won't. As long as they're not killing anyone or destroying anything. I'll help them best as I can.



If they are truly wrong, why not love them enough to show them their error? Are we not to be in the world but not of it?


Yeah, that's true, but unfortunately for us, we still live here. Denying people their rights is not an act of love.

HisLeast
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:41 PM
Why are their sins more vile than mine or yours?

They aren't more vile. The difference is I don't ask for special protections from people who tell me my sins are wrong.


Those two? Of course not.

But yet they're two examples of people executing their right to pursue happiness are they not?

Matthew 12:21
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:41 PM
Wait...can we not agree that there is a difference between a homosexual relationship and a pedophilic one? The first involves a consensual relationship between two adults. The second is an illegal relationship between an adult and a CHILD. There is no comparison here. I don't see any point in joining the discussion if people are going to start lumping homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:42 PM
Scary fact of the day: Its called "NAMBLA" - North American Man Boy Love Association. Very very real organization.

All h@mosexuals are not child molestors, if that's what your claiming.

If not, then yes, I'm aware of the orginization and believe it to be repulsive, but that's a side issue, let's not get into side issues.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:44 PM
They aren't more vile. The difference is I don't ask for special protections from people who tell me my sins are wrong.

Yes, because you know that they are.





But yet they're two examples of people executing their right to pursue happiness are they not?


No...that's pleasure, not happiness. Big difference. Pleasure is the taste of ice cream, happiness is laughing with your wife because you dropped your ice cream in the park.

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:44 PM
Yes, it's declaring it as a sin, nto talking about state governements regulating that. Where in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt use this book as the foundation of every government in the world, and thou shalt not deviate". It don't. It only did that for Israel.

It was the foundation for those who were God's people - until Israel got hungry to look like the world and God sent them a king. Up until then - He was their only King.

Turns out they didn't like it much.

Ben, what is the point here? Why the running like a lunatic here in defense of something that is an abomination to God and as a Christian you should not outright and boldly support? That I am not getting.

threebigrocks
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:46 PM
If not, then yes, I'm aware of the orginization and believe it to be repulsive, but that's a side issue, let's not get into side issues.

Same could be said for the issue at hand here Ben. Neither is pleasing to the sight of God. If murder makes someone happy - should we let them?

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:46 PM
That's from (as you know) the US Constitution...a fine document, but not Scripture.

What's more, the whole sentence says these rights are given by the "Creator"...If that's true, do you really think He gives people the right to be happy even if their happiness relies in part on sinful behavior?:hmm:

Well, you cannot legislate morality, you can barely define ethics, which is what makes lawmaking at it's base so difficult.

Theophilus
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:46 PM
Wait...can we not agree that there is a difference between a homosexual relationship and a pedophilic one? The first involves a consensual relationship between two adults. The second is an illegal relationship between an adult and a CHILD. There is no comparison here. I don't see any point in joining the discussion if people are going to start lumping homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia.
Well, actually, the comparison is that some people want to say that both are okay...and neither are. I think the point that the other poster was making was along the line of "What sinful act will McDonald support next?"

He could have used "The Wife Swapper's Club of America," or the "United Adulterers of America," or some other such thing...and NAMBLA does exist.

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:48 PM
Why are their sins more vile than mine or yours?

No one is saying they are. What I am saying is that a group of people should not be able to band together based on a common sin and gain concessions from the world so that they can practice their sin!

What is so hard to understand about that? Do you remember Paul's admonition:

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

By marching with the ga*y community, you are not exposing, but rather supporting the darkness of sin.


No, but that's a Red Herring. We're not talking about people who make a deliberate attempt to hurt others.

But you are taking a worldly view of "wrong and right." Situation ethics, a wordly doctrine, says do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others.

God does not say that. He says homosexuality is hurting HIM. It offends Him, goes against His created order. Is that not enough to understand why it is sinful? Study Romans 1.


Those two? Of course not.

Are their sins worse than homosexuality? Why would you not support them, as well?

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:48 PM
Same could be said for the issue at hand here Ben. Neither is pleasing to the sight of God. If murder makes someone happy - should we let them?

Could we stop it with the red herrings? Please?

Murder is not h@mosexuality. It is a deliberate act to cause harm to another person. That's not the same thing. Both may be sin, but both are not equal in seriousness.

If someone murders your husband, are you going to have the same reaction as someone your husband works with declaring that they are a h@mosexual? No. You will not.

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:50 PM
:lol::lol:PEOPLE....SLOW DOWN...GIVE ME A CHANCE TO BREATHE!!!:lol::lol:
Sorry, man. I'm starting to feel bad about starting this thread!

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:51 PM
Wait...can we not agree that there is a difference between a homosexual relationship and a pedophilic one? The first involves a consensual relationship between two adults. The second is an illegal relationship between an adult and a CHILD. There is no comparison here. I don't see any point in joining the discussion if people are going to start lumping homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia.
Does God see a difference? What do you think?

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:52 PM
But indeed we do legislate morals all of the time. It's simply an undeniable fact.

No, no, no. We define ethics, and sometimes people's perception of morals isn't what goes through. You can't make everyone morally happy.



What homosexual rights do you speak of? For some reason there are people that think that because they want something (like homosexual marriage) that it is automatically a right. How in the world homosexuality went from something that until very recently could be prohibited by law to a right completely baffles me.


Well, things have changed very quickly all the time throughout history. During the Black Plauge, people were told that they could pray to God for their last rites (under Catholic doctrine, of course) and just a year before that would have been considered grand heresy.

Things always change.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 08:58 PM
Does God see a difference? What do you think?

Well, there is a common belief (false one) that all h@mosexuals are the ultimate evil, and that they are all out to molest children.

It's just odd that NAMBLA (which admittedly does exist) is what comes up as the first idea for an example of an orginization. It seems to perpetuate that stereotype, whether it was intended to or no.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 09:00 PM
Does God see a difference? What do you think?

God sees a difference, yes. If He didn't, then we'd have to say that somebody who uses profanity has as serious a problem as a chronic child molester. Or that King Solomon because he sinned was just as bad as Hitler.

Sin is equal in that it is all forgiven, not in it's severity.

HisLeast
Apr 2nd 2008, 09:01 PM
Well, there is a common belief (false one) that all h@mosexuals are the ultimate evil, and that they are all out to molest children.

It's just odd that NAMBLA (which admittedly does exist) is what comes up as the first idea for an example of an orginization. It seems to perpetuate that stereotype, whether it was intended to or no.

1) Give me a little credit
2) Read my example in the context it was given.

I did not, under any circumstance, forward the notion that all homosexuals were pedophiles, nor has anyone else here (speaking of red herrings!). I also call BS on the statement that its a "common belief".

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 09:04 PM
1) Give me a little credit
2) Read my example in the context it was given.

I did not, under any circumstance, forward the notion that all homosexuals were pedophiles, nor has anyone else here (speaking of red herrings!). I also call BS on the statement that its a "common belief".

It's common enough. It's not the majority, I'll give you that. However, "common" is not compatible with "most", so read my statments in context too. If you have a question, please bring it up first before you accuse me.

I also didn't say that you all were saying that, but it seemed to possibly be going that direction for a period of time. If it wasn't, then we're fine. I'm hoping it wasn't. I don't know. I'm going to take you at your word that it wasn't from you, because I know you.

You have a lot of credit with me, bro. Believe me.

Matthew
Apr 2nd 2008, 09:10 PM
First, thanks for the quick response. It would probably take me all day to respond to all of the responses you've received. :D


No, no, no. We define ethics, and sometimes people's perception of morals isn't what goes through. You can't make everyone morally happy.

Sounds like semantics to me. Here's an example. Bigamy is illegal. Now, we can agree that this is legislation. It's just a fact.

So, I assume that since you can't deny that a law is legislation that you think restricting bigamy does not concern morality. If I have stated your position correctly, then I don't know how you can say that that is not legislating morality.

Perhaps you can distinguish defining ethics from legislating morality and explain why a law against bigamy qualifies as the former and not the latter. I don't see a difference.


Well, things have changed very quickly all the time throughout history. During the Black Plauge, people were told that they could pray to God for their last rites (under Catholic doctrine, of course) and just a year before that would have been considered grand heresy.

Things always change.

Things do change. Societal values change. That doesn't mean that we make the law say whatever we want. The law has to be interpreted for the times in which we live, but IMO it should not be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it once did. Mechanisms exist within the law to change the law. When society is ready to change those mechanisms are freely available.

Athanasius
Apr 2nd 2008, 09:21 PM
No, it's saying that it doesn't speak about the specifics of homosexual sin.

Just a little FYI, and I'm not being sarcastic or rude here, don't try to accuse me of being an orwellian fascist (doublespeak), because if that was the case, I'd have a stricter moral code than most of the fundies here.

If the Bible says 'homosexuality is a sin' then there's no specifics to discuss. Homosexuality in its entirety is a sin; every specific is covered.

I will have to ask you to excuse me, as a writer I thought you were aware that the term 'double speak' firstly, did not originate with Orwell. Secondly, is no longer (nor should it have ever been) inextricably linked to Orwellian fascism or 1984 as it was never used in his book. What you did was exactly that, you double spoke; you don't have to be an Orwellian fascist to double speak, nor did I accuse you of being one.

Matt14
Apr 2nd 2008, 09:30 PM
God sees a difference, yes. If He didn't, then we'd have to say that somebody who uses profanity has as serious a problem as a chronic child molester. Or that King Solomon because he sinned was just as bad as Hitler.

Sin is equal in that it is all forgiven, not in it's severity.

God DOES NOT see a difference, and you've just contradicted yourself.

Earlier you told me that my sins were as vile as that of a homosexual, and I agreed with you.

But now you say that God sees a difference between homosexual acts and child molestation acts. That's the world talking, man.

To God, sin is sin. That's why the Bible lumps liars in with murderers in Rev. 21:8. Does it seem fair by man's standards that liars will not enter heaven? No, but it is not man's standard that matters, it is God's, right?

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 10:33 PM
First, thanks for the quick response. It would probably take me all day to respond to all of the responses you've received.

It's cool.



Sounds like semantics to me. Here's an example. Bigamy is illegal. Now, we can agree that this is legislation. It's just a fact.

So, I assume that since you can't deny that a law is legislation that you think restricting bigamy does not concern morality. If I have stated your position correctly, then I don't know how you can say that that is not legislating morality.

Well, the problem is actually that legalizing bigamy would give polygamists a chance to get a lot more in the way of tax breaks, medical benefits, other marital benefits, etcetera. That just wouldn't be fair to non-polygamists.

So that's not a matter of morality anymore (though it was founded as such), but rather a matter of avoiding economic chaos.

If they found a way to legalize it without creating such chaos, then I'd support that too, probably.



Things do change. Societal values change. That doesn't mean that we make the law say whatever we want. The law has to be interpreted for the times in which we live, but IMO it should not be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it once did. Mechanisms exist within the law to change the law. When society is ready to change those mechanisms are freely available.

There have been many laws that have done a 180 throughout history. A while back (but not too long ago) it was illegal to have interracial marriage. Now that law has been changed.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 10:37 PM
If the Bible says 'homosexuality is a sin' then there's no specifics to discuss. Homosexuality in its entirety is a sin; every specific is covered.

I'm not talking about what the Bible says, but rather what the state should allow. According to the Bible, nobody should be allowed a divorce except in the case of adultery. But nobody seems to want to complain about the fact that divorce is pretty easy in this country. They love to scream about same-sex marriage though.


I will have to ask you to excuse me, as a writer I thought you were aware that the term 'double speak' firstly, did not originate with Orwell. Secondly, is no longer (nor should it have ever been) inextricably linked to Orwellian fascism or 1984 as it was never used in his book. What you did was exactly that, you double spoke; you don't have to be an Orwellian fascist to double speak, nor did I accuse you of being one.


This is somewhat insulting. I am aware of that. The only reason I said that is because I've been attacked on those very ground, with almost those very words before, and I'm well aware of what 1984 says, as I've read it about eight times.

And I did not double-speak. Though you can kind of make the argument that I did.

I am clearly stating right now, however, FOR THE RECORD, that my arguments are largely worldly, though I have spiritual reasons for them. If you don't like that. Tough.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 10:44 PM
God DOES NOT see a difference, and you've just contradicted yourself.

No, there is a difference, and that is why we have these things called JUDGES to make it clear to us.




Earlier you told me that my sins were as vile as that of a homosexual, and I agreed with you.

Excuse me, I did not contradict myself. And here's why...that statement was a way for me to loosely point out the fact that people like to attach words like "vile", "disgusting", and "revolting" onto things like homosexuality and to abortion, but usually not to things like theft or greed.

I also did not say that your sins were as vile as those of a homosexual. I asked you whether they were, and you later answered. You have just misrepresented my argument by trying to turn it into a statement. That may sound like semantics, but in truth, it's what you did.

But, I have to give you credit for being smart. That was creative.


But now you say that God sees a difference between homosexual acts and child molestation acts. That's the world talking, man.

Uhm, I'm pretty sure that He does. Show me in the Bible where it says that He doesn't see it as any different at all.


To God, sin is sin. That's why the Bible lumps liars in with murderers in Rev. 21:8. Does it seem fair by man's standards that liars will not enter heaven? No, but it is not man's standard that matters, it is God's, right?

Well, in that particular passage, liar is a pretty ambiguous term. That could mean things like evil dictators, greedy businessmen, and others. I don't see your argument being supported by this passage.

But it's a creative red herring.

Athanasius
Apr 2nd 2008, 10:52 PM
I'm not talking about what the Bible says, but rather what the state should allow. According to the Bible, nobody should be allowed a divorce except in the case of adultery. But nobody seems to want to complain about the fact that divorce is pretty easy in this country. They love to scream about same-sex marriage though.

We aren't talking about divorce, and most of us aren't 'other Christians'. You're setting up a false dichotomy. This is Christianity dealing with homosexuality though the Bible; the foundation of Christianity, the inspired word of God divinely revealed to men. Society can think whatever it wants to think about what is or isn't acceptable. As Christians we may respect society and its laws, but if those laws contradict the Bible, we go with the Bible. There is absolutely no reason why any self professed Christian should disagree with this.



This is somewhat insulting. I am aware of that. The only reason I said that is because I've been attacked on those very ground, with almost those very words before, and I'm well aware of what 1984 says, as I've read it about eight times.

Unfortunately you were the one to bring Orwell into the discussion, not I.



I am clearly stating right now, however, FOR THE RECORD, that my arguments are largely worldly, though I have spiritual reasons for them. If you don't like that. Tough.

Christianity isn't based in the world, it's based in the word. Any 'spiritual reasons' you have for your arguments is then based not in Christianity, but outside of it. It's God who you should be saying 'tough' to, not I.

FaithfulSheep
Apr 2nd 2008, 11:14 PM
Originally Posted by atrus912 http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1592939#post1592939)
I'm not talking about what the Bible says, but rather what the state should allow.Here's the thing. We know the Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin, correct?

As Christians, the Bible is to be our guide to living our lives, correct?

So why then, should we as Christians want to let the state or organizations to support the homosexual agenda when we know it is a sin?

We shouldn't. Or else we would be contradicting ourselves.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 11:14 PM
We aren't talking about divorce, and most of us aren't 'other Christians'. You're setting up a false dichotomy. This is Christianity dealing with homosexuality though the Bible; the foundation of Christianity, the inspired word of God divinely revealed to men. Society can think whatever it wants to think about what is or isn't acceptable. As Christians we may respect society and its laws, but if those laws contradict the Bible, we go with the Bible. There is absolutely no reason why any self professed Christian should disagree with this.

It depends on their intrepretation of The Bible. I never said anything about "other Christians".

And you're not the arbiter of what Christians should and should not believe, so you have no argument here.


Unfortunately you were the one to bring Orwell into the discussion, not I.

True, but that doesn't give you the right to make assumptions about me and my literary knowledge. I was just making sure all bases were covered.


Christianity isn't based in the world, it's based in the word. Any 'spiritual reasons' you have for your arguments is then based not in Christianity, but outside of it. It's God who you should be saying 'tough' to, not I.

Well, that's between me and God. So I'll take His Judgement over yours any day. Believe me, I've prayed about this constantly for a long time. If God has any problem with my views. He hasn't yet told me.

atrus912
Apr 2nd 2008, 11:17 PM
Here's the thing. We know the Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin, correct?

Yes.


As Christians, the Bible is to be our guide to living our lives, correct?

It and prayer, yes.



So why then, should we as Christians want to let the state or organizations to support the homosexual agenda when we know it is a sin?

I do, and that's how I do things. If nobody else wants to, fine. Liberalism finds a way with or without us. I'm just helping the process speed up.


We shouldn't. Or else we would be contradicting ourselves.

That's one way of looking at it.

Athanasius
Apr 3rd 2008, 12:45 AM
It depends on their intrepretation of The Bible. I never said anything about "other Christians".

And you're not the arbiter of what Christians should and should not believe, so you have no argument here.

You're right, I'm not the arbiter of what Christians should or should not believe. Problem for you is the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. So wrong, I do have an argument. You may have an interpretation and I may have an interpretation but the fact that you can subjectively interpret the Bible doesn't mean your interpretation and my interpretation are equally valid. If you believe homosexuality is alright in the eyes of God, then your interpretation in this case would be incorrect.



True, but that doesn't give you the right to make assumptions about me and my literary knowledge. I was just making sure all bases were covered.

Don't turn this into, "I'm the victim'. You're the one who made the assumption that caused me to 'correct' what you had said. I was only working with what you gave me.



Well, that's between me and God. So I'll take His Judgement over yours any day. Believe me, I've prayed about this constantly for a long time. If God has any problem with my views. He hasn't yet told me.

Homosexuality is a sin and you seem to think otherwise. I certainly wouldn't want God's judgment if I were in your place. I guess it's true what they say: liberalism is the most bigoted philosophy around today.

Jeanne D
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:00 AM
Thanks for the info. The next time I want a hamburger, I won't be going to McDonalds. Just as they have the choice as to whom they will support, I too have the choice as to whom I will not support.

Buh bye..

Jeanne

threebigrocks
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:13 AM
No, no, no. We define ethics, and sometimes people's perception of morals isn't what goes through. You can't make everyone morally happy.

Moral excellence is a standard, and ethics doesn't stray far from the influence of morals, right?

2 Peter 1



4For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.
5Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
6and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
7and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.



Morals even come before knowledge. Ponder that.


Things always change.

Scripture never changes, neither does God.




Well, the problem is actually that legalizing bigamy would give polygamists a chance to get a lot more in the way of tax breaks, medical benefits, other marital benefits, etcetera. That just wouldn't be fair to non-polygamists.

So that's not a matter of morality anymore (though it was founded as such), but rather a matter of avoiding economic chaos.

If they found a way to legalize it without creating such chaos, then I'd support that too, probably.

There have been many laws that have done a 180 throughout history. A while back (but not too long ago) it was illegal to have interracial marriage. Now that law has been changed.

The arguement of worldly simplicity doesn't negate the morality of anything.


It depends on their intrepretation of The Bible. I never said anything about "other Christians".

And you're not the arbiter of what Christians should and should not believe, so you have no argument here.

Well, that's between me and God. So I'll take His Judgement over yours any day. Believe me, I've prayed about this constantly for a long time. If God has any problem with my views. He hasn't yet told me.

We can have different interpretations of scripture, but what about revelation from the Holy Spirit? It is God's desire for his church, His bride, to be together in unity. Likemindedness is what it's all about - together, all for God.

God's judgement vs. accountability from those who care - I'd take my lumps to avoid the wrath of God. If God hasn't answered you it's because His answer is written plainly for you to see and as we all here have testified to you. Your refusal to see that isn't His lack of communication.

Seeker of truth
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:29 AM
why do you say decent?


I have two words: Burger King...

AMEN sister!
....................

atrus912
Apr 3rd 2008, 02:51 AM
I'm done here. Go pat yourselves on the back for beating the evil liberal and his disgusting views. Be sure to do a little dance and recognize how wonderfully holy you all are.

You're right...Ben's dorm. That's where Lucifer lives.

TrustingFollower
Apr 3rd 2008, 02:53 AM
OK guys, here is the deal. This is a Christian message board, so lets have some scripture in support of your side of the debate. This going back and forth with just your opinion ain't cutting it. Even in the contro forum we use scripture to support the argument.

Bring this around or the thread is dead. This is the only official warning that will be posted.

Befaithful
Apr 3rd 2008, 06:17 AM
Genesis 19

Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

1 That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then get up early in the morning and be on your way again.”
“Oh no,” they replied. “We’ll just spend the night out here in the city square.”
3 But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. 4 But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”
6 So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. 7 “Please, my brothers,” he begged, “don’t do such a wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection.”
9 “Stand back!” they shouted. “This fellow came to town as an outsider, and now he’s acting like our judge! We’ll treat you far worse than those other men!” And they lunged toward Lot to break down the door.
10 But the two angels[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019;&version=51;#fen-NLT-468a)] reached out, pulled Lot into the house, and bolted the door. 11 Then they blinded all the men, young and old, who were at the door of the house, so they gave up trying to get inside.
12 Meanwhile, the angels questioned Lot. “Do you have any other relatives here in the city?” they asked. “Get them out of this place—your sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone else. 13 For we are about to destroy this city completely. The outcry against this place is so great it has reached the Lord, and he has sent us to destroy it.”

Colossians 3
Living the New Life

1 Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 2 Think about the things of heaven, not the things of earth. 3 For you died to this life, and your real life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 And when Christ, who is your[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203;&version=51;#fen-NLT-29481a)] life, is revealed to the whole world, you will share in all his glory.

5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world. 6 Because of these sins, the anger of God is coming.[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203;&version=51;#fen-NLT-29483b)] 7 You used to do these things when your life was still part of this world. 8 But now is the time to get rid of anger, rage, malicious behavior, slander, and dirty language. 9 Don’t lie to each other, for you have stripped off your old sinful nature and all its wicked deeds. 10 Put on your new nature, and be renewed as you learn to know your Creator and become like him. 11 In this new life, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203;&version=51;#fen-NLT-29488c)] circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%203;&version=51;#fen-NLT-29488d)] slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us.
12 Since God chose you to be the holy people he loves, you must clothe yourselves with tenderhearted mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience. 13 Make allowance for each other’s faults, and forgive anyone who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others. 14 Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds us all together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace that comes from Christ rule in your hearts. For as members of one body you are called to live in peace. And always be thankful.
16 Let the message about Christ, in all its richness, fill your lives. Teach and counsel each other with all the wisdom he gives. Sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs to God with thankful hearts. 17 And whatever you do or say, do it as a representative of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father.

Sodom and Gomorrah was burned. I do not believe we should endorse any agenda that goes against our beliefs. God's word has not changed.

This may seem far away but folks it is not. During Christmas I made a comment at a checkout stand...I said, "when I first moved to MN I noticed how loving and family oriented many people were" A young man in a suit across from me who looked like he was in his late 20's early 30's told me "that that(what I had said) could be construed as a hate crime" I was shocked.
McDonald's... :cool:I am not surprised, but still, I am disappointed. This was not contoversial to the Lord it was wrong.

Read Genesis 18-19


Genesis 18:20-21 20 So the Lord told Abraham, “I have heard a great outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah, because their sin is so flagrant. 21 I am going down to see if their actions are as wicked as I have heard. If not, I want to know.”

Revinius
Apr 3rd 2008, 07:59 AM
Hmmm i was reading the start of this whole 'debate' and was interested in the issues you raised of 'homosexuals rights'. How its repeatedly mentions that 'they have rights'. I was wondering how they got 'these rights'? Bbecause someones right to have something is dictated only by those they live around and not some innate right to something. Anyone wanna challenge this aspect of the discussion?

threebigrocks
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:15 PM
This may seem far away but folks it is not. During Christmas I made a comment at a checkout stand...I said, "when I first moved to MN I noticed how loving and family oriented many people were" A young man in a suit across from me who looked like he was in his late 20's early 30's told me "that that(what I had said) could be construed as a hate crime" I was shocked.

Ah yes, Minnesota is a great - and goofy - place. ;)


Hmmm i was reading the start of this whole 'debate' and was interested in the issues you raised of 'homosexuals rights'. How its repeatedly mentions that 'they have rights'. I was wondering how they got 'these rights'? Bbecause someones right to have something is dictated only by those they live around and not some innate right to something. Anyone wanna challenge this aspect of the discussion?

It is indeed relative. If more stood up against, or least of all made light of the "rights" of homosexuality it wouldn't be what it is.

HisLeast
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:34 PM
What I don't understand is what other rights they require? At least in the US the have all the same rights garaunteed by the constitution as the rest of us. Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce? Is there some legislative ban against homosexual business owners that I don't know about?

The only "right" they seem to be missing is Federal recognition of same sex marraige. So they haven't had the right to redefine marraige to suit their own wishes.

HisLeast
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:37 PM
I'm done here. Go pat yourselves on the back for beating the evil liberal and his disgusting views. Be sure to do a little dance and recognize how wonderfully holy you all are.

You're right...Ben's dorm. That's where Lucifer lives.

Ben,

Disagreement doesn't mean we think Lucifer lives in your dorm and don't act like we're high fiving each other now that you've chosen to give up on the conversation. Leave if you wish, but don't mischaracterise us on the way out.

atrus912
Apr 3rd 2008, 03:21 PM
Ben,

Disagreement doesn't mean we think Lucifer lives in your dorm and don't act like we're high fiving each other now that you've chosen to give up on the conversation. Leave if you wish, but don't mischaracterise us on the way out.

HisLeast,

You know me, and should know that I'm not talking to you or making these assumptions about you.

The people that I'm characterizing in that sentence know perfectly well who they are, and they do believe that I am a serious threat to the faith. They know who they are.

moonglow
Apr 3rd 2008, 03:23 PM
Hang on a second here atrus912..you put me as quoting something I never said in a post..you have this:
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1593018&postcount=46



Quote:
Originally Posted by moonglow
But indeed we do legislate morals all of the time. It's simply an undeniable fact.
No, no, no. We define ethics, and sometimes people's perception of morals isn't what goes through. You can't make everyone morally happy.


Quote:
What homosexual rights do you speak of? For some reason there are people that think that because they want something (like homosexual marriage) that it is automatically a right. How in the world homosexuality went from something that until very recently could be prohibited by law to a right completely baffles me.

Well, things have changed very quickly all the time throughout history. During the Black Plauge, people were told that they could pray to God for their last rites (under Catholic doctrine, of course) and just a year before that would have been considered grand heresy.

Things always change.

Just wanted to clear that up...not sure who you were quoting there.

moonglow
Apr 3rd 2008, 03:51 PM
OK guys, here is the deal. This is a Christian message board, so lets have some scripture in support of your side of the debate. This going back and forth with just your opinion ain't cutting it. Even in the contro forum we use scripture to support the argument.

Bring this around or the thread is dead. This is the only official warning that will be posted.

Sounds good to me...though I did see some scripture posted.

Ok this is what the bible says about this sin:

Roman's 1

24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

This is what the bible says about this sin...it doesn't say we can hate them or tell them they are going to hell Or try to stop them from sinning. This is clearly God's judgment on them...

But where does it say in the bible we have to politically force people to live as God says is right?

That is what I want to know.

As far as supporting them in this sinful lifestyle...this is what the bible says on that:

2 Corinthians 6
14 Don't team up with those who are unbelievers. How can goodness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness? 15 What harmony can there be between Christ and the Devil ? How can a believer be a partner with an unbeliever?

2 Peter 2
19 They promise freedom, but they themselves are slaves to sin and corruption. For you are a slave to whatever controls you. 20 And when people escape from the wicked ways of the world by learning about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up with sin and become its slave again, they are worse off than before. 21 It would be better if they had never known the right way to live than to know it and then reject the holy commandments that were given to them.

I think I understand atrus912 reasoning here..they want the same right married couples get...like if one is working the other can be listed on their health benefits. Or if one is in critical condition in the hospital the other can be listed as family and go in and see them. What other rights do married people have that couples just living together don't get? Does anyone know?

But to support their sin is like saying...enjoy your ride down to hell and THAT is not loving at all.

Now lets see what the bible says about our government:

Romans 13
Submit to Government
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.


1 Peter 2
13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.


Matthew 22

15 Then the Pharisees met together to plot how to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. 16 They sent some of their disciples, along with the supporters of Herod, to meet with him. “Teacher,” they said, “we know how honest you are. You teach the way of God truthfully. You are impartial and don’t play favorites. 17 Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus knew their evil motives. “You hypocrites!” he said. “Why are you trying to trap me? 19 Here, show me the coin used for the tax.” When they handed him a Roman coin, 20 he asked, “Whose picture and title are stamped on it?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

“Well, then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.”

It seems clear we are to follow the laws of the land provided they don't cause us to sin. But where does it say we can influence the laws to force our views on others?

The bible tells us God will judge the nonbelievers, not us:

1 Corinthians 5

9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.
12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

As I said before I never saw Jesus trying to force His beliefs on others at all, let alone through political moves. If there is something in scriptures someone please post it. Thanks.

God bless

moonglow
Apr 3rd 2008, 04:14 PM
Ok I did a search about what exactly is the gay agenda...what rights are they wanting. I had forgotten about some of this...they don't just want equal rights, but 'special rights'...first and foremost they don't want to be looked at as a sinner...as they are sinning. They want us to accept this lifestyle as normal...this will never happen though. Islam is against homosexuals, the Jews are, the Catholics are, the hindus are, and of course mainstream Christianity. The only places they can live and feel free to 'act' gay...hate to say that as many don't 'act gay' and not be frowned upon is secular nations. In Iran they are hung...killed if even suggested they are gay. Its that way in several other countries too around the world. I am certainly NOT saying that is right...of course now...Jesus teaches us to love everyone...not go kill them!

At any rate here is what they want:

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/overview.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights

Civil rights or special rights

Gay rights activists say it’s a matter of equality: They suggest that homosexuals should have the same rights and protections as heterosexuals, including:

* Protection against discrimination in employment, housing and immigration.
* An expansion of hate crime laws to specifically include sexual orientation.
* Domestic partner benefits similar to those granted to married couples.
* The right to marry or have their relationships recognized in “civil unions.”
* The ability to serve in the military without hiding their sexuality.

Others, though, say special rights shouldn’t be granted on the basis of behavior -- particularly one that many Americans find offensive. And some say that current laws are adequate to protect all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

For many Americans, the issue hinges on the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate characteristic with which people are born.

Advocates of gay rights say sexual orientation, like race or disability, can’t be changed, and therefore homosexuals should be protected like any other minority group. Opponents argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that shouldn’t be rewarded. Many objections to gay rights have religious roots. Most major religions oppose homosexuality as a violation of the law of God, and point to human anatomy and reproduction as proof that same-sex intercourse is unnatural. But even within denominations, there are many who call for tolerance.

Many opponents of gay rights also worry that children who interact with openly gay adults -- teachers or Boy Scout leaders, for example -- will view those adults as role models and make that same sexual choice, thus undermining the course of society. For schools and parents, this presents myriad problems, not least of which is how homosexuality is explained and taught to children, if at all.

In a landmark 2003 decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gays and lesbians have a right to sexual privacy and are "entitled to respect for their private lives." That may undercut the basis for many laws that limit the rights of gays in adoption, child custody and workplace discrimination. But that will only become clear as the decision is applied in new lawsuits around the country.

Partner and benefits

The issue of marriage and civil unions is particularly volatile. European nations have led the way on this issue. In 1989, Denmark became the first nation to grant legal rights to gay couples, calling such unions “domestic partnerships” that grant many of the same legal rights as marriage. The Netherlands went even further in 1999, allowing full-fledged same-sex marriages. An Ontario court struck down the Canadian province's same-sex marriage ban in 2003.

Many Americans, including prominent religious and political leaders like President Bush, oppose granting legal recognition to same-sex couples, saying it would mark a fundamental shift in the definition of marriage. They say marriage between and man and a woman sanctifies the creation of new life and establishes the cohesive family unit necessary for any stable society. Supporters say marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution and denying its benefits to homosexuals is discriminatory.

In the U.S., the pattern has been for state courts to question why same-sex couples can’t get married, forcing state officials to come up with a plan to accommodate them. Since the rulings have been based on state constitutions, different states have tried different responses. Hawaii, California, Maine and New Jersey have all enacted domestic partnership laws, granting gay and lesbian couples many but not all of the legal rights of marriage. Vermont, after a bitter legislative fight, authorized civil unions that provide all the state benefits of marriage. In Massachusetts, the state's high court ruled that nothing short of full same-sex marriage would be acceptable, and the first ceremonies were performed in May 2004.

But at this point, the Vermont unions and Massachusetts marriages may not be legally binding anywhere else in the country. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are required to offer “full faith and credit” to legal actions in other states, including marriages. But some legal experts argue there is an exception if states believe an out-of-state decision violates their own public policy. For example, if some state or foreign country allowed bigamy or underage marriages, other states could refuse to recognize it. After a Hawaii court struck down a same-sex marriage ban in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act specifically allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. So far, 40 states have such laws.

Opponents of same-sex marriage want to settle the question with a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman, but Congress rejected the first attempt in 2004. So what will probably happen is a series of state-by-state fights as same-sex couples either seek to have local marriage bans overturned or force states to recognize out-of-state unions. In at least 11 states, voters will have the chance to vote on state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage this year. Even in Massachusetts, voters may have the chance to vote on a same-sex marriage amendment in 2006.

Of course, hand-in-hand with the issue of marriage comes the issue of children. Gay couples -- or for that matter, gay individuals -- hoping to adopt can face legal and societal hurdles from those who say homosexuality presents a clear danger to a child’s development and a healthy sexual identity. The vast majority of states no longer routinely deny custody or visitation based on sexual orientation, but two states -- Utah and Mississippi -- bar same-sex couples from adopting. And a federal judge in Florida ruled in August 2001 that no homosexual individual could adopt a child.

The public's viewpoint

Even though public acceptance of homosexuality has increased dramatically in the past 20 years, there is still tension between wanting to be fair to people and unease about same-sex relationships.

Surveys show the extent to which Americans are conflicted. Most say the government should treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. Yet most Americans say the government should not get involved in the issue of homosexuality, and more than half oppose gay marriage. The vast majority of Americans say gays should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities, yet support declines when elementary school teachers are clergy are mentioned.

More than half say gay partners should receive domestic partner benefits like inheritance rights, health insurance and Social Security, yet the public generally tends to favor extending those benefits to all Americans. Support for gay rights measures can also vary depending on survey wording.

Americans also have a tradition of wanting to be inclusive. For many, it’s a matter of live and let live. But, despite the change in attitudes, Americans clearly struggle with how much they want to incorporate into public policy.

Choicework
For additional perspective on how society could address this issue, visit our Discussion Guide which sets out three alternative approaches. The points of view are drawn both from what the experts say about an issue and from what the public thinks about it, based on surveys and focus groups. We call this section "Choicework." Each point of view comes with the arguments for and against, along with some potential costs and tradeoffs.

* American citizens should be able to go about their lives — getting a job, finding a place to live, forming long-lasting relationships and raising children — without fear of discrimination or harassment simply because they are different from the majority of society. The purpose of government is to protect and extend equal rights to all our citizens.
* These are questions where there is wide diversity in opinion around the country, and communities should be free to find solutions that work for them. On this issue, government should follow, not lead.
* There is a big difference between tolerating private behavior between consenting adults and endorsing such behavior by granting those adults special benefits. The family has evolved over thousands of years as the linchpin of society. Government needs to support and protect traditional values and institutions that form the pillars of a stable, civil society.

When Hitler was killing all the Jews and Christians, he also killed the handicapped AND the gays.

God bless

Revinius
Apr 3rd 2008, 04:53 PM
Wow i wasnt aware Bush (or whoever is gonna replace him) is planning on killing homosexuals? No? Because thats the parallel you seem to be drawing.

You lot live in a Democratic society. Regardless of the infectious liberal post-modernism that seems to be slowly building within it the whole idea behind it is that the majority rules. You elect leaders to act as stewards and lead you in the directions you would want to be lead. As it stands the majority thinks that homosexual 'rights' (however bamboozling the notion of rights independent of God may be) arent something that should be changed. Christians in general support this idea through their democratic right to voice their opinion and vote appropriately regarding the issue. I dont see what the real problem is here? If homosexuals really want marriage (or whatever else) in a country that doesnt then they ofcourse are welcome to either: 1. Gritting their teeth and bearing it whilst voicing their opinion as per the rights given by the state OR 2. Find somewhere else that really doesnt care about their 'rights' and will let them do whatever they wish. (Arent many of those, they are usually of a different standard of existence that most Americans would enjoy).

The question for them really is: Is it worth it to do the latter of these things? If not, do the former and vote accordingly.

Matt14
Apr 3rd 2008, 05:09 PM
HisLeast,

You know me, and should know that I'm not talking to you or making these assumptions about you.

The people that I'm characterizing in that sentence know perfectly well who they are, and they do believe that I am a serious threat to the faith. They know who they are.

I don't think you are a threat to the faith. You may be a threat to yourself, but that's for you to decide. :)

I've lovingly tried to steer you to examine what you are saying from God's perspective, which is the only one that matters.

But, since you've got so many people posting at you, I'll move on. I pray you will consider stopping public support of homosexuals, and instead replace it with private evangelism. If you march with them, they will think you condone their sins, and therefore you will delay their repentance.

May you be blessed in all ways by our mighty God.

Befaithful
Apr 3rd 2008, 05:56 PM
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10

Who would finally want to divide us from one another?

... For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Ephesians 6:12-13

Let the Lord our God almighty reign in your hearts. Pray for the Lost brothers and sisters. It is not a cop out, try it you will see that it is difficult to maintain prayer for them because it works it is a powerful weapon against our enemy. Love them in your actions mirror our Lords love become more Christlike let his love reign in our hearts.

He is holy he is Lord God almighty and he is worthy and he is able to reach those who are lost and he is able to reach deep with in our own hearts and heal the wounds that are still there. None of us have arrived. Let us just apply those things that we have learned of Him so far so that we do not step backwards into the ground which we have already been delivered.

Love the Lord will all of your heart soul strength and mind lean not on your own understanding and love your neighbor as yourself. Who is your neighbor? If I am not you, then I am your neighblor...this speaks for everyone you will ever see... The Lord will work out the hurts in your heart that may keep you from loving yourself and others...we are a peculiar people. We are loved by a God who died for us before we came to Him. So that we would be healed and saved. And share the good news with others.Your words do not make a difference if they lack the breath of God which restores life into something dead.

ProjectPeter
Apr 9th 2008, 02:42 PM
I think the big difference here is the sort of "in your face" attitude. Fact. Most all of your major corporations in the US support the gay and lesbians in some fashion by giving money to some group supporting their agenda. There are very few that don't and that I can guarantee you. With many stores... it is just political expediency that they do so. Keep in mind... these guys are not Christian organizations and likely aren't run by Christian men and women. So they act like the heathens they are... so no shock there.

Now... a company that is more "in your face" with it and making it an absolute agenda... no matter their Christian status... Can't shop there and we shouldn't. But seriously... if we were to boycott every business that supported the Gay folk... we better have a farm and sewing machine. And good luck buying seed, material, needles... etc. It won't be easy and you'll pay prime money for it.

The world is the world and the world does what the world does... they sin and they do sinful things. If your conscience tells you to stop shopping somewhere because.... then please follow that. Personally... I think McD's is being a bit in your face here and for that... no more Big Macs. I couldn't in good conscience give them my money.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 9th 2008, 02:56 PM
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/7650/burgerkingjw5.jpg

ProjectPeter
Apr 9th 2008, 03:19 PM
Hold the pickles... hold the lettuce! ;)

NHL Fever
Apr 9th 2008, 04:55 PM
Long before an homosexual associations, McDonalds has been associated with the slow killing of people via their terrible, unhealthy food.

On the homosexual issue, its a tough call because its clearly a sin. However a homosexual may or may not be righteous depending on how you define them. Just like someone may admit to being an alcoholic but is actively pursing liberation from that, so might a homosexual. If they are involved in homosexual relations or thoughts however, and endorsing them as fine, then they are sinning.

The question to ask here is what sins of yours should be grounds for the removal of your rights? Lying, cheating on your taxes, being unloving to your wife? The implication of course is do we want the state involved in legislating based on theocratic ideas? Most would say no, that was partly the whole point of the founding of America in the first place. However that does not mean we do not express our morals and values in way we vote. Homosexuality in the public arena can have a bad influence on others, our children, our friends, etc, by sheer acknowledgment of their actions being seen as 'ok'. Just as the more you watch bad TV shows which portray bad messages as ok, the more you are likely to be influenced by them, regardless of your stated personal values. What you are exposed to will influence you, only a fool thinks he his impervious to his environment. Therefore what you allow in society will influence your children by simply mechanism of proximity and exposure, and that is the reason you should do what you can to limit sinful behavior in the public arena. It DOES hurt other people in that way, it is not a victimless act, nor a belief system that is limited to the bedroom/home in its effect.

The other question that needs to be asked is are we as a society ready to rail and cry about the legalization of other sins - like divorce, drunkenness, hating your brother, adultery and pornography? These equally, if not moreso, have a negative influence on society once again from simply being seen as acceptable in the public eye.

But in the end what has been said about homosexual rights is true - they already have all the rights that you do. You and they both have the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, and not of the same sex. You and they have the right to have civil union with anybody you want, and get the same tax benefits. There is no physical or economic disadvantage that exists in the law for them any more than for anyone else. The cry for equal rights is BS, what they are looking for is making it mandatory for all the rest of us to stroke their egos and tell them how pretty and great they are. They also want the opportunity to influence your children in the public arena, but of course you can't have the chance to influence theirs (those that have them), because that would be intolerance. That is where the hypocrisy and double-standard rears its head.

Jesus would love homosexuals and also directly tell them they are sinning, as this was his approach to every situation of sin he encountered. He did not forgive the adulterous woman and then post a progressive blog about how each person's personal choices are their own business in their own home or bedroom, he publicly and without hesitation said what she did was wrong, and then forgave her and showed her love. This is the mistake we should also not make as Christians, we need to love people but also know that we need to challenge people to stop wrong, and do right as well. This is because the purpose and passion in life is finding God's best for ourselves and others - putting others just as we love ourselves.

joztok
Apr 11th 2008, 01:20 PM
Yes, but if we promote/support homos*xual "rights"...we're tacitly giving consent to homos*xuality as a practice, aren't we?

For example, if I choose to support a pro-choice political candidate, it's the same as me giving consent to abortions.

We are to love those who sin...but we don't condone the sin they're in by supporting their so-called rights...rights that have no Biblical basis.

:2cents:
By supporting and accepting them, we uphold the gospel message of Christ, letting them know that they are loved, accepted and forgiven by Christ.
They are in error in only harming themselves and others by their practice. But salvation is important for them first so that God may lead them into inner healing so that these practices may stop.

I see why you say this. Politics, I believe, is different to to a community.
Unfortunately, in any community, their will be those that will play politics to get what they want. I'm against snolligostering.

diffangle
Apr 11th 2008, 04:09 PM
By supporting and accepting them, we uphold the gospel message of Christ, letting them know that they are loved, accepted and forgiven by Christ.


They're only accepted and forgiven by Christ if they repent of their sins and accept Him as their Saviour... otherwise they will be rejected come judgement day.

Revinius
Apr 12th 2008, 05:45 AM
Hold the pickles... hold the lettuce! ;)

I like pickles and lettuce :(

cnw
Apr 13th 2008, 11:35 PM
ya know I thot we gave up our rights when we gave our lives to Christ. I also gave up Mcdonalds and my kids agree so we don't blatently give our money to an agenda that is self serving and not Christ serving.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah. That is a pretty big statement. We don't know what Paul did except write and preach. blatently he was against sin and spoke out against it as we should. oh ya so did Jesus and all the others who wrote in the Bible.
I believe it was Christ who told us to be in the world but not of the World. Sex that is not performed with our husband or wife of the oposite sex is not of Christ and therefor of the world. It doesn't matter hew we feel about it because we are dead to self if we are Christs.
taco bell has always been my favorite anyway.

redeemedbyhim
Apr 14th 2008, 12:37 AM
ya know I thot we gave up our rights when we gave our lives to Christ. I also gave up Mcdonalds and my kids agree so we don't blatently give our money to an agenda that is self serving and not Christ serving.
God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah. That is a pretty big statement. We don't know what Paul did except write and preach. blatently he was against sin and spoke out against it as we should. oh ya so did Jesus and all the others who wrote in the Bible.
I believe it was Christ who told us to be in the world but not of the World. Sex that is not performed with our husband or wife of the oposite sex is not of Christ and therefor of the world. It doesn't matter hew we feel about it because we are dead to self if we are Christs.
taco bell has always been my favorite anyway.


Yum, Taco Bell. I hope they don't join the political correct band wagon.
My husband and I stopped eating at McDonald's when we found out they support abortion rights...that was enough for us, so guess supporting the homosexual agenda wasn't far behind.

cnw
Apr 14th 2008, 01:59 AM
well what did Paul say....when ya find out guys, that the food was sacrificed than dont eat it, but till then chow down....Cynths translation of I Cor 8. So anyone hear anything about taco bell.........ya tell me ya die!

Warrior4God
Apr 14th 2008, 03:22 AM
I don't know what the confusion is all about. Homosexuality is condemned in both Old and New Testaments as being something God is NOT ok with. The Bible clearly indicates those who continue to live that way will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. With that said, it's not an unforgivable sin, but it's one that must be repented of. Just like adultery. Or fornication. Or lying. Or stealing. Trying to be all politically correct and supportive of "gay rights" is trying to be part of the world and gain acceptance from the world. Is that what we are supposed to be concerned about? No, I don't believe people should be fired from their jobs or called names or physically assaulted just because they are gay. However, I won't go as far as to say what they are doing is ok and I will never think it's ok for them to get "married." Sorry, but marriage is for heterosexual couples. Period. What the "gay rights agenda" is all about is trying to influence society, whether bluntly or subtly, to believe homosexuality is normal and just another "alternative lifestyle." That it's ok and normal. Sorry, it's not. Nobody, whether they call themselves unbelievers or Christians, can convince me that homosexuality is just dandy. That's not what my Bible indicates. :hmm:

Seeker of truth
Apr 14th 2008, 12:31 PM
I don't know what the confusion is all about. Homosexuality is condemned in both Old and New Testaments as being something God is NOT ok with. The Bible clearly indicates those who continue to live that way will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. With that said, it's not an unforgivable sin, but it's one that must be repented of. Just like adultery. Or fornication. Or lying. Or stealing. Trying to be all politically correct and supportive of "gay rights" is trying to be part of the world and gain acceptance from the world. Is that what we are supposed to be concerned about? No, I don't believe people should be fired from their jobs or called names or physically assaulted just because they are gay. However, I won't go as far as to say what they are doing is ok and I will never think it's ok for them to get "married." Sorry, but marriage is for heterosexual couples. Period. What the "gay rights agenda" is all about is trying to influence society, whether bluntly or subtly, to believe homosexuality is normal and just another "alternative lifestyle." That it's ok and normal. Sorry, it's not. Nobody, whether they call themselves unbelievers or Christians, can convince me that homosexuality is just dandy. That's not what my Bible indicates. :hmm:

Well said!

We will no longer be eating at McDonalds. Fast food is quite bad for you anyway so we don't eat it often.

I much prefer Wendy's or Taco Bell when I do eat fast food anyway ;)

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 14th 2008, 03:04 PM
Well said!

We will no longer be eating at McDonalds. Fast food is quite bad for you anyway so we don't eat it often.

I much prefer Wendy's or Taco Bell when I do eat fast food anyway ;)

http://www.zanarkand.co.uk/ww/60.PNG

torazon
Apr 20th 2008, 07:26 PM
Absolutely not. I'm very much in support of the h@m@sexual community.

The Bible doesn't say anything about homosexual rights, just h@m@sexuality itself.

Why make them out to be special by supporting them as a community? They are nothing more / nothing less than anyone else. I believe God loves them and some of them will be in Heaven. But all of this baloney of making them special is nothing but political and marketing agenda.

Our message to anyone should be we love you, but not pretend we are OK with willful blatant sin.

Matt14
Apr 21st 2008, 11:19 PM
I'm in total agreement with that. Imagine if all the murderers and thieves and liars banded together to form a "community" to press for their "rights." :lol:

(Cut to fake news program)

News Announcer: "And today representatives from the Liars Community lobbied congress for freedom from prosecution for tax evasion, saying to prosecute them would take away their right to practice their lifestyle."

Warrior4God
Apr 21st 2008, 11:53 PM
I'm in total agreement with that. Imagine if all the murderers and thieves and liars banded together to form a "community" to press for their "rights." :lol:

(Cut to fake news program)

News Announcer: "And today representatives from the Liars Community lobbied congress for freedom from prosecution for tax evasion, saying to prosecute them would take away their right to practice their lifestyle."

That was pretty entertaining. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_213.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZS) The problem with your comparison is that those who support gay rights and think homosexuality is ok will say that you are comparing apples to oranges. They will say homosexuality is not wrong. It's not sin. Gays aren't hurting anybody by their lifestyle. They can't help the way they are. God (if they admit there is one) must have made them gay, so leave them alone. However, they fail to see that no matter how they rationalize it, homosexuality is not normal, males are to be with females and vice versa, they do hurt themselves spiritually, they can help how they act (it's called abstinence), and God did not make them that way. For various reasons, some maybe not even consciously, they choose to engage in sexual relations with members of their own gender. I definitely have compassion for their plight, but my sympathy will never allow me to condone their sexuality. Sorry.