Observation: Four of Five Top Threads in Politics Involve Homosexuality

[Mocking You]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

 

[Town Heretic]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

For many people it's a bellweather of social/political change, one way or the other. That attracts attention. With some threads it's mostly a car wreck slowing traffic.

 

[Lon]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

The biggest concern, I believe, is related to freedoms lost. For instance, the church being sued for 'equal access' of their building, is a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion. Indiana was told it has no right, as a state, to make its own law to protect this religious freedom.

If I don't have a right to protect my family from other's values, I don't have a right to homeschool any longer either. The slope is slippery and we are seeing an assault on our values and our rights, as Christians. Society will not tolerate bigotry, and in so doing, is bigoted itself, but that pendulum swing will cause a lot of damage as the massive wrecking ball that it is.

It will and does undermine biological families. It does and will continue to assault religious value. I don't hate gays, but I do want to protect my family from the onslaught and assault. The national assault against Indiana is an assault on a necessity: We HAVE to be in the world, but not of it, and have nothing to do with them. Ephesians 5:11

Thus, a restriction on a Christian's ability to buy and sale is the mark of the beast. Christians will not be able to buy and sale, if they are to follow these teachings. So far, it is just about 'sell.'

The issues then, are much larger than the context of an unbeliever's sin. We have never been assaulted by polygamists, adulters, or other practicing sinners to accept their sin as normal nor a demand that we not see it as sin. I can refuse a drunk. I can't refuse a homosexual? If I can't refuse ANYBODY, to protect my family, my values, or my business, I've lost significant rights, in favor of the offender.

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

Homosexuality is in the news because activists want to be able to discriminate against Christians ... legally. They don't like the state laws that mirror the federal laws and are misinforming the gullible public into believing Christians will use the law to discriminate against gays. If I had a business, everyone's money is as good as everyone elses. But some Christians have moral objections, which I respect. I do not believe this law does anything but protect those Christian business people from being forced to compromise their beliefs or go out of business.

 

[dreadknought]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

Homosexuals can't live in open sin, no more than someone who assaults another, nor an adulterer and expect preferetial treatment.

 

[Buzzword]

The biggest concern, I believe, is related to freedoms lost. For instance, the church being sued for 'equal access' of their building, is a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion. Indiana was told it has no right, as a state, to make its own law to protect this religious freedom.

If I don't have a right to protect my family from other's values, I don't have a right to homeschool any longer either. The slope is slippery and we are seeing an assault on our values and our rights, as Christians. Society will not tolerate bigotry, and in so doing, is bigoted itself, but that pendulum swing will cause a lot of damage as the massive wrecking ball that it is.

It will and does undermine biological families. It does and will continue to assault religious value. I don't hate gays, but I do want to protect my family from the onslaught and assault. The national assault against Indiana is an assault on a necessity: We HAVE to be in the world, but not of it, and have nothing to do with them. Ephesians 5:11

Thus, a restriction on a Christian's ability to buy and sale is the mark of the beast. Christians will not be able to buy and sale, if they are to follow these teachings. So far, it is just about 'sell.'

The issues then, are much larger than the context of an unbeliever's sin. We have never been assaulted by polygamists, adulters, or other practicing sinners to accept their sin as normal nor a demand that we not see it as sin. I can refuse a drunk. I can't refuse a homosexual? If I can't refuse ANYBODY, to protect my family, my values, or my business, I've lost significant rights, in favor of the offender.

You and your kind are the problem.
And I look forward to your kind dying off or converting.
And most are doing the latter, as their sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and FATHERS and GRANDFATHERS come out of the closet and finally admit they've been lying to themselves for generations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

Obviously there's an obsession. Why? One can only speculate. But it is interesting that states in the "Bible Belt" lead the US in consumption of gay porn. :think:

 

[Buzzword]

Obviously there's an obsession. Why? One can only speculate. But it is interesting that states in the "Bible Belt" lead the US in consumption of gay porn. :think:

Yep!
The more religious people outwardly try to oppress an idea, the more they secretly embrace it in the dark.
Thus so many "conservative" homophobic male politicians have been caught with male prostitutes.

It was true with interracial coupling, and its true with same-sex coupling.
The most outspoken white supremacists in the olden days were the ones keeping the biggest number of bed-warming slaves.

 

[dreadknought]

Obviously there's an obsession. Why? One can only speculate. But it is interesting that states in the "Bible Belt" lead the US in consumption of gay porn. :think:

Sadly, pornography is legal using the first amendment. When homosexuals define their religion, then the Pandora's box of man's depravity tord self and money will be exposed.

 

[Rusha]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

It's the *interest* factor.

 

[Town Heretic]

The biggest concern, I believe, is related to freedoms lost. For instance, the church being sued for 'equal access' of their building, is a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion. Indiana was told it has no right, as a state, to make its own law to protect this religious freedom.

With you on the first part, oppose you on the second. I don't think the law protects religious freedom. I think it advances a particular religious view under color of law.

If I don't have a right to protect my family from other's values, I don't have a right to homeschool any longer either.

Hadn't heard. We do here on the homeschooling. I don't follow on the first part. The world mostly thinks Christ is a dead man. It won't impact my relation and shouldn't anyone elses. I mistrust any idea that requires silence or insulation for its life. Christianity isn't one of those.

It will and does undermine biological families.

We'll never agree on this for the same sort of reason I just went into. Similarly, the divorce rates among Christians doesn't move me to disparage the institution or question my faith.

It does and will continue to assault religious value.

Some religious value in the sense that any competing notion could be considered an assault. Now if your right to your beliefs is infringed upon that's another story. So if you ever own a bakery and someone says you have to write, "Lon's Bakery is a Proud Supporter of Gay Pride Day!" I'll represent you gratis and we'll win.

I don't hate gays, but I do want to protect my family from the onslaught and assault. The national assault against Indiana is an assault on a necessity: We HAVE to be in the world, but not of it, and have nothing to do with them. Ephesians 5:11

Rather, Indiana has chosen to attempt to defend discriminatory practice without a compelling business interest to justify it. This is religious legislation and that's contrary to the law of our land.

Thus, a restriction on a Christian's ability to buy and sale is the mark of the beast. Christians will not be able to buy and sale, if they are to follow these teachings. So far, it is just about 'sell.'

I don't believe there is a single law on the books anywhere forbidding a Christian from doing any lawful thing. But there are laws on the books forbidding homosexuals from otherwise lawful acts. And that's simply unacceptable, unless one day when you and I are old men we want to be subject to the whim of whatever majority is empowered.

The issues then, are much larger than the context of an unbeliever's sin. We have never been assaulted by polygamists, adulters, or other practicing sinners to accept their sin as normal nor a demand that we not see it as sin. I can refuse a drunk. I can't refuse a homosexual? If I can't refuse ANYBODY, to protect my family, my values, or my business, I've lost significant rights, in favor of the offender.

You can't refuse a person based on their moral choices unless those choices violate the law and actually infringe on your rights. You don't have a right not to be offended. Neither do they, comes to it.

SObG, there are a couple of significant differences between Indiana's law and the federal. I'll come back to that when I come back. I'm glad you nudged the point. I don't think most people realize it and it needs to be discussed.

 

[Lon]

You and your kind are the problem.
And I look forward to your kind dying off or converting.
And most are doing the latter, as their sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and FATHERS and GRANDFATHERS come out of the closet and finally admit they've been lying to themselves for generations.

It really is bigotry vs bigotry and the bigger bigot will win. I will meet in houses if I can't have a worship building, well until I "can't" exclude them from my home either. Then I'll be in a jail cell, but not with a homosexual, because that isn't a crime. Not wanting to/being command not to be around them is :dizzy:

Put me in jail or execute me, then.

 

[Lon]

With you on the first part, oppose you on the second. I don't think the law protects religious freedom. I think it advances a particular religious view under color of law.

Well it is states vs State, in thinking and constitution.

We'll never agree on this for the same sort of reason I just went into. Similarly, the divorce rates among Christians doesn't move me to disparage the institution or question my faith.

You then, don't have a problem with a homosexual couple engaging in those activities in a church? Kissing one another? Wearing leather?
Is the only place I am free to 'not' see it in my home (unless I have a television)?

Some religious value in the sense that any competing notion could be considered an assault. Now if your right to your beliefs is infringed upon that's another story. So if you ever own a bakery and someone says you have to write, "Lon's Bakery is a Proud Supporter of Gay Pride Day!" I'll represent you gratis and we'll win.

Why? If someone asks me to write #)($U)*$%)(#% on a cake (profanity), do I have to accommodate because I write whatever anybody else wants on their cake too (like "Happy Birthday, Joey!")?

Rather, Indiana has chosen to attempt to defend discriminatory practice without a compelling business interest to justify it. This is religious legislation and that's contrary to the law of our land.

Again, see above and help me out. Why is it okay (presuming it is) to refuse to write a profanity, but it is not okay to say no to "Congratulations Adam and Steve!" I couldn't 'congratulate' them. Being forced to do a lot of these accommodations becomes communism rather than democracy, doesn't it?

I don't believe there is a single law on the books anywhere forbidding a Christian from doing any lawful thing. But there are laws on the books forbidding homosexuals from otherwise lawful acts. And that's simply unacceptable, unless one day when you and I are old men we want to be subject to the whim of whatever majority is empowered.

I think we already are. That is majority rule. I do understand you protecting 'our' rights but I think there is a need for 'diversity' to be protected too. What I mean is, fair is an understood concept, but I don't believe it is 'fair' for a women to go into my restroom. I'm not even talking about gay or straight, I just don't believe it a good idea to give women equal access to a standard stall. They can get their 'own' and they do have it. I'm okay with equal access in accommodation, but that means to me, if there is no bakery you 'can' go to, then I might need to bake your cake, but if you can go to another and get equality, a lawsuit is frivolous in my mind.

You can't refuse a person based on their moral choices unless those choices violate the law and actually infringe on your rights.

So we cannot ask Satanists to leave our church service? What rules can be employed? Do I have the right to ask them not to wear upside-down crosses when they come? Can I ask them from refraining from wearing chicken blood when they enter? Are any of my 'rights' violated by their upside down cross, or is it just my sensibilities and I really have no leg to stand on? What about 20 cross-dressing men? Can they sit in the 4 and 5 year old class even though there seems to be an implied restriction? Am I powerless to enforce that 'rule?'

You don't have a right not to be offended. Neither do they, comes to it.

That's a double-negative. What are you meaning?

SObG, there are a couple of significant differences between Indiana's law and the federal. I'll come back to that when I come back. I'm glad you nudged the point. I don't think most people realize it and it needs to be discussed.

:up:

 

[dreadknought]

"Rather, Indiana has chosen to attempt to defend discriminatory practice without a compelling business interest to justify it. This is religious legislation and that's contrary to the law of our land."


This is what I receive by turning off the ignore list. Your rhetoric is the same as those who concieved it. Read the legislation as written, read Scripture, the federal act, then read the Constitution,as written, not what you feel anyone else has said. Don't have to have a degree to argue with a lawyer who doesn't practice law of any kind.

 

[Town Heretic]

"Rather, Indiana has chosen to attempt to defend discriminatory practice without a compelling business interest to justify it. This is religious legislation and that's contrary to the law of our land."

Well copied. Spot on.

This is what I receive by turning off the ignore list.

Yes, yes, I'd imagine that's about the only way you'd receive anything you'd rather not hear.

Your rhetoric is the same as those who concieved it.

My rhetoric is my own. What do you use?

Read the legislation as written, read Scripture, the federal act, then read the Constitution,as written, not what you feel anyone else has said.

I have. I can tell you of two distinct and important differences in the Indiana law and the federal law it doesn't actually mirror by virtue of the difference. I bet you can't without a quick Google.

Oh, here's a link to help you out (in case you're the sort who have difficulty crediting me): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/

Don't have to have a degree to argue with a lawyer who doesn't practice law of any kind.

To give that what it merits: that was a stupid thing to say. I'm not saying you're stupid but when you write that you might as well be.

Or, to go one better, as uninformed as suggesting that if a Justice retires from practice tomorrow it's an even playing field between you. It isn't.

 

[TracerBullet]

The biggest concern, I believe, is related to freedoms lost.

What freedoms are these exactly?

For instance, the church being sued for 'equal access' of their building, is a clear infringement on the free exercise of religion.

Bull. If any organization is operating a for profit business by renting out buildings or venues to the public then they cannot discriminate. These venues are not churches. If you are offering accommodations to the public you don't get to refuse to rent those venues to black people or any other minority

Indiana was told it has no right, as a state, to make its own law to protect this religious freedom.

how is legalizing discrimination protecting anyone's religious freedom?

If I don't have a right to protect my family from other's values, I don't have a right to homeschool any longer either. The slope is slippery and we are seeing an assault on our values and our rights, as Christians. Society will not tolerate bigotry, and in so doing, is bigoted itself, but that pendulum swing will cause a lot of damage as the massive wrecking ball that it is.

What about gays and lesbians? don't they have the right to protect their families from your values?

It will and does undermine biological families. It does and will continue to assault religious value. I don't hate gays, but I do want to protect my family from the onslaught and assault.

Sure sounds like hate

The issues then, are much larger than the context of an unbeliever's sin. We have never been assaulted by polygamists, adulters, or other practicing sinners to accept their sin as normal nor a demand that we not see it as sin. I can refuse a drunk. I can't refuse a homosexual?

Is there any reason other than hate to compare a drunk to an entire minority?

If I can't refuse ANYBODY, to protect my family, my values, or my business, I've lost significant rights, in favor of the offender.

Sounds like a rant from a generation ago when segregation met it's end

 

[TracerBullet]

Homosexuality is in the news because activists want to be able to discriminate against Christians ... legally.

How?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sounds like a rant from a generation ago when segregation met it's end

Well yeah. Every social progression has an automatic backlash reaction from religious conservatives. This is no different.

 

[resodko]

Four of the top five threads in Politics forum have homosexuality as the subject matter. One thread is 10 years old and has over 4,200 posts, but another one is barely 9 months old and has over 6,800 posts, and is Part III (Continued)!

What's the deal?

it's a good way to discern whether a poster respects God's Law more than man's law

 

[resodko]

traci, for example

traci spits on God's Word