To Those Who Think Adulterers, Homosexuals, Fornicators etc...

[Catholic Crusader]

I get that you believe it's a sin and aren't in the hyper zealot camp but gay people are just being afforded the rights they should have had in the first place.

First, whoever that whackjob is that supports executions obviously belongs in a hospital.

Next: Yes, I believe its a sin. But you are wrong about the "rights" thing.

American society is built on contracts, a fact that few people think about. Everything we agree to do, buy, own exchange, or whatever, is done by a form of contract.

Homosexuals were offered the opportunity to enter into contracts that afforded them all the same legal rights and privileges and benefits of marriage. If "rights" were all they were interested in then that should have been the end of that. After all, that was their original beef - hospital visitations, wills, etc etc

But rights was never their agenda. The radical Left's agenda is to overthrow religious institutions, and overthrowing and destroying marriage is a goal now achieved.

Marriage is a thing and it is what it is, and nobody can change what a thing is. Thats why partner contracts were a great alternative. Since same sex couples are a different thing then they needed a different type of contract. But instead, the entire institution of marriage in the eyes of the youth no longer exists. A sick perverted copy has replaced it.

THAT is the problem with the marriage issue.

 

[ok doser]

... gay people...

no such thing

there are people who choose to embrace sexual perversion

like adulterous people

or child-molesty people

or rapey people

... are just being afforded the rights they should have had in the first place.

they've always had the same rights as anybody else

just as the adulterous, child-molesty and rapey people have always had the same rights as anybody else

 

[JudgeRightly]

First, whoever that whackjob is that supports executions obviously belongs in a hospital.

:think:

Apparently you think God Himself is a whackjob who belongs in a hospital.

Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:5-6&version=NKJV

And Jesus...

He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”—then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:3-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:3-9&version=NKJV

And Paul...

So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know.For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:10-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:10-11&version=NKJV

And even the angels in heaven...

And I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”And I heard another from the altar saying, “Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.” - Revelation 16:5-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation16:5-7&version=NKJV

:kookoo:

Seriously, though, you should retract that statement. It is incompatible with the Bible.

 

[ok doser]

First, whoever that whackjob is that supports executions obviously belongs in a hospital.

i believe the law should be changed to make capital crimes of many things that are now accepted as "normal" in society

abortion
homosexuality
adultery
divorce
child molestation
rape
pornography

there's more, but you get the idea

and i don't promote that idea out of a sense of bloodlust, i promote it in the expectation that harsh punishments will deter immoral behavior

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Apparently you think God Himself is a whackjob who belongs in a hospital......

Apparently YOU don't understand that GOD in the person of Jesus Christ did away with all those Old Testament death penalties.

Hop in your time machine, leave 3000 BC and join us in 2018 AD

 

[Catholic Crusader]

i believe the law should be changed to make capital crimes of many things that are now accepted as "normal" in society......

Divorce a capitol crime? I have to part ways with you there.

 

[ok doser]

Apparently YOU don't understand that GOD in the person of Jesus Christ did away with all those Old Testament death penalties.

Are you referring to that part of scripture where Jesus said "All those jots and tittles? Sweep 'em right in the trash!"

 

[ok doser]

Divorce a capitol crime? I have to part ways with you there.

well, in a just society it wouldn't even be an option

 

[JudgeRightly]

Apparently YOU don't understand that GOD in the person of Jesus Christ did away with all those Old Testament death penalties.

Hop in your time machine, leave 3000 BC and join us in 2018 AD

Uh, hello...

"And Paul...

So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know.For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:10-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:10-11&version=NKJV

And the angels in heaven...

And I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”And I heard another from the altar saying, “Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.” - Revelation 16:5-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation16:5-7&version=NKJV"

Last I checked, CC, Paul AND Revelation came AFTER Jesus. Oh, and the angels even called the death of the wicked THEIR JUST DUE.

Oh, and Genesis 9:5-6 is talking about everyone, including those who didn't exist yet.

So again, you should retract your statement that "whoever that whackjob is that supports executions obviously belongs in a hospital."

:think:

 

[Kit the Coyote]

What you call "spouting off", some would call evangelizing & changing hearts and minds. Unfortunately, I think a really crappy job was done on our side of expressing the situation correctly, and the corrupt APA removing same-sex attraction from the DSM did not help.

From the little reading I've done on the decision, yes it was the complaints and encouragement of gay rights activists that started the discussion. But what the APA actually did was sit down and hammer out for the first time a specific definition of what is and is not a mental illness. Prior to that mental illnesses were defined rather arbitrarily. The problem with that is you then get the Soviet Union basically declaring that disagreeing with the government is a mental illness and locking up all their dissidents.

Obviously, the courts have pretty much imposed gay marriage onto the land, and the thought Nazis do a fine job of destroying anybody who speaks out about it, so spouting off is really the only thing to be done at this point. Much like abortion, all we can do now is speak out, try to convince people, and turn the tide back. I doubt if it will happen to be honest, but one must always speak the truth whether it is in season out of season.

As gays came out of the shadows and more and more people got to see the actual persons instead of the stereotypes, it becomes harder and harder to put that genie back in the bottle. I think that thanks to groups like Westboro Baptists, those most vocally fighting against it are in danger of becoming defined by stereotypes over whatever their real motivations might be.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

First, whoever that whackjob is that supports executions obviously belongs in a hospital.

Next: Yes, I believe its a sin. But you are wrong about the "rights" thing.

American society is built on contracts, a fact that few people think about. Everything we agree to do, buy, own exchange, or whatever, is done by a form of contract.

Homosexuals were offered the opportunity to enter into contracts that afforded them all the same legal rights and privileges and benefits of marriage. If "rights" were all they were interested in then that should have been the end of that. After all, that was their original beef - hospital visitations, wills, etc etc

But rights was never their agenda. The radical Left's agenda is to overthrow religious institutions, and overthrowing and destroying marriage is a goal now achieved.

Marriage is a thing and it is what it is, and nobody can change what a thing is. Thats why partner contracts were a great alternative. Since same sex couples are a different thing then they needed a different type of contract. But instead, the entire institution of marriage in the eyes of the youth no longer exists. A sick perverted copy has replaced it.

THAT is the problem with the marriage issue.

Regardless of what it represents in the religious community, marriage in secular law is a contract. Once the mental illness issue was removed there was no legal basis to prevent a specific group of people from entering into that contract when they met all the same criteria that other groups met in allowing to be married. There are hundreds of marriages each day that are not based upon or approved by one religious group or another, without destroying those groups.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I can meet my maker with a clean slate on this issue. Most cannot. I am okay with that. I did my part to help.

 

[ok doser]

Regardless of what it represents in the religious community, marriage in secular law is a contract.

what purpose is served by secular marriage?



and of what use is it as a "contract" if it doesn't mean anything - does the state regulate adultery or deny divorce?



what are the terms of the "contract"?

 

[ok doser]

... hammer out for the first time a specific definition of what is and is not a mental illness.

it's still pretty arbitrary - the basic criteria is whether it causes a problem for the patient

ironic, then, that the idiots at the APA should allow themselves to be browbeaten into agreeing that homosexual perversity was harmless, while at the same time the HIV-1 virus was simmering in the general population

 

[Kit the Coyote]

what purpose is served by secular marriage?

and of what use is it as a "contract" if it doesn't mean anything - does the state regulate adultery or deny divorce?

what are the terms of the "contract"?

Marriages are the formation of a family where one did not exist before by the union of two people to form a household. A considerable amount of social and legal benefits and obligations based on families are tied to it. Since many of these are provided or regulated by secular governments, such governments have to be in the business of validating those marriages. In the US, the CBO found that there are over 1,049 federal statutory laws related to the right, benefits, and obligations of married individuals. Each state has additional laws they apply as well.

Some of the issues granted or regulated by the "contract":
Establishing a husband/wife control over some portion of a spouse's labor or property.
Giving a husband/wife responsibility for some portion of a spouse's debts.
Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child.
Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
Enabling the right to jointly file taxes
The clear establishment of inheritance rights in the family.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

it's still pretty arbitrary - the basic criteria is whether it causes a problem for the patient

ironic, then, that the idiots at the APA should allow themselves to be browbeaten into agreeing that homosexual perversity was harmless, while at the same time the HIV-1 virus was simmering in the general population

That a physical disease exists is rarely a concern as to whether mental illness exists unless such mental illness is caused by the physical disease. Are we to declare heterosexuality a mental illness because syphilis exists?

 

[ok doser]

That a physical disease exists is rarely a concern as to whether mental illness exists unless such mental illness is caused by the physical disease. Are we to declare heterosexuality a mental illness because syphilis exists?

yes, if heterosexuality was practiced in the way homo sex was practiced in the seventies and eighties - in such a manner as to virtually guarantee the spread of disease

 

[Sherman]

​Let's try to stick with holding a conversation on this subject instead of flinging poop. This isn't a Chimpanzee cage. :chuckle:

 

[Kit the Coyote]

yes, if heterosexuality was practiced in the way homo sex was practiced in the seventies and eighties - in such a manner as to virtually guarantee the spread of disease

The only examples I can think of is something like smoking where addiction plays a role but none the less we don't classify smoking as a mental illness because of lung cancer. Mental illness is determined based on the illness itself, not on potential but unrelated consequences.

 

[ok doser]

The only examples I can think of is something like smoking where addiction plays a role but none the less we don't classify smoking as a mental illness because of lung cancer.

if you were a psychologist and you had a patient whose family members had died from smoking related disease, who was aware of the risks associated with smoking and who decided to take up smoking - would you say that patient was dealing with a mental illness?