Christian converts on trial in Turkey
- Thread starter Katheryn
- Start date
Again, this is a huge leap, a totally unreasonable one:
Nobody wants to put anyone on trial for being gay, that is absurd.
What it TRULY comes down to is that Americans do not want to PAY for supporting a gay lifestyle. They do not want to ENCOURAGE IT. Why? Because every civilization that has broken down in history has lost their unique personality because of apathy caused by hedonism.
We just don't want to go down that road.
Gays are protected by the Constitution, it is illegal to discriminate against gays. Why isn't that enough? Why do they want to marry? For benefits, financial benefits, that is why! Tax benefits, death benefits, insurance benefits, social security benefits, welfare benefits, and on and on.
This has nothing to do with discrimination or "treating gays like crap". This has to do with the almighty greenback.
Nobody wants to put anyone on trial for being gay, that is absurd.
What it TRULY comes down to is that Americans do not want to PAY for supporting a gay lifestyle. They do not want to ENCOURAGE IT. Why? Because every civilization that has broken down in history has lost their unique personality because of apathy caused by hedonism.
We just don't want to go down that road.
Gays are protected by the Constitution, it is illegal to discriminate against gays. Why isn't that enough? Why do they want to marry? For benefits, financial benefits, that is why! Tax benefits, death benefits, insurance benefits, social security benefits, welfare benefits, and on and on.
This has nothing to do with discrimination or "treating gays like crap". This has to do with the almighty greenback.
Peri said:
He did, but he already had AIDS.
This was when AIDS first came out. The gay community was devastated. I remember my brother-in-law also lost most of his "friends". It was a pretty big holocaust in the 1980s. Early on, they didn't know what the heck it was, and so they just kept on doing what they were doing, not understanding that it was a STD. It also took a while to develop a test that could detect it.
Mathilda
Queen
I've been in a heterosexual relationship for the last 14 years and it hasn't made me straight. I prefer to think that people who can have relationships with either gender are bisexual. Gratned, they don't always advertise themselves as such.Katheryn said:
Peri said:
Again, this was when AIDS first came out. It was years before they knew what it was, let alone could detect it. They didn't know WHAT it was in the beginning, and didn't realize it was Sexually Transmitted Disease until many gays had the disease.
I am sure that no gay, whether that person became a Christian or not, would intentionally give anyone AIDS. Unfortunately, AIDS broke out before they knew WHAT it was and how it was transmitted person to person. These were the first victims of the disease, and they passed it along without knowing they were doing so. Incidentally, the wife and children are fine, they did not get AIDS.
Katheryn said:
You don't stop people being gay by either promoting or condemning it, I think that much is clear, homosexuality hasn't shot up because it's more widely approved in the world, this idea is nonsense and has no statistical evidence, a logical fallacy if ever there was one. Being gay is not hedonistic, it's a easier, much easier to be straight.
Sexual liberation amongst heterosexuals should concern you much more than amongst gays if that is your issue, because this much more a factor in society than a small minority population.
You can also make the case that if gays get together in a union there is less likelihood of them being promiscuous, it seems to me the ideas proposed to drive homosexuality underground is what has lead to their lifestyle in the first place.
It does(that's in fact what most gays want to have the same financial rights as straights) And therefore I see no reason to make it marriage, civil union is a perfectly acceptable compromise, all of the financial perks non of the religious division.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Katheryn said:
I agree that kids in school could be told that "some people view homosexuality as wrong" when the subject comes up in biology or sociology or whatever. I don't have have a problem with this personally.
So if this disclaimer was instituted in schools you'd be okay with gay marriage being legal then? .. since your kids weren't told that it was normal?
Katheryn said:
Traditional family unit? You mean like, biological father, biological mother, & children? I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but most families aren't structured like that. Seems to me that the 'fabric of society' you talk about has already been torn
Katheryn said:
There are many different kinds of fundamentalists. Would you associate yourself with Ken Hovind or Pat Robertson? Probably not, but they are both fundamentalist Christians.
CivGeneral said:
If you don't like it that much, stop watching it
Katheryn said:
Really?
You would fully accept homosexual marriage if homosexuals were discrete about physical intimacy and never displayed it in public?
Katheryn said:
They have every business contradicting your religious views if your religious views are wrong.
Our kids should be taught the truth in our schools.
Now, whether homosexuality is natural or not is obviously a big debate, but scientifically accepted theories should be taught in schools even if they go against some sort of religious view. Come on! This isn't a theocracy.
Katheryn said:
Nobody is claiming that a change in lifestyle isn't possible.
The claim is that it's impossible to change your sexual orientation, which is not a matter of lifestyle.
Sidhe said:
Well, according to my daughter who is in theater and dance (ballet) and most of the guys she knows are gay, these kids are pressured to make a decision on their sexuality at an early age when they are in confusion.
She sees this for herself, and says that boys are pressured to become gay at the jr/high school level. Now, we live in California where there is invasive sexual education all throughout school age. Many times, immature boys, (and this comes from my daughter who is now a ballet teacher) who want to be in performing arts end up hanging out with beautiful girls. Then, they say, "oh, I'm gay" when they feel pressured to date by their peers, by their culture, and yet they are not ready to date, are are intimidated by the girls they are constantly around.
They are told they are crazy because they don't want to confront the issue, they just want to hang out with theater people.
Now, you can call me crazy or my daughter crazy, but we are in that environment and have seen it for ourselves.
Our cultural preoccupation with sex is what is hedonistic. Don't you guys here at "Civilization Fanatics" know that this is poison to a society? Not just homosexual sex, but pedophilia, pornography, multiple partner, drugs that enhance the sexual experience (ie Viagra and Ecstasy cominations) alcohol binging, and on and on, this is preoccupation and obsession. As the sexual experience gets ratched up, the sensitivity level goes way down, causing the need for more and more enhancement of sexual enhancement tools.
Underground? What is underground? Being discreet? Why don't we all take a lesson in discretion, in modesty?
And yes, sexual "liberation" (I would NOT call it that! Not at all! There is NO freedom to say NO, really! Not without being called terrible names or thought nuts like CivGeneral is) I'll call it this: sexual PRESSURE does worry me a great deal. Our 10 year old daughters are sold a terrible bill of goods by Jessica Simpson (the good girl) Christina Aguilera, Brittney Spears, and all the rest. I totally believe this is being done by evil people who want to have sex with the very young. Evil men like this guy:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53070
They want to have sex with our children because they have become so desensitized in the sexual experience that the only kick they can get is to have sex with younger and younger children.
So, yes, you are right, the heterosexual pressure on kids does very much so trouble me.
Your assumption that a 'gay union' keeps gays from being promiscuous is not at all correct. Not sure why you think that the institution of 'marriage' or 'union' keeps people faithful in relationships. You don't marry to force yourself to be faithful to your spouse. That is odd thinking, and very wrong.
They are not "rights". They are benefits. And until I see the federal budget deficit gone, and Social Security fixed, I will be against any increase in social spending (and that is a personal opinion).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Katheryn said:
Ok, now that I'm done laughing, can you back that ridiculous statement up... with something?
Katheryn said:
Well to be honest anecdotal evidence is meaningless in a scientific framework, now if you could put up some science that shows that homosexaulity is purely choice I'd be far more likely to take it seriously.There have been many that have put it as choice, they all have been shot down in flames when such studies have been repeated or analysed. For example you are more likely to have a gay child the more boys you have, some said this was because of the influence of brothers, they found that even in groups that were seperated as brothers that this statistic remained, now how do you explain that?
At least your focusing on a bigger issue, homosexuality hasn't risen or decreased because of greater tolerance, what has though is sexual promiscuity, this is where your efforts should lie, if you have belief that it is wrong, the homosexual thing is just a meaningless side issue and has way, way too much focus IMO. You do realise though that peadophillia isn't on the rise either. What is though is our exposure to the issue.
This is way OT, I think you should start a thread if you want to debate the issues of homosexuality.
warpus said:
Sex education where I live is very aggressive, especially since Arnold just signed in the new law. Why do you mention biology and sociology? Why not in the sex education class?
So if this disclaimer was instituted in schools you'd be okay with gay marriage being legal then? .. since your kids weren't told that it was normal?
Traditional family unit? You mean like, biological father, biological mother, & children? I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but most families aren't structured like that. Seems to me that the 'fabric of society' you talk about has already been torn
If there were vouchers given so that Christian parents could use their property tax money to go to schools that handle sex education the way they want it approached, I would have no problem with whatever they want to teach kids in public school. You cannot remove sex education from morality. You cannot separate them.
And you are right, the 'traditional family' is very much in trouble, the worst of which is the divorce rate. Perhaps if they taught how to run a home (ie financial matters for families) and how to get along as a husband/wife with as much diligence as they teach kids about sex, the divorce rate might go down.
And history shows us that when our birth rate goes down (I think I read it was 1.4 per couple in Europe and 2.1 in the U.S.) below the level of reproduction decline ruthlessly follows.
Actually, I don't have a problem with associating with them. There are alot worse out there! Everyone has problems, don't they? Everyone has a fool in the closet that is ready to jump out every family reunion?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully accept'. I already have a family member who is gay and has been with the same partner for 20 years, I mentioned my brother-in-law already. I think the only difference between their 'civil union' and 'marriage' is the money taxpayers would have to shell out for benefits and I'm not sure that gays with no children should have the same benefits that families with (financially vulnerable) children should have.
An excellent case for VOUCHERS my friend. An excellent case.
True, and no one is saying that gays are not born with a predisposition to attraction to same sex. However, some are born predisposed to multiple partners, to pedophilia, to sadism, to rapine, to oppression, some believe that it is OK to destroy a woman's sexual desire completely.
And then there are some who believe that SEX is an appetite that can be controlled, and that it benefits society to control it. That when, as a society, one becomes obsessed with sexual gratification, civilization suffers, and like the obese need to control eating (but eating is not bad) or an alcoholic needs to control drinking (although drinking in moderation is not bad) or a gambler needs to control his gambling... or a politician must not step into corruption... and on and on.... that it is not good to completely lose oneself in hedonism. At some point, it becomes destructive to the community we must build.
Now, in regards to the issue of gay "marriage" benefits, I don't think that people are really understanding what the issues are.
There is legislation passed with the purpose of encouraging families to stay together. For instance, you have a Congressman who notices the poverty rate going up in his district. Then, he creates a study to find out why, and they come back and say it is because of the high rate of single parents with only one income, who cannot make ends meet. So, he works to get a tax break for those married couples. This is expected to help a married couple because the #1 reason why couples get divorced is over financial pressures. I don't think the jury is back in on this one, but it is a true example.
Now, this tax breaks will help the poverty rate for families with children, by helping families stay together, but it does nothing for the gay community and in fact, it would simply be a tax break for gays and would not benefit the community at all.
The question becomes: why do gays want this tax break?
There is legislation passed with the purpose of encouraging families to stay together. For instance, you have a Congressman who notices the poverty rate going up in his district. Then, he creates a study to find out why, and they come back and say it is because of the high rate of single parents with only one income, who cannot make ends meet. So, he works to get a tax break for those married couples. This is expected to help a married couple because the #1 reason why couples get divorced is over financial pressures. I don't think the jury is back in on this one, but it is a true example.
Now, this tax breaks will help the poverty rate for families with children, by helping families stay together, but it does nothing for the gay community and in fact, it would simply be a tax break for gays and would not benefit the community at all.
The question becomes: why do gays want this tax break?
Gay people cannot have children, not with one another anyhow. Gay people can care for other's children, or they are a single parent who is a product of a broken home.
The point of the legislation is to keep the original family together. The man and woman who created the child, the father and mother of the child.
The point of the legislation is to keep the original family together. The man and woman who created the child, the father and mother of the child.
Katheryn said:
Yes they can.
I'm friends with a lesbian couple that just had children. They took eggs from one woman, fertilised them, and implanted them in the other.
They didn't do this until they were legally married. Those twins are from each parent, and are born in wedlock. They might not have been conceived if the laws hadn't changed.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Unfortunately, I see IVF and surrogate mother ship immoral so that is not something to consider.Peri said:
Only by immoral unnatural methods that you mentioned. In a nutshell to make a child you need a male and a female and that the sperm should be united inside the female, not united artificially in a lab.El_Machinae said:
Similar threads
