Gay-Rights Case Draws More Attention to Roberts

The Yankee said:
What radical homosexual agenda? I'm curious.

I was just responding to what Mise brought up ... but considered on its own I would include things like the push to change marriage into a unisex institution or the push to have homosexual morality taught in the schools, even to young children or the push to have heterosexual speech outlawed or the push to have special rights for homosexuals etc
 
Truronian said:
You could say 'its about who we are as men'.

Right but in that case there's no inter-sexual relational aspect. Heterosex can be inter-sexual. Homosex cannot be inter-sexual, it has to be intra-sexual ... so there's something obviously fundamentally different between homosex and heterosex and anyone who isn't biased and has a scientific mind should be able to see this.
 
What kind of special rights for homosexuals or push to ban heterosexual speech (and what is that?)? And what is homosexual morality? Enlighten me. Made me really curious before I try to get sleep.
 
The Yankee said:
What kind of special rights for homosexuals

Giving them special protection against discrimination ... as opposed to not giving left handed people that protection. It's special because it's only given to a select group.

or push to ban heterosexual speech (and what is that?)?

They've already banned it in some places. If you say for example that "Homosexuality is an evil sin and worthy of damnation to hell" you could get arrested.

And what is homosexual morality? Enlighten me.

Teaching people that homosexuality is morally OK. They already do this in many places even to young children by having them read books like "Heather has Two Mommies" and even in some cases explicitly saying that it is morally OK.
 
originalyl posted by Cierdan
I was just responding to what Mise brought up ... but considered on its own I would include things like the push to change marriage into a unisex institution or the push to have homosexual morality taught in the schools, even to young children or the push to have heterosexual speech outlawed or the push to have special rights for homosexuals etc

Could you clarify what homosexual morality is in your pov. Outlawing what kind of heterosexual speech, can you give examples? And what special rights do they want?
I am just curious, because here all that homosexuals want is to be treated equally as heterosexuals by the law, should their "agendas " differ that much from the US?

Edit: cross-post
 
cierdan said:
Well not everything that Playboy does is sexual perversion. From what I hear some of the photos they do do not even contain any nudity. You may be right that things like Playboy or the CFC Babe Thread are sexually perverted ...
The use of images of women or men as objects of sexual stimulation can hardly be considered as aligned with Christian values.
cierdan said:
But as long as you don't treat them as less than human, I don't see what's wrong with looking :) But as you said, you might be right ... maybe you could explain why Playboy or the CFC Babe Thread are wrong and convince me ;)
Well, Jesus said that even thinking about a woman in a sexual way was the same as commiting fornication with her.
cierdan said:
I don't think I ever said I was a supporter of "family values" :crazyeye: ... that's language that politicians use.
You certainly act like it.
cierdan said:
I support virtue ... but I don't claim to be virtuous. It's not like if you are not a saint that you have to support the devil and can't support God.
True, but to applaud someone for working for Playboy and then chastise them for aiding gays in the same breath is practically textbook hypocrisy.
cierdan said:
I don't think I've "thumped" my bible here ... I mentioned the bible only one time and that was just in counter-response to someone else's mentioning it. Otherwise I haven't even brought it up.
You can thump a bible without quoting it.
cierdan said:
But pray for me and maybe I'll become a good Christian just like you! :p
Touche. Never said I was perfect though.
 
cierdan said:
Giving them special protection against discrimination ... as opposed to not giving left handed people that protection. It's special because it's only given to a select group.
I think it's illegal to deny employment or other things because of a person being left-handed or any other non-work related reason. Are there any further special rights they're looking for?



They've already banned it in some places. If you say for example that "Homosexuality is an evil sin and worthy of damnation to hell" you could get arrested.
Really? I didn't know that was the case. Can you tell me where?



Teaching people that homosexuality is morally OK. They already do this in many places even to young children by having them read books like "Heather has Two Mommies" and even in some cases explicitly saying that it is morally OK.
I guess that would be to defend against discrimination and also teach children about others. I'm sure it's done for different religions and ethnicities as well. But tell me more about this, if you can.

Having me thoroughly intrigued at nearly 5 in the morning! For shame! :p Meh...having a little insomnia now anyway.
 
As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with preventing repeats of the beating death of that gay student in...Colorado? Wyoming? Whatever. People who urge violence against certain groups in the name of God make baby Jesus weep.

Such so-called 'Christians' are the biggest enemies of God out there.
 
The Yankee said:
I think it's illegal to deny employment or other things because of a person being left-handed or any other non-work related reason. Are there any further special rights they're looking for?

I don't know at the moment the whole list. But the point is that left handed people do not have any special rights under the law and that homosexual people shoudln't have any either. They should be protected only by the general law just like left handed people are.

Really? I didn't know that was the case. Can you tell me where?

It's happened in several places, such as Sweden. I'm glad we seem to agree on this point that it is very wrong.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.asp

Spoiler :
CWNews.org –A lot of people think of Sweden as a 'tolerant' nation. But lately it's starting to show intolerance towards Christianity. A pastor there has been sentenced to jail for preaching against homosexuality and other sexual sin.

This place is probably not where you'd expect to find a man like Ake Green. In the little village of Borgholm, in southern Sweden, this quiet Swedish pastor of a small Pentecostal church decided to stand against what he says is his nation's 'embrace' of homosexuality.

But because of what he preached, Pastor Green has been sentenced to a month in jail under a 'hate speech' law.

Pastor Green said, "I was watching television, reading the newspaper, listening to high profile people - actors, singers - glorifying the homosexual lifestyle. And I was worried, and was concerned, and I felt a deep burden in my heart to speak on that topic."

Green prepared the sermon last year, on what the Bible says about homosexuality, with the intention that the townspeople of Borgholm come to hear him. But attendance was disappointing.

So Ake Green had his sermon published in the local newspaper. In it, he compared the sin of Sweden to the sin of Sodom.

He warned, "Our country is facing a disaster of great proportions! Of that we can be sure. God said the land would vomit out its inhabitants. Our country is facing a disaster."

But it was how he described sexual practices like homosexuality that brought the charge against him: Green told us, "What I said was that sexual abnormality was like a cancer of the society." In more precise English, a "cancerous tumor."

He ended his sermon speaking of God's grace and with respect for those living in sexual sin.

He said, "What these people need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace. It exists. Therefore we will encourage those who live in this manner to look at the grace of Jesus Christ. We cannot condemn these people. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace."

But his ending didn't matter. The printed sermon was seen by local homosexuals and the district prosecutor, and Green was convicted in a district court and given a month in jail.

A sentence he has not yet served because he is appealing the conviction. Green's defense attorney is Percy Bratt, the Chairman of the Swedish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.

Bratt said, "The very basic question that is raised in this matter is: to what extent it is criminal to teach from the words in the Bible, so to say."

The hate speech law used to convict Green was first intended to protect Jews and other ethnic minorities from Nazi sympathizers. But in more recent times the law was amended to also protect 'sexual orientation.'

Bratt said, "The wordings of this provision are very general, so the area that shall be criminalized is up to the courts."

The district prosecutor in the case refused to speak with CBN News. But we were able to speak with Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization in Stockholm, the RFSL, which supports Green's conviction.

The RFSL spokesperson said, "Hatred and defamation is not to be accepted, just because it's based on religious beliefs or religious scriptures. You have some limits when it comes to the freedom of speech."

But the Ake Green case is becoming an embarrassment for a nation which prides itself on its tolerance. It may also be a catalyst.

Josef Östby is a noted Missionary and Pastor in Sweden's Pentecostal Movement. He said, "I felt it's like a prophetic message - for our time -in Sweden."

Östby also hopes God is using an unknown preacher from a small town to awaken a nation.

Östby said, "A kind person like Green, silent, is working in a small church. [Then he spoke up.] And today, the whole country is talking about it, and [even other] countries are touched by his simple message."

But support for Green among some Swedish evangelical leaders has been surprisingly lukewarm. Green blames them for acquiescing to the homosexual agenda. He said he draws his inspiration from the Old Testament prophets.

Green said, "We have read about Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, and Amos. They were living in times of spiritual decline. I believe we are dealing with a spiritual dimension here. The Evangelical churches don't want a confrontation with what's going on in Swedish society, and that makes them silent."

Green's attorney says the case will now go to an appeals court, and if necessary, to Sweden's Supreme Court, and even to the European Court, if necessary. He says the district judge misapplied the law.

Bratt said, "The court must, when applying this provision, make a balancing act between the right of homosexuals and the right of the freedom of religion and the right of the freedom of expression. And we say that the court has not made a proper such balancing."

But other nations are moving in the same direction or already have similar laws, including Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Östby calls Green's conviction a tragedy for democracy in Sweden. He said, "We cannot, in Sweden, be known for things like putting a pastor in jail for a sermon! This is impossible!"

But the spokesman for Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization said one month in jail is not long enough for Green. It hopes a higher court will impose a longer sentence.

The RFSL spokesperson said, "The district attorney has said 6 to 8 months would be more appropriate when it comes to this crime and we cannot do anything else but to agree with that."

Ake Green says he's not afraid to go to jail. Green added, "I am not a criminal, I don't feel like a criminal, but this new law makes us preachers 'as criminals' if we speak up."

Some say Pastor Green has awakened Swedish evangelicals on the issue of homosexuality. He's certainly created an uncomfortable dividing line for church leaders, whether to speak boldly what the Bible says about homosexuality, or not.

An otherwise overlooked pastor has done something to grab the attention of a nation. Ake Green says he was "only obeying God."


I guess that would be to defend against discrimination and also teach children about others. I'm sure it's done for different religions and ethnicities as well. But tell me more about this, if you can.

Well I haven't read the book "Heather has Two Mommies" ... so I only have the impressions I get from media reports to go by. The explicit teaching that homosex is morally OK that I have heard about goes in sex education classes.
 
cierdan said:
I
It's happened in several places, such as Sweden. I'm glad we seem to agree on this point that it is very wrong.
That's Sweden though, not here. Have you anything about things in the US?

As for the other things, maybe it's late too, I'm assuming you're in the US somewhere....but I'm curious to see anything that you think suggests some kind of radical agenda.

As for the lefthanded thing, then it would be anything that would say homosexuals want extra rights rather than the same anti-discrimination laws applied to everyone.

I might poke around in the forum some more or I might try to get at least a little sleep. I'll probably end up sleeping until 4 PM yet again. Yawn...even prizefighters need a break between 15-round bouts (why don't they do that anymore?). We should have a panel of judges with scorecards!
 
cierdan said:
I don't know at the moment the whole list. But the point is that left handed people do not have any special rights under the law and that homosexual people shoudln't have any either. They should be protected only by the general law just like left handed people are.
The general law which states that discrimination for non-work-related reasons is illegal? E.g. Gender discrimination, age discrimination, racial discrimination.........

Incidentally, IIRC, the Swedish pastor was later acquitted.
 
The Yankee said:
That's Sweden though, not here. Have you anything about things in the US?

I don't think I've heard of anything within the US (in terms of an actual legal situation) But there may have been a situation like it somewhere in Canada, as well as in other places in Europe. The "Heather has Two Mommies" is within the US.

As for the lefthanded thing, then it would be anything that would say homosexuals want extra rights rather than the same anti-discrimination laws applied to everyone.

That's correct. Now it may be that the general laws need to be changed, adjusted or properly interpreted and applied but the general laws should apply to everyone, obviously. What some homosexual activists want are specific laws that specifically mention homosexuality as a special protected category. This is within the US.
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with preventing repeats of the beating death of that gay student in...Colorado? Wyoming? Whatever. People who urge violence against certain groups in the name of God make baby Jesus weep.

Such so-called 'Christians' are the biggest enemies of God out there.

There's more anti-heterosexual homosexual violence (proportionally speaking) than there is anti-homosexual heterosexual violence (proportionally speaking). It's just that it doesn't get reported by the mainstream media. Here are some examples:

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher112602.asp
 
There are general laws regarding race and religion. Sexual orientation is usually in the language as well. So, that's why I'm curious why you say some or most are wanting something more.

Well, I'll let you post more on all those things you spoke about just now. I'm finally off. Feeding the ungodly early cat then some sleep.
 
Mise said:
The general law which states that discrimination for non-work-related reasons is illegal? E.g. Gender discrimination, age discrimination, racial discrimination.........

Actually in the US racial discrimination is a special category that is given special protection -- and that may be fine or not ... but I don't want any special protection given to homosexuality or for that matter for sex (there's a constitutional amendment proposed called the "Equal Rights Amendment" which includes sex as a protected category .. after all these decades it has yet to be made law ... it's a terrible proposition, mostly because of how the Supreme Court will end up abusing it)

Incidentally, IIRC, the Swedish pastor was later acquitted.

That's good news.
 
The Yankee said:
There are general laws regarding race and religion. Sexual orientation is usually in the language as well.

That's not what I meant by "general laws" ... if they specifically mention certain categories, then they wouldn't be general laws, they would be special laws which give special protection to select groups ... that's how I defined "special." Now I may be fine or not with special protection for race, but I don't want any special protection for sexual behavior.
 
cierdan said:
That's not what I meant by "general laws" ... if they specifically mention certain categories, then they wouldn't be general laws, they would be special laws which give special protection to select groups ... that's how I defined "special." Now I may be fine or not with special protection for race, but I don't want any special protection for sexual behavior.
We know you are scared of "non-whites" gaining power in the US (you just posted as much in another thread, although it's not as though we didn't know it already...), so I guess it's no surprise you're also scared of queers gaining respect.

BTW cierdan, you have a habit of ignoring my posts when I actually start getting somewhere with your evasive ways, just as you do in every thread I respond to you in. If you have the balls, please answer my previous post (#145), without the semantic games as you did in post #149. Actually address the issues raised or accept you are a troll and have no interest in exchange of ideas.
 
cierdan said:
There's more anti-heterosexual homosexual violence (proportionally speaking) than there is anti-homosexual heterosexual violence (proportionally speaking). It's just that it doesn't get reported by the mainstream media. Here are some examples:

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher112602.asp
And, therefore, stomping queers, is right?
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
And, therefore, stomping queers, is right?

A private individual engaging in violence against someone who commits homosexual behavior would not be right. I was just pointing out that the idea that this is common or rather more common than violence in the reverse is a false idea.
 
anarres said:
BTW cierdan, you have a habit of ignoring my posts when I actually start getting somewhere with your evasive ways, just as you do in every thread I respond to you in.

If you're talking about that science/mathematics thread, there were just way too many posts there to reply to them all. If I replied to every post that was addressed to me in that thread, the thread would have been like 3 times as long as it already ended up being. And I would have replied to your post that you apparently re-posted more than a couple times in the thread but the thread ended up being closed before I had a chance to reply to your reposting or any of the other posts that were made between my last post there and the time it was closed.

If you have the balls, please answer my previous post (#145), without the semantic games as you did in post #149.

I think I answered it well enough. I'll reply to your reply to #149 shortly. :) I'm glad you say you are interested in an exchange of ideas. Good for you :)
 
Back
Top Bottom