|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 11, 2004 07:16 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 11 Oct 2004
|
A Long-Expected Party
When asked by Gandalf if he should leave the ring behind Bilbo replied,
"Well yes - and no. Now it comes to it, I don't like parting with it at all, I may say. And I don't really see why I should. Why do you want me to?" he asked, and a curious change came over his voice. It was sharp with suspicion and annoyance. "You are always badgering me about my ring; but you have never bothered me about the other things that I got on my journey."
Gandalf then replied,
"Also I think you have had it quite long enough. You won't need it anymore, Bilbo, unless I am quite mistaken."
Bilbo then responded,
Bilbo flushed, and there was an angry light in his eyes. His kindly face grew hard. "Why not" he cried. "And what business is it of yours, anyway, to know what I do with my own things? It is my own. I found it. It came to me."
Gandalf replied with a stir,
"Yes, yes," said Gandalf. "But there is no need to get angry."
Bilbo escalated his dissentious manner finally saying,
"If I am it is your fault," said Bilbo. "It is mine, I tell you. My own. My precious. Yes, my precious."
You might have noticed a seemingly off-topic paraphrased quote from one of my favorite books, "Lord of the Rings".
I assure everyone reading this that it is most certainly on-topic for me. As of late I cannot stop thinking about my decision to vote on this particular matter. Over and over I think and wonder what the right thing to do is.
Philosophically speaking, my common sense tells me that a gay-marriage is not logical and an opportunity to confuse a child from real-world logic. I have three children, two girls and a boy. No child anywhere in the world can come to exist without a biological mother and father.
Alternatively, I know that this is my own personal and religious belief. I know that if this rule is enforced at the state constitutional level then it may inevitably lead to the ignorant segment of the population to interprit this action to signify gay people as lesser human beings.
I also know that, as bort so politely pointed out, there is no 100% true definition for the term homosexual. He clearly points out that there is no proof positive that sufficiently proves homosexuality as being genetic, or by choice, or a combination of those. All we know is that some are, in fact, drawn to homsexual preferences with no solid evidence to prove the reasoning for this occurence.
I've also tried to think about other people in history who were oppressed because of their race or religious preference. Jews and african-americans both found themselves the target of racist legislation and social discrimination.
I must also wonder if a person's sexual preference for same-sex partners could be classified as race or religion. I've thought and thought and I am inexorably led to the conclusion that a person's sexual preference is defined as having an inclination to practice the act of propogation incorrectly. If we are animals then we must characterize this act as being that which is meant to propagate our species and futher the existence of our own genetic material. I am then led to ask myself if people have done other illogical behaviors that opposed furthering their own genetic material. It is through this question that I am led to confirm that people have indeed done such things. And whether I have agreed with them or not, I know that as individual persons they have the right to choose such acts if they so wish because individual freedom is the constituional right afforded to all persons in the United States of America.
It is because of these reasons that I finally come to terms with my own dilemma. My marriage rights shall be preserved as they have been thus far. And now my vote shall reflect my own personal openness to accept that I am only one person in a great big world of millions. If I have the right to exist and be myself then so should they. I will hereby vote against the Oregon state measure 36 seeking to amend our state's constitution to describe marriage as being between one man and one woman.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted October 11, 2004 01:59 PM |
|
|
Good for you Consis. I salute you.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 12, 2004 05:50 PM |
|
|
Oh, my friend Consis. You just made me cry.
I know how hard this is decision has been for you. I for one think you are doing a very, very brave thing.
I just spent the weekend with a gay couple of friends of mine at an artists' retreat. One of the two nights we all sat up and talked, one of the men told me about an eighteen-year relationship he had which finally buckled under the pressure of social scourn.
The moral of that story: disallowing social recognition for gay partners only furthers instability in relationships, contrary to the opponents' arguments. And those relationships are going to occur despite the laws on the books. The inequality of the laws has never stopped them and never will. That inequality only destabilizes the lives of those affected.
He also told me about scores of his friends who have had to sit out in the waiting rooms while their life partners died of AIDS or other causes because they would not allow non-family members into intensive care units after hours.
Again, Consis. Good one. I admire your decision.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 12, 2004 11:26 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 12 Oct 2004
|
Here Is What It Came Down To
I felt like no one has successfully convinced me of what defines as "being gay". Furthermore to complicate the matter to an even greater extent, the opposing bodies of Oregon wouldn't even concede to recognizing the term "civil union". Those favoring it went too far to say that not only is marriage between a man and woman but civil unions would not be recognized by the state. I felt absolutely frustrated because both sides of the argument weren't being open-minded at all.
Adding to all of that, I couldn't stop thinking about all the things that led to the holocaust of WWII. All those legislative actions against the jewish community have haunted me over this issue. What's the relation between something so horrible and something as trivial as this? Once I defined homosexuality as being non-race-related I then drew a conclusion that it must be a very minor segment of all races that behave homosexually. I strongly feel this behavior can be classified almost like a kind of religion. And even though jews were observed as being a particular race(which even they themselves believe) I would argue that it is simply a person who behaves in a particular manner with a specific set of inspirations and motives. I think this very vaguely generalizes a good description of a new kind of religion/philosophy/or set of beliefs.
If you think about it, many religions have very particular and methodical sexual practice rituals. Many of these rituals may in fact be contrary to mainstream sexual practices but american law affords the freedom of religious practice. Once I began to link homosexuality to a form of pseudo-religion, my mind crept back to the anti-jewish legislation of the late 1930's/early 1940's. That is why I believe they should have their own marriage rights. If it is proven that this is simply a segment of human population that follows a different set of beliefs(however anti-mainstream nature it may be) then they should be afforded all religious freedoms that america has to offer.
Also, I could not in good conscience, take a vote in favor of an amendment that would do such things as:
1. Private conversations with partner are not protected in court.
2. Conversations with a marriage counselor are not protected in court.
3. No right to exclude capital gain on principal residence based on partner's ownership.
4. Must testify against partner in court case.
I was given a list including 100 reasons and I marked the four most infuriating to me. I feel it is completely unacceptale the way this legislation is currently written.
bort and Peacemaker, thanks for the support you guys. It was a very difficult decision. I simply will not stand for an amendment that could signify the beginning of ideologically hate-driven legislation.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
posted October 13, 2004 05:30 AM |
|
|
Step in the right direction!!!
I must admit. the first thing that came to my mind when I read the LOTR quote was 'BALLS!!! My precious? You think I'm after your ring?!! Kepp your Goddamned ring! I want my own Unique Ring!!
But after reading your last post I think you are finally starting to come around to a modern way of thinking.
While your thinking of homosexual society comes close, pseudo-religious is not quite the term to use.
Homosexual life is not a religion. It's almost a separate culture. I don't know about bi-sexuals, not having experienced that phenomenon, so I'll let Khaelo comment on that.
But on Gay Life:
We have our own fashions, our own music tastes. Even our own brand of comedy, some of which is shared by the heterosexual community (Will & Grace is the prime example. It's great if your straight, but you'll never catch the nuances if you're not gay, or have gay friends).
Take from this what you will, it's the tip of the Iceberg that one day will sink the Great Republican Titanic in the US.
Thankfully, by that time, Europe is sure to pass it's gay marriage laws well ahead of the States.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 13, 2004 06:22 AM |
|
|
Around here, we refer to the "LGBT" community: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. Sometimes "A" is included for Allies (straight people who support LGBT rights -- very important!). If they're really in the mood for alphabet soup, there's a "Q" for Questioning. In any case, it's kind of one big umbrella. I've heard this acronym is typical of the northern part of the US.
While I am of course pleased with the direction of your decision, Consis, kudos are most in order for your willingness to really think about the issues. Your decision is your own, and that's something to be proud of. Aside from that, I also like the analogy of the Ring. 
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 13, 2004 05:42 PM |
|
|
DO I get an "A" then?
 LOL
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 31, 2004 02:01 AM |
|
|
Ballot Completed, Enclosed, And Sent
**Sigh**......
I'm not really sure how to say this after what I wrote. Both I and my wife voted about 10 minutes ago, sealed the envelopes, and sent them on their way.
I guess I'm sort of afraid of everything people might say but I have to be honest. I voted for the amendment. It's done. In a way I feel like I let some people down but I have some real concerns. The final decision came to three factors.
1. Discovered our amendment is not written the way Ohio's is.
2. Long talk with my wife.
3. I wanted more time to speak with bort, Peacemaker, Khaelo, and Khayman. I felt that this internet medium is such a drag on reliable communication. There's no real way I can be sure of who I'm talking to here. I think Peacemaker and Khayman are who they say they are but even so, I felt there wasn't enough dialogue between us to solidify my position. I honestly wanted to hear what these people thought. I've read all your posts in this thread. I simply wanted to make a personal connection that would help me feel confident with my decision. I feel like that connection isn't there. I'm not blaming anyone for this except the internet and time. We still have much to learn about each other in real life.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted October 31, 2004 05:44 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 31 Oct 2004
|
Oregon's proposed amendment: "It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage."
Ohio's proposed amendment: "“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Edit: information stays; comments & questions removed.
Edit 2: Comment returned, such as it is. Deleting things at 2 am results in loss of useful content. 
For those who want interpretation of amendments above: Oregon's proposal restricts the term "marriage" to heterosexual unions. Ohio's goes one step further and bans not only the word but the "effect" of marriage to same-sex couples. In other words, Oregon's legislation would permit future recognition of same-sex civil unions whereas Ohio's would not.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 31, 2004 06:25 PM |
|
|
Consis -- we must all vote our conscience.
I for one admire your honesty, and and glad that, apparently from your words, there is still some hope of gaining your support.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted November 03, 2004 07:52 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 3 Nov 2004
|
The World Moves On, Or Does It?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/index.html
Quote:
In eight of the 11 states that voted Tuesday, the constitutional amendments contain additional language that opponents said could also ban civil unions and other legal protections for gay and lesbian people, though proponents in some of those states disputed those claims. The states are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah.
The measure approved in Oklahoma Tuesday went one step further by making it a misdemeanor crime to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, a pre-emptive shot against any local officials who might want to follow in Newsom's footsteps.
Aside from the presidential election, the world does not forget everything else that is important. The 'issues' are not simply a campaign ploy meant to gain favor for election.
A very large factor for the 2004 presidential and senate elections was based largely on the future of marriage in america. If you check the link you will find that my state of Oregon was the most heated contested battleground for same sex marriage. As an Oregonian, I can tell you that even though the state by and large approved the measure/amendment, there was a particular county where it was struck down by the majority. In Multnomah county measure 36 failed miserably. What does this mean? I am unsure at this time but I would venture to say that like my state, many others seem to be creating grounds for community secularism and segregation.
The 'long talk' I had with my wife appears to have been that which won the presidential election for Bush. American morals seem to have surfaced as the leading cause for re-election. This tells me that the battle is not over. I do not speak of the battle concerning same-sex marriage but liberal vs. conservative domestic opinion. Here in my house, late at night, after the kids were in bed, was when both we and many other morally conservative americans seem to have decided the future of the election, marriage, and 40 yrs worth of supreme court decisions. This was indeed a very serious election.
Another thought had crossed my mind. Janet Jackson was burned for violating the law.....and I felt quite certain she deserved it.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 06:58 PM |
|
|
I received this in an e-mail today
A LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH
Dear President Bush;
Thank you for doing so much to educate people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
you and understand why you would propose and support a
constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As
you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between
a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding
some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow
them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -
Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the
odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put
to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself,
or should I ask the police to do it? How can I help
you here?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a
lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of
abomination?
6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be
20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should
they die?
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play
football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He
also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair, like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so
I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging. It must be really great to be
on such close terms with God and his son, ... even better than you and your own Dad, eh?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 09:15 PM |
|
|
Now if we turn to Canada
In Canada. before the Parliament, we have Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes.
I really think this Bill is going to pass and gay marriage will be recognized as normal.
I'm really happy with this. I am a very spiritual person, but completly atheist because of nonsense like this one and also the Church's views on different topic. Anyways, this is not about the Church.
It's about time we take a step in the right direction. And in the bill, it says that Church's won't be forced to wed if they don't want to. It will only grant the freedom to do so and to be recognized.
The conservatives want to limit the bill to civil unions. It's really quite interesting. We have some New Democrats wanting the bill to be stopped and some conservatives that want the bill to pass, as weird as this may seem. The ministers must vote in favor of the bill, but the rest can do what they want.
I'll keep you posted. 
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 10:00 PM |
|
|
Conan --
I listened to the debate in your Parliament on C-Span the other morning, and I thought, Gaughd, how backward America is on this issue. I re-thought (for the second time in the past four months) taking my crew and packing my stuff and moving to Canada.
You lucky devil you.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 23, 2005 05:02 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 23 Feb 2005
|
I Disagree
Plain and simple....
The Pope is strongly against Gay marriage.
Quote:
Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in his newly published book.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/23/pope.book.reut/index.html
I refuse to call it "evil". I don't think it's evil at all. I simply think it's wrong. I think that when a man in the Pope's position refers to such acts as evil then this will encourage violence against people who perform such acts. But violence is absolutely not the answer. I think it is best to simply take personal steps to freely object. I say use your voice with respect. If a person should disagree with Gay marriage then let him/her say it and then lead by example. This is the best way to protest opposing views. Calling something "evil" will only lead fanatics to take a more violent approach.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 03:19 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 23 Feb 2005
|
Consis: you disagree what? please explain as you've already voted in favor of this in the 1rst or second page of this thread...
Peace: I also think we are in advance. We seem to be a little more socialist in Canada then in America with things like health care, 2 languages, etc... it is interesting to see our 2 cultures clash in such a way as we can clearly see the goods and bads of both optics.
On another note, the pope is on my black list:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/23/pope050223.html
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 25, 2005 04:15 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 24 Feb 2005
|
Conan,
This is a much more serious matter than you may have thought. Firstly, I have never supported any sort of Gay marriage. This thread is filled with my thoughts on why. Secondly, the first Gay Arch Bishop ever has now been confirmed in New Hampshire. This is very serious.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/02/24/anglican.canada.ap/index.html
Quote:
Many of the 35 primates, or leaders of national churches, who met this week were "deeply alarmed that the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality" expressed in that 1998 resolution had "been seriously undermined by the recent developments in North America." The U.S. church precipitated the most serious rift in the communion's history when it affirmed the election of V. Gene Robinson, who openly lives with a male partner, as bishop of New Hampshire. Both churches have been criticized by conservatives for sanctioning blessings of gay unions. The two churches are withdrawing from the Anglican Consultative Council, a key body for contact among the national churches, at least until 2008.
My country is headed into the next dark chapter of our civil rights development. I will continue to be open-minded. I will not support any violence of any kind. I would even go so far as to publicly protect anyone being persecuted for their sexual practices. If there is a protest march in Portland then I will be there. I am afraid and I don't know what's going to happen but I won't stand for anyone being hurt.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 05:12 AM |
|
|
I can't stay away, it seems...
I've had a lot of time to grow since my last post here, and my attentions once again turn to this thread which I have, in the past, avoided, due simply to my fear of failure in an argument against gay unions, and more specifically, gay marriages. I'd been outmatched, as I then saw it, and I vowed not to come back until I had my priorities straight on this issue, which I thought I did in my previous post in here on page 12 quite some time ago. Yet recently, I've grown more rooted in Christianity then I ever have before, and I now refuse to compromise the beliefs to which I had so loosely been bound until now, much to the chargrin, I'm sure, of those who once believed me to be "enlightened". I apologize, but I just can't accept it, something about this issue has never sat well with me.
I rarely take a definitive stand on anything, that's just not who I am, and I used that as an excuse to go through life never having to take sides on anything, and therefore being able to keep more to myself, as I was sure I wanted. I truly do not want to be seen as a bigot, so please know that I have reasons behind my stand, though they may not hold water with many of you here due to the fact that these beliefs are firmly rooted in religion, as I have found myself to be as of late.
I now have no doubt in my mind that homosexuality is not a conscious decision, and yet we Americans, who you claim should have adapted to some "modern" thought process due to past civil excursions of women, blacks, and other minorities, still remain split on the issue. I began to ask myself why. Most of you would likely respond with some accusation of ignorance, bigotry, or other vicious motives that we in the religious right must have adopted to remain so set in this opposition to gay marriage, but I hope that we are not irrevocably charged for holding to our beliefs in a doctrine upon which we base our very lives.
Sometimes, as I wonder about this issue and the attention it merits from today's worldwide eye, I say to myself that I won't get involved in the mess, all the while knowing that I will. My head says one thing while my heart says another. Ask me for evidence, and I will simply point you to a Bible. I’m no arguer, activist, or politician, but I’m not a bigot either. I just hope that, while my reasons for taking this stand seem ridiculous to many of you, that you respect my beliefs as I respect yours, even though I disagree with your views. That’s all I ask.
This is my position now, and it will not change as it has in the past. I apologize if this offends anyone's sensitivities. Like I said, I rarely take a firm stand for something, and when I do, I mean it. Not as an attack against anyone, but as an adherence to a set of morals to which I believe. Thank you for your time.
____________
>_>
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 05:20 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
as you can probably guess I love the text of this letter. But in fact it originally has not been sent to Bush, but to the conservative radio woman Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and is about 5 years old: http://pintday.org/funny/deardrlaura.shtml. I remember having also read quite an aggressive and humorless reply from her side awhile ago.
____________
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 25, 2005 07:00 AM |
|
|
Without treading on anyone's toes..... much
Shadoecaster and Concis' last posts have just demonstrated to me why America will probably be the last nation on earth to catch on to the idea that:
Homosexuals don't generally have any truck with religion.
Why should they?
They were born, may have went to a religious school - but then they also happen to be gay.
They didn't choose to be gay, and some may have a hard time accepting the truth, going so far as to have a sham marriage, maybe even conceive a child.
(Quick side question, what's worse - Living with your gay lover or lying at your big fancy church weding when you tell some poor woman/man that you'll cherish and love them forever, and then conceiving a child to be brought up in a loveless marriage? REALLY think about it)
And while they were at that religious school, or being sent to Sunday school they come across this idea that homosexuality is evil.
That they are going to hell.
Now tell me all you preachers and converts out there.
What's poor gay Jimmy to do?
Should he go through life with no sexual or emotional stimulation. Day after day, month after month denying themselves the chance to be in a situation where someone will tell him 'I love you'.
Or should he kill himself. After all, he's going to hell anyway, he can't be sent to hell TWICE now can he?
But then, why should he even think of hell. Heck poor gay Jimmy's being hearing that he's going to hell since he was a kid. Maybe he just resigns himself to it, or just thinks to himself 'God wouldn't have made gay people just to send them to hell' or he does what is most commonly done, and forgets about religion all together.
So why when you may one day meet poor gay Jimmy do you start spouting stupid Bible quotes at him?
Or saying that YOU know what God's law is, and it doesn't involve poor gay Jimmy.
AAAARRRRGH!!!! I'm so frustrated trying to get through to you type of people because you never want to descend from your moral high ground and find out what the REAL issue is.
You just bury your head in the sand and listen to Holy Elevator Music in your heads!!!!
To pick on Concis because he's said he'll be actively protesting about the issue.
Will you also be taking up your moral crusade about the other issues the infamous letter that Peacemaker posted raised?
Why not? How do you know that eating shellfish is more serious in God's eyes that homosexuality?
Are you gonna teach your son to play football?
Now maybe you'll use a rubber skinned-ball, but what about when he goes to school? How can you be sure he won't be defiling his body and soul by touching a dead pig's skin? Just how can you know!!!!!?
(Not just for Concis now, but anyone that thinks they follow 'God's Laws')
Here's the truth. It's hypocrisy and you've all signed yourself up for it. You may justify it in your own heads, but that's what it is.
I thought religion was an all or nothing thing.
It seems it's more of a buffet.
'Yes I'll take a double helping of prayer and eternal life, but no stoning or smiting, they give me wind'
AND THEN you'll maybe further justify it by saying some stuff like:
'Oh yeah, but that's Old Testament-y stuff. The New Testament came and gave us a new Covenant'.
Well if that's the case then all your arguments went out the window. Where in the New Testament does it say that homosexuality is a sin?
Come on - here's your long awaited opportunity to mouth your bible passages.
So, where?
Doesn't the New Testament preach about love for all men?
Now, I don't expect you to take it literally, but if you're gonna pick and choose which bits of your out-moded belief system to cling to, shouldn't you at least go for the Newer info. It might hold out a bit longer before it collapses under the weight of your own hypocrisy.
So this is the gauntlet I throw down to you, anyone professing theat they follow the laws of Christ/God/whatever.
Say you had to give poor gay Jimmy advice.
He's just found out he's gay, and whatever your own un-informed prejudices about that - he can't change. It's hardwired into him.
So what advice do you give him?
Shadowcaster I'd like to hear from you on this issue. Vadskye too if he reads it. I know I'll hear from Concis - it's a given
*Please note - in the following replies addressed to this issue - if you ignore the question about advice then I will believe that you are burying your head in the sand. The whole of the post is building up to that question*
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
