On the gay issue which divides our party

Started by Skeptic, December 02, 2012, 04:02:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Skeptic

Although I am biologically predisposed to being attracted to women, and I do not understand the attraction that one feels for another of their own sex, as God is my witness (if there is indeed a creator) I tell you now that I would rather be damned to hell than to deny someone else their chance at happiness simply because I cannot relate to that which brings them joy. As long as we live in a free country I'll defend their choice to the death, and damn those whose prejudices and narrow mindedness make them think that they have the right to rob another human being of the right to be with their soul mate.

Our Party used to stand for treating everyone equally under the law, and for allowing our fellow men to live their lives free from government intrusion and shackles of oppression. Yet here we are in the 21st century, and we are having the debate on whether it is justified to use the heavy hand of government to make others conform to our own sense of personal morality. Shame on us. When did we trade the ideals of allowing our fellow human beings to pursue their dreams and happiness for the principles of using big government to rob others of their right to love, cherish, and form a family with the person whom they love? History will not be kind to us, just as history now condemns those who sought to deny white men and women from falling in love and forming a union with someone of a different race or ethnicity.

The writing is on the wall, and this Party must change or be delegated to extinction in the same way as life snuffs out those animals who fail to adapt to whatever cards mother nature deals them.  As for me, I will no longer sit idly and tolerate those who use their blind hatred and bigotry to oppress others, and if that results in being showered with hatred and ridicule by other conservatives...so be it.
Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.

Yawn

#1
QuoteOur Party used to stand for treating everyone equally under the law, ...

So can you tell me of a time when "our" party ever defined marriage as anything you want it to be???

Why are so many willing to rewrite history to make a false claim?

It's this way with every modern issue of the Left and those whose minds have been poisoned with their cause.  You convince yourselves that we have mover FAR RIGHT when the truth is, both parties have moved far left.  Some more than others. Many who still call themselves "Republican" are light-years from the Republican Party of 30 years ago.  Many of these folks are in leadership positions and have been compromising with the Socialists and Communists that call themselves Democrats.

No, your views are NOT in line with the Republican Party or what we USED TO stand for. You belong to a new breed that stands with the Anarchist Libertarians.
QuoteAs for me, I will no longer sit idly and tolerate those who use their blind hatred and bigotry to blah blah blah

Typical buzzwords of the extreme left.  I'm afraid you have no choice but to TOLERATE my views since there's nothing you can do to stop it.  I tolerate your views so am I a better person than you?

QuoteYet here we are in the 21st century, and we are having the debate on whether it is justified to use the heavy hand of government to make others conform to our own sense of personal morality.

"WE" are?  Seems to me that YOU are advocating using Godvernment to FORCE your own personal morality on those who may disagree with you. Can you provide examples to back up your claim?  Do we not allow homosexuals to play house? I know that's what you're talking about.  They are free to do whatever they want until Christ returns.  What you want is for society to REDEFINE "marriage" so they feel normal.  Problem is, marriage has a definition. You can call anything you want "marriage," but remember, a thing is what it is. Forcing people to say red is blue doesn't make it so.  And if YOU want to redefine something, it is YOU forcing your views on everyone else.  Do what you want, but don't demand that everyone approve.  It's EVIL for you to do what you claim to hate.

Skeptic

Quote from: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 04:14:33 PM
So can you tell me of a time when "our" party ever defined marriage as anything you want it to be???

No sir, but there was a time when freedom was defined as something reserved for the realm of the white man, until our Party stood at the forefront of this nation and dealt a death blow to slavery. There was also a time when voting was defined as a right reserved only for white men, until our Party stood firm and extended the right to vote to all men. There was a time when women were considered unfit for public office, and much less fit to cast a ballot, until many northern and western Republican states started to pass their own laws allowing women the right to suffrage, thus finally forcing Congress to act and pass a national amendment extending the right to vote to women. There was also a time when segregation was the norm, until President Eisenhower desegregated the military and laid the foundation to allow the Supreme Court to find that separate but equal was in fact unequal.

We were always at the forefront when it came to going against the grain and granting rights to other, even though it was controversial and had never been done before. Yet here we are today, dragging our feet when it comes to extending the freedom to others to marry whom they see fit. Have we fallen this far from what we used to stand for?
Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.

kramarat

Homosexuals have a scientifically proven anomaly in their brain chemistry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

I don't have a problem with homosexuals being together. I do have a problem with having our children being taught that homosexuality is a normal and healthy choice for them to make. Or that homosexual experimentation should be explored as part of their development.

The right of homosexuals to be who they are, and be with whoever they want, does not give them the right to encourage children or anyone else to try out or accept the lifestyle. If they want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, they must make the commitment to leave the rest of us alone also. We have the right to be disgusted with the idea of gay sex, and we also have the right to expect them to leave our children alone.

Yawn

Equating immoral behaviour with race. Disgusting.  Will you be at the forefront along with Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is a friend of NAMBLA?

Relax. Society is going to go your way. So gloat.  But know that when the history of the United States is written, better people who have not followed us or ancient Rome or Greece will point to the decline of the family and common sense that led to our destruction.  In the end, history will record that you stood on the wrong side and were part of the problem and not the solution.

This is what happens when God is removed from the mix

Quote"Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberty, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in the world. One rests on righteousness, the other rests on force. One appeals to reason, the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in a republic, the other is represented by a despotism."--Calvin Coolidge

Yawn

QuoteThe right of homosexuals to be who they are, and be with whoever they want, does not give them the right to encourage children or anyone else to try out or accept the lifestyle. If they want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, they must make the commitment to leave the rest of alone also.
:thumbsup: well said! That is even my view (intolerant as I am).  It's not enough that we leave them in peace, they will not be happy until you SUPPORT THEM in their perversion.  I will not.

keyboarder

Thanx Yawn, you said in one little sentence what I would have written a book about.
.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd      Forbes

keyboarder

Quote from: kramarat on December 02, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Homosexuals have a scientifically proven anomaly in their brain chemistry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

I don't have a problem with homosexuals being together. I do have a problem with having our children being taught that homosexuality is a normal and healthy choice for them to make. Or that homosexual experimentation should be explored as part of their development.

The right of homosexuals to be who they are, and be with whoever they want, does not give them the right to encourage children or anyone else to try out or accept the lifestyle. If they want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, they must make the commitment to leave the rest of us alone also. We have the right to be disgusted with the idea of gay sex, and we also have the right to expect them to leave our children alone.
Glad to have read this reply.  It mirrors what the most devastating  issue is to me about the gay community.  i don't agree with any actions put upon our children to adopt this lifestyle or be taught to experiment with it.  It is evil, according to the word of God.  Don't blame us, skeptic, talk to God. Sexual sins are most discouraged by Him.  I also agree with Krama that we have as much right to our opinions against them as they have about their side of the issue.  Why should we be forced to comply?  This compliance makes all of us heatherns.
.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd      Forbes

Skeptic

#8
Quote from: kramarat on December 02, 2012, 04:34:10 PM
Homosexuals have a scientifically proven anomaly in their brain chemistry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm


Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)  :scared:

Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.
Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.

Bronx

IMO...your issue is not with us here or our party your issue IMO is with God himself. God sets the rules I just live by them. Why don't you take the issue up with God and see what He tells you. Let me know what He says. If you want I can make it easy for you and give you a starting place to look  in God's Word.

Just saying...

People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

A foolish man complains about his torn pockets.

A wise man uses it to scratch his balls.

Yawn

One of my best friends was a fellow who died of AIDS a year and a half ago. He was a Christian who struggled with homosexuality. He always knew it was wrong to give into that pull and was the first to tell you that giving in to sin has its consequences. They don't need "help" from the rest of us to give in to the struggle. Most don't struggle but a few do. Once he got the disease he lived a celibate life for many years. The news scared him straight (not literally) and kept him from engaging in that deathstyle. Many of us prayed for him and hoped he'd see healing since he'd repented, but he had to pay the consequences for his actions.

People like Skeptic may have their heart in the right place, but would be of better service to their fellow Man by standing for Truth and not the every changing culture. It doesn't do anyone any favors giving approval to BEHAVOURS that lead to death and misery.

keyboarder

....and Skeptic doesn't need to have his hand held to participate or approve.
.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd      Forbes

Cryptic Bert

Quote from: Yawn on December 02, 2012, 05:02:35 PM
One of my best friends was a fellow who died of AIDS a year and a half ago. He was a Christian who struggled with homosexuality. He always knew it was wrong to give into that pull and was the first to tell you that giving in to sin has its consequences. They don't need "help" from the rest of us to give in to the struggle. Most don't struggle but a few do. Once he got the disease he lived a celibate life for many years. The news scared him straight (not literally) and kept him from engaging in that deathstyle. Many of us prayed for him and hoped he'd see healing since he'd repented, but he had to pay the consequences for his actions.

People like Skeptic may have their heart in the right place, but would be of better service to their fellow Man by standing for Truth and not the every changing culture. It doesn't do anyone any favors giving approval to BEHAVOURS that lead to death and misery.

If I remember correctly it was not PC in the 80's to warn the populace that homosexuals engaging in unprotected sex was spreading the disease so the focus was on heteros and safe sex. If so we would have saved a lot of lives by being blunt and honest.

kramarat

#13
Quote from: Skeptic on December 02, 2012, 04:55:05 PM
Nowhere in that article is homosexuality linked to an anomaly, but rather that homosexual brains have some similarity to female brains, thus showing that homosexuality is not a choice and is instead biologically set. Unless you care to argue that feminine features in a brain are an abnormality (I wouldn't suggest telling that to your wife.)  :scared:

Don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Finally, if not opposing gay marriage makes me a "radical liberal" as one of you claimed, so be it. Never mind the fact that you and I probably agree on everything in 85%-90% of things. I say the problem is not that I'm too radical, but rather that you are not radical enough. This nation was created by radicals and built by radicals. We didn't become who we are by following others, but by creating our own opportunities and shaping our own destinies. That's why we were once a beacon of freedom and hope to others.

Interesting. I would say that males that have brains that are more like female brains, and females that have brains that are more like male brains, would be an anomaly.

a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: 
 

Me prejudice? Not at all.

I'm sure that you're aware, that before the issue of gay marriage came up, the left had spent decades telling us that marriage was an outdated institution and that it should be dumped. Remember? Womens lib and all that stuff.

My take on it, is that since the left has spent so much time spitting on the institution of marriage, they don't have the right to create a new definition of it, for gays. Let them have civil unions. I'm fine with that.

Skeptic

It is not an anomaly. Just observe the animal kingdom and you will notice dozens of mammal species that exhibit homosexual behavior. So it doesn't deviate from our observations.
Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.