[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]
Gold. Pure gold you find on this forum.
Ask people like Tirib what they think about killing a baby because a sky wizard sanctioned it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]
Gold. Pure gold you find on this forum.
Ask people like Tirib what they think about killing a baby because a sky wizard sanctioned it.[/quote]
Guys, I think you’re misreading. Tiribulus meant that being black isn’t moral or immoral (void of moral content). He wasn’t saying being black makes a person void of moral content or anything against blacks.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]
Gold. Pure gold you find on this forum.
Ask people like Tirib what they think about killing a baby because a sky wizard sanctioned it.[/quote]
Guys, I think you’re misreading. Tiribulus meant that being black isn’t moral or immoral (void of moral content). He wasn’t saying being black makes a person void of moral content or anything against blacks.
[/quote]
What I read was a statement that black people are void of moral content. And that being black is how God identifies said people void of moral content. Of course, I suppose if they are sufficiently righteous, God will afflict them with Vitiligo and they can bask in the white glory of the righteous. If I’m not mistaken, that’s pretty close to what Mormons believe.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]
Gold. Pure gold you find on this forum.
Ask people like Tirib what they think about killing a baby because a sky wizard sanctioned it.[/quote]
Guys, I think you’re misreading. Tiribulus meant that being black isn’t moral or immoral (void of moral content). He wasn’t saying being black makes a person void of moral content or anything against blacks.
[/quote]
What I read was a statement that black people are void of moral content. And that being black is how God identifies said people void of moral content. Of course, I suppose if they are sufficiently righteous, God will afflict them with Vitiligo and they can bask in the white glory of the righteous. If I’m not mistaken, that’s pretty close to what Mormons believe.[/quote]
You misread his statement. He meant being black is not a moral issue, not that black people are void of moral content.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]
This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.
Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]
Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]
Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]
Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.
Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?
Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]
This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.
Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]
Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]
Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]
Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.
Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?
Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]
They probably downplay the issue because it makes them look bad and propagates the stereotype that all preists are child molesters.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]
Gold. Pure gold you find on this forum.
Ask people like Tirib what they think about killing a baby because a sky wizard sanctioned it.[/quote]
Guys, I think you’re misreading. Tiribulus meant that being black isn’t moral or immoral (void of moral content). He wasn’t saying being black makes a person void of moral content or anything against blacks.
[/quote]
What I read was a statement that black people are void of moral content. And that being black is how God identifies said people void of moral content. Of course, I suppose if they are sufficiently righteous, God will afflict them with Vitiligo and they can bask in the white glory of the righteous. If I’m not mistaken, that’s pretty close to what Mormons believe.[/quote]
You misread his statement. He meant being black is not a moral issue, not that black people are void of moral content.[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Guys, I think you’re misreading. Tiribulus meant that being black isn’t moral or immoral (void of moral content). He wasn’t saying being black makes a person void of moral content or anything against blacks.
[/quote]Thank you sir. That is precisely what I meant and regardless of our very clear differences it was decent of you to point it out. You can return your regularly scheduled railing now =]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There is no evidence that allowing gay marriage negatively affects social perceptions of marriage or habits of heterosexuals w/r/t marriage.
[/quote]
Tell that to the marriage rate in Europe, and the declining marriage length.[/quote]
Europe is not the USA. Europe is not a homogenous continent. Europe is a continent with many different countries, languages and customs and can’t agree on minutiae of bureaucracy in the EU, much less such a divisive issue. The view on gay marriage in Italy is as opposed as many parts of America, partly influenced by the Pope and also by conservative values. The same can be said of many Mediterranean and Eastern European countries. Yes if you went to Soho in London you’d imagine differently but Europe is not some free-for-all homosexual nirvana; there are still many homophobic attacks and murders every year and many countries forbid Gay Pride parades.
You cannot ‘marry’ a homosexual couple. You can instead have a ‘civil partnership’ which does not come with the religious connotations of marriage. There is legislation underway to make churches conduct gay marriages but that looks increasingly unlikely.[/quote]
Then tell that to those that bring up gay marriage in Europe. I brought it up, because someone always say look at Europe. Well, I did. And the places where they allow gay marriages, or “unions” aren’t exactly giving faith to what homosexuals actually say about what marriage will do for them.
From what I can see from European civil union statistics, marriage is short, abuse is high, high rates of infidelity, high rates of STDs, multiple marriages per person, as well as other side effects that were said not exist. Like polygamous marriage advocates now requesting to be married to multiple wives, you have bi-sexual people who want to get married to men and women at the same time.[/quote]
This is the best I can find of Blackadder on Youtube but the best line he has is:
“The greatest lie since vows of fidelity were introduced into the French marriage service” (or words to that effect)
Please could you provide some evidence of bisexual people wishing to be married at the same time, because I have never heard of that.
If people are saying there is “gay marriage” in Europe to push for gay marriage in the USA than they are lying.
[/quote]
What, there is no gay marriage in the Netherlands, Dutch folks didn’t recently pass gay marriage? And, I hear Canada and Europe in arguments from professors to activist.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
“Traditional Marriage predates state and Church”
Great, ever heard of a place called Sparta?
Homosexual unions were “about” a mentoring relationship and strengthening military bonds.[/quote]
I think I’ve said this and showed this a few times, but something occurring, doesn’t mean it was accepted as the same as heterosexual unions between a man and a woman.
[/quote]
It was fully accepted in the society. Institutionalized even.[/quote]
Lol, no not ‘fully accepted’, I said was on ‘the same level.’ Big difference, Greeks fully accepted homosexual acts, doesn’t mean they held it at the same level as marriage. Even in certain African tribes where homosexual sexual acts are predominate compared to heterosexual sexual acts, the union between man and wife (although looked on as purely reproductive) is considered higher than the homosexual unions.
I have yet to see an over encompassing trend in any society, culture, or religion in which homosexual unions are considered the same as reproductive unions.
Let me explain further, since it seems to be a miscommunication in what I am saying. On a scale of 1-10 on unions between people (friends, family, reproductive, homosexual, &c.) a purely sexual union (both heterosexual and homosexual) is classified much lower than a reproductive union in most societies, cultures, and religions. Basically, reproductive unions are the first order of business. Yes, there maybe even a large (I don’t believe there is, but let’s for argument’s sake say there is) portion of societies, cultures, and religions in which they accept it, and even institutionalize it, as you said. That doesn’t mean they are the same. The key to society (generally, not specifically here) is reproductive institutions and the raising of children…otherwise the society does not continue and it seems to be that the society will kill itself, but in the birthrate and actually. Actually, it seems that the less children (usually when it hits below 2 children per mother) society in general picks up degenerate activities.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Actually, if anybody would be against emancipation, its your camp, BC.[/quote]
Because if anyone is against emancipation, it’s me. Get the fuck out of here with your weak ass straw man. [/quote]
Your camp =/= you personally.
Yes, most conservative white Christians were against emancipation. You can cherry pick church figures who opposed it, but the fact remains.[/quote]
Well, hallelujah. Now you speak your mind. First, you’re speaking on a Protestant majority South, and second I’m not white.
And, to your conservative Christian comment, most of the slave holding South was Protestant and Democrat. I am not, I maybe conservative, but I’m decidedly liberal as well (twist I know, but really fitting my conservatism in a slogan is about as fruitful as using a porcupine to wipe your ass). Meaning that I don’t support the oppression of people by the government (and certainly not the oppression of any individuals human dignity to lower them so far as to be seen merely as an object or thing), even though I do hold that G-d ordains government and that governments are legitimate by the evidence that they are standing.
I could never support such an institute such as was slavery in America. The general institute of slavery, possibly, but I could never deny a man his human dignity no matter if he was slave or master. The institute of slavery which America showed the world was completely revolting (not saying all masters were bad, but talking about the one’s who made what the institute of slavery is known as today), completely against any Christian understanding of the good news I know the Church to hold to.
So, out of the three: Conservative, White, Christian. You have two wrong and you mistook me for a protestant.
I’m not white (at least not what is considered or was considered white – Irish weren’t considered white, and especially not the dark skinned ones and Spanish still aren’t considered white).
I am conservative (but as Burke says, the oppression of people and their traditions to the point that they no longer have human dignity is not a thought a conservative should entertain), but you could say I’m liberal on the instance of American slavery if that will help you visualize it better.
And, I’m Catholic (I follow and believe what the Church teaches…meaning if you want to ever give a litmus test, look at what the Pope teaches), not protestant.
So, sorry to disappoint you, but I myself, nor my forefathers would or were on the side of denying blacks emancipation. They actually shed blood in Lawrence (and various other places) to keep Kansas a free-state and to keep pro-slavery land owners out of Kansas. Rock Chalk, Jay Hawk!!! I’m a born and bred Jayhawker.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]
This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.
Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]
Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]
Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]
Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.
Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?
Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]
Well first, Ad hominem tu quoque a little?
And, second…Lol…what? You are not serious are you?
Show me this rampant homosexual contact with Church boys that has happened in the last 10 years. All these cases you are hearing about in the news, they are civil suits…you know why? Because the statute of limitations has come into effect and they can not try the case in a criminal court…because these happened decades ago.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]
This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.
Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]
Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]
Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]
Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.
Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?
Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]
They probably downplay the issue because it makes them look bad and propagates the stereotype that all preists are child molesters.[/quote]
I can’t speak on motives of the people that hid the child molesters, I can only repeat what I have heard. I can tell you that reporting on scandal is a no-no. However, not protecting innocent persons is the first of all big no-no’s. And, this double standard…hypocrites thing is an ad hominem. Oh…you are telling someone they did something wrong? Well, you did something wrong, too!
Well, guess what. Everyone does something wrong, so…are we just supposed to let everyone do what they want, even if it is wrong because we have done something wrong. That doesn’t make sense. As well, being silent about someone’s wrong doing makes you as culpable as the person that did something wrong.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:You misread his statement. He meant being black is not a moral issue, not that black people are void of moral content.[/quote]In that case I tentatively retract my statements.[/quote]My Pastor, who I love more than if he were my flesh and blood brother, who I would take a bullet for and to whom I trust the spiritual leadership of my family. E.A.C.H. Session 2 - Christopher Brooks on Vimeo ALL men (and women) are created in the image of God which has exactly zero to do with their skin. God did not create men (or women) gay. To be such is a rank perversion of His order and purpose for His highest creation. I couldn’t care less what statistics and studies done by sinful enemies of God allegedly demonstrate.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< people would likely say y’all were bein just a touch racist. But since homophobia is en vogue now (whereas racism is so 60 years ago), you get a (mostly) free pass on those generalizations and biased “fact finding”. [/quote]Being black IS God’s created order for people who are and is void of moral content.
[/quote]
DID I REALLY JUST FUCKING READ THIS???!!!
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?[/quote]
Gold. Pure gold you find on this forum.
Ask people like Tirib what they think about killing a baby because a sky wizard sanctioned it.[/quote]
I’m fucking shocked and awed that this idiotic fucking comment only got a response from me.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I’m fucking shocked and awed that this idiotic fucking comment only got a response from me.[/quote]Are you actually this blind and or dense? Most people here, including even Capped, know me well enough to have not wildly misinterpreted my statement the way you did. Raise your eyes on this very page a bit.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Discussed to death in other threads. Yes, it’s great if a child can be raised by healthy, competent biological parents. However, there are millions of children with abusive parents, deceased parents, etc. who are far better off being raised by loving, committed adoptive gay parents than staying in a toxic family situation, or being raised by an institution.
[/quote]
This is a patently false self-serving post. There are no long-term studies to prove that children are better off living with two homosexuals. Furthermore, there is no proof that being homosexual is genetic. That means that perhaps (just maybe) children being raised by two homosexuals would have a much higher degree of becoming a homosexual. Certainly until we know how one becomes a homosexual (or why) we should never put children in the care of homosexuals.
Stop the propaganda forlife it’s really getting old.[/quote]
Not being a devils advocate, I am honestly curious, why does homosexuality=bad? [/quote]
Against man’s nature, it is disordered.[/quote]
Ahh, the hypocrite going at it again.
Say, isn’t getting hand-jobs from cheap strippers considered an act of fornication in that so-called faith you proclaim? But yet, you see yourself fit to judge others because of their characteristics?
Also, I they catholic church is so much against homosexuality, why did it and continues to do absolutely nothing to stop the rampant homosexual contact between priests and church boys? Double standards, anyone?[/quote]
They probably downplay the issue because it makes them look bad and propagates the stereotype that all preists are child molesters.[/quote]
I can’t speak on motives of the people that hid the child molesters, I can only repeat what I have heard. I can tell you that reporting on scandal is a no-no. However, not protecting innocent persons is the first of all big no-no’s. And, this double standard…hypocrites thing is an ad hominem. Oh…you are telling someone they did something wrong? Well, you did something wrong, too!
Well, guess what. Everyone does something wrong, so…are we just supposed to let everyone do what they want, even if it is wrong because we have done something wrong. That doesn’t make sense. As well, being silent about someone’s wrong doing makes you as culpable as the person that did something wrong. [/quote]
What do you mean about reporting on it is a no no? Is that reporting from within the Church?
