RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
New York Senate rejects same-sex marriage
After several hours of debate (if it can be called debate, since only Sen. Ruben Diaz spoke against the legislation), the New York Senate has rejected same-sex marriage legislation. Twenty-four senators voted for same-sex marriage and 38 voted against it. The Assembly passed the same legislation for the second time with a vote of 86-51, but the Senate vote ensures its defeat.
The legislation’s supporters must have thought they had the votes to pass the legislation or they wouldn’t have brought it to the floor. Another example of the erratic and unpredictable New York Senate.
Keywords: gay-marriage, New York Senate
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top291 Comments to “New York Senate rejects same-sex marriage”
Priase God
Report comment to moderator
They knew they didn’t have the votes – they want to ensure accountability to the gay community.
Some of those 38 will be out next voting cycle.
Report comment to moderator
And from today’s Washington Post, which sums up the tone and fundamental substance of the entire anti-gay lobby in a short Q & A:
Dear Miss Manners:
My partner and I adopted a child three years ago. He has become a happy, silly, active, loving child.
When we were going through the adoption process, the topic of being a “conspicuous family” was discussed. As two men with a child, we fall into that category.
Several times over the last couple of years, we have been verbally attacked. Twice we have been in a grocery store when someone informed us that we were not a “real family.” On one of these situations, we were even told that we were condemned to hell!
Another time, when I was having breakfast out with our son, I was discussing children with a woman who was there with two of her own. The conversation was casual and amiable. When I mentioned “my partner” in the conversation, she started shouting at me, “You’re evil! You are doing that child a great injustice!”
Our son’s birth mother was a heroin and cocaine user during her pregnancy. She had the presence of mind to realize she couldn’t take care of him and chose us as his adoptive parents.
We didn’t decide to adopt to “save” a child, but the fact is, we will probably be able to give our son a much better life than if he had stayed with his birth mother.
How do we react to these people?
Gentle Reader: A gentleman of Miss Manners’s acquaintance was once subjected to a barrage of unwarranted insults. Outraged on his behalf, she asked why he did not trouble to defend himself.
His reply (and please forgive the inelegance for the sake of vividness) was: “If someone is throwing up on you, you get out of the way. You do not stay around to examine what is coming up.”
There is nothing you can say to people who, whatever they may think, see fit to hurl crude insults at you, even in front of your son.
A stiff “I’m sorry you feel that way” is all you can utter before turning your back.
Report comment to moderator
Two of the biggest states, California and New York standing AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
One interesting aspect of this is; people normally believe both these states to be in the fast lane, being so hip that they couldn’t possibly stand against homosexual marriage, but there it is.
Report comment to moderator
The piece above is one giant ad hominem.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Victoria: The state didn’t stand against gay marriage.
Some cowardly legislators did.
- A majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage and Gov. Paterson’s attempt to legalize it, a new poll shows.
A Siena College poll released Monday found that by 53% to 39% margin, those surveyed say the state Senate should pass legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, virtually ensuring it would become law.
The poll is believed to be the first showing a majority of New Yorkers supporting gay marriage.
Democrats strongly support it by a 59% to 35% margin while Republicans oppose it by virtually the same tally, 59% to 31%.
Support for gay marriage is strongest in the city. It’s virtually evenly split in the suburbs and upstate.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/04/20/2009-04-20_has_gay_marriage_reached_a_tipping_point_in_new_york_poll_shows_majority_approve.html#ixzz0YZ9Og9N9
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 12.02.09 AT 3:33 PM
Two of the biggest states, California and New York standing AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
One interesting aspect of this is; people normally believe both these states to be in the fast lane, being so hip that they couldn’t possibly stand against homosexual marriage, but there it is.
-
what does that tell us?
Report comment to moderator
Get as angry as you like call it ad hominem, etc., – marriage between two people of the same sex is nothing but a counterfeit, it’s not the REAL DEAL.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.02.09 AT 3:39 PM
Sorry, Victoria: The state didn’t stand against gay marriage.
Some cowardly legislators did.
–
sorry but 24 to 38 was not the result of Some cowardly legislators .
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I believe people are not as gulliable as the homosexual community believe would like. The film, entertainment industries have filled the airways, screens, theaters with all sorts of garbage – the two states which are the biggest contributors are NY and CA, and they have said NO to the counterfeit.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria I believem pray is making a big different.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, what will you do and say when gay marriage is legalized in both CA and NY, as it inevitably will be?
That you told us how liberal and hip they were earlier earlier?
Really, how irrelevant.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
Wow, great argument by anecdote. And I observe that it even fails to express the pathos you intend by virtue of its inherent subjectivity.
First, being “informed” that they are not a “real family” is not equivalent to throwing up on them. Being “told” (his words) that he was “condemned to hell” (if that is even an accurate quotation–all we have is his subjective perception of the event to go on) is also not equivalent to being vomited on. I can easily imagine that he simply took strong offense when, let’s say, a Christian told him that unrepentance in his lifestyle leads to hell.
Likewise, I don’t trust his account of the woman “shouting,” “You’re evil! You are doing that child a great injustice!” Primarily because they’re two completely different statements. It’s a valid argument that children raised without a mother are seriously disadvantaged. That’s not an insult. But I can easily imagine that what this guy heard was “You’re evil!” and that the woman was shouting even if she wasn’t. It’s a “Miss Manners” column, for crying out loud–as if that has some unimpeachable validity to it.
As a counterexample, I offer the following anecode from my trip home to South Bend over Thanksgiving weekend:
I was with my four-year-old daughter in a used bookstore. While I was browsing the philosophy section, my daughter struck up a conversation with one of the proprietors. She asked him if he was married, and he said, Yes, he was married to the man in the other room. My daughter was silent and must have had a perplexed expression on her face, because the man said, “I know you find that strange, but it’s getting less strange these days.” Then my daughter said something like, “My daddy married a woman,” and the conversation went on from there. I didn’t tell them anything or shout at them or insult them–although I probably should have witnessed to them.
This guy and his “partner” (you can’t be legally married in Indiana) are some of the most friendly people I’ve come across. They recognize me and say a cheerful “hello, welcome” every time I come into the store. They remember me even if I don’t come in for a year. When I bring in my kids, they give them a free book. I have nothing personal against them; in fact, I like them; but, as I told my daughter afterwards, their arrangement is not only “weird” (as she remarked), it’s sinful and terribly displeasing to God. It’s in direct disobedience to His perfect Word. And yes, if they don’t repent they will find themselves on the receiving end of God’s wrath the moment they die.
Report comment to moderator
This is what I posted in #4
“One interesting aspect of this is; people normally believe both these states to be in the fast lane, being so hip that they couldn’t possibly stand against homosexual marriage, but there it is.”
Never mentioned liberal – this is what the rest of the country like to believe – the fact is they don’t live here, we don’t buy into the garbage the enterainment industry throws out, or the people who live such bizare lives as those in that industry. People aren’t embracing the counterfeit marriage.
Report comment to moderator
I think two men can rear a child. I think one man can. I think one woman can or two women…sexual relationship or not. And, in the case that Thomas cited, two men that love the boy are better than one mother that cannot.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that such situations are not the ideal, and sometimes are the result of sin. In the case of two homosexuals, the union is sinful. It just is. Doesn’t mean they can’t be good parents, but it is still sin.
I know people who aren’t married at all and are rearing kids. They are doing a fine job as parents. But, they aren’t married to each other and ought to be. So, they are sinful. The fact that they are good parents doesn’t change the sin of living together without benefit of marriage.
They are separate issues.
OTOH, I would never, never, never jump all over a parent in front of their child. Never. (Barring the parent literally beating the child to pulp in front of me. I would step in for that.)
The fact that some anti-gay marriage people are crass and rude doesn’t change the facts about the situation one iota. The union is still a sin.
Report comment to moderator
Here again is a spot to ask what does God’s Word say about marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, we have already discussed that many times, given the Scripture. Why don’t you tell us what know the Bible says.
Report comment to moderator
And, as David pointed out, the vast majority of us are friendly, caring, and don’t say a rude word one (or even any words about it most of the time.) We think it is a sin. We teach our children it is a sin. But, we in no way teach our children to hate, or even dislike, a homosexual.
Like any other sin, we tell our children it is wrong, and that we will pray for the person involved in the sin to repent and overcome.
Otherwise, we still talk to the person, interact, buy things from them, visit their bookstores or whatever.
The whole idea of the mean-spirited, evil, anti-gay, Evangelical hater is (mostly) a figment of the imagination created to promote the gay agenda.
Sure, there are some bad people or misguided people who call themselves Evangelical. But, it doesn’t even begin to be close to a majority.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve never ever have heard any person talk to a homosexual/homosexuals regarding their having a child, etc., I don’t believe the story.
Report comment to moderator
TRS,
If the experiences of the guy who wrote this letter (in Thomas1’s words) “sum up the tone and fundamental substance of the entire anti-gay lobby,” then I guess the violence and vandalism, etc., perpetrated by homosexuals in California recently sum up the tone and fundamental substance of the entire pro-gay lobby.
Right?
Report comment to moderator
I see that Thomas has looked into his crystal ball and seen the future. But those who live by the crystal ball eat glass.
The NY legislators weren’t cowardly, but rather brave.
Some here should learn the lesson of the polls from the Swiss. They are not what they are cracked up to be.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I wish you were wrong.
You state: Otherwise, we still talk to the person, interact, buy things from them, visit their bookstores or whatever.
The whole idea of the mean-spirited, evil, anti-gay, Evangelical hater is (mostly) a figment of the imagination created to promote the gay agenda.
Here’s a quote from Victoria herself:
31. by Victoria 01.02.08 at 5:49 pm
There are a number of homosexual men who apply for and receive jobs working behind ‘cosmetic counters’ – interestingly and most obviously, most women aren’t interested in having a male homosexual assist them with cosmetics.
One of the best stores here, and many others have taken the homosexual men OUT OF cosmetic lines, and put them in ‘fragrance’ the reason is, (although they haven’t admitted it) women will AVOID the homosexuals, look for a woman in a different line of cosmetics to help them, leaving the male homosexuals to stand around with little to do.
No one can make straight people bow to the demands of the homosexuals, they can’t make us buy from them, or serve us in restaurants. We can have our tables changed, and ‘waiters’ switched. It’s all very simple.
Even the Salons aren’t able to demand we have our hair done by homosexuals. The manicurists know who the homosexuals are, they ‘clue’ us in, as we are friends,…… as to who is, and who isn’t. In this way we can make appointments with those who aren’t –
Some of the upscale stores tried to hire homosexual males in women’s clothing. We handled it our own way which was to avoid them, say we were just looking, then find the women we knew and asked them to help us. They aren’t working in women’s clothing anymore. Very strange when men would want to work in women’s clothing, and then escort them to a fitting room – LOL – it didn’t work out, we didn’t go along with it.
There is NO law which demands that straight people must be attended to by homosexuals, either in stores, restaurants, or Salons.
Reeking of bigotry – exactly the sort of thing Miss Manners has a problem with. Oh, how that must irk our ever-proper Victoria! Rejected by the august and wise Judith Martin.
Not to mention – pretentious much?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
You’re forgetting something very important – no one, either male or female is required in any way to have special services, such as hair, manicures, etc., attended to by a homosexual – that isn’t bigotry, it’s a CHOICE.
As far as cosmetics – the same thing goes – I don’t want a homosexual assisting me with cosmetics. AGAIN it’s a CHOICE.
You don’t get it Thomas, people don’t get it – most women DO NOT want personal assisaence from homosexuals.
Why don’t you give the thread name and link for my post.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 12.02.09 AT 4:01 PM
Pastor Roy, we have already discussed that many times, given the Scripture. Why don’t you tell us what know the Bible says.
—
From Genesis through Revelation, the idea of a Christian Marriage is between one man and one woman. Old Testament speaks about it, Jesus referred to it, Paul’s writes about husband and wives. No were in Scripture do we see God given His blessing to same sex marriage.
Report comment to moderator
The “beautiful” people in Hollywood and New York City have fed the American people the illusion that homosexuality is more widespread and accepted/acceptable by the general public by gaying just about every creative genre they control. There is, more often than not these days, a gay character/relationship in the majority of prime time popular shows. It’s in our faces all the time now. I think it’s interesting that the 2 states most likely and most known for being the most tolerant of homosexuality were apparently not as tolerant as the gay lobby thought they were.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, the date’s on the post. Go look it up.
An analysis of it – not mine – follows:
Re: post yesterday referring to a study of socioeconomic indicators that was interesting, but flawed. Victora’s comment is much more telling.
Her repeated references to “the best stores” and “upscale stores” would not be used by someone comfortable with luxury goods and services. Likewise, grammatical mistakes such as this gem would not be made by a woman with a good education: Some of the upscale stores tried to hire homosexual males in women’s clothing. Were the homosexual males actually wearing the women’s clothing? Because that would be truly a wow!
Victoria goes to the trouble of capitalizing the word “salon” repeatedly, even though it’s not part of any particular salon’s name. She may have passed Pretension 101, but she’s got to work on English.
Suggestions of a vast cabal of shoppers prowling malls, conspiring with manicurists and restaurant managers to deprive gay men of work, suggest a psyche that is severely divorced from reality. This supports my theory that people who obsess over gays being shut out of public life are mentally unstable, ignorant, angry, fearful, and express themselves in the nastiest way possible.
Again, this is not my analysis. But it does show what people apart from WMB think of posts like Victoria’s on this subject.
Report comment to moderator
Final paragraph in post 26 is my own words.
The preceding two should have been italicized to indicate that they are not my words.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Not to clever Thomas – you can’t or won’t give the LINK, why is that? – so that others can’t read the entire interaction? lol
Report comment to moderator
question how can someone who calls themself Christian support gay marriage, when God’s Word is clear on what is marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
Victoria’s post isn’t all that offensive, nor is it terribly relevant to this conversation.
It also dates from January 2008. How many searches did you have to run to dig that one up?
Who’s the obsessive one here, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
They’re your words. You defend them.
The central point – TRS claims that a certain type of bigotry is largely absent in the evangelical community – is refuted by what you personally wrote.
Any clarification on the subject ought to come from you yourself.
I can hardly wait.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
Even if you prove that Victoria says offensive things, that doesn’t even come close to refuting TRS’s point that “a certain type of bigotry is largely absent in the evangelical community.”
So why are you so feverishly trying to prove it?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 why do you see these 38 people as being cowardly legislators ?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
UNLESS YOU GIVE the LINK and THREAD NAME, you’re playing games – and the reason for this is; we haven’t read the comments that led to these posts.
Report comment to moderator
David L., I needed to “prove” nothing. Victoria’s words are in diametric opposition to TRS’s contention that most evangelicals will talk to, do business with, and otherwise civilly treat gay people in public.
Victoria claims to be a member of a group of “ladies” who won’t do any such thing.
That is all.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – at least some of them aren’t voting in a manner that is consistent with what their constituents want.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Were you by any CHANCE posting under another name in January 2008? LOL – is that why you can’t give the LINK or thread name? hmmmm
Report comment to moderator
Why would I ask ANY man for help with makeup?
Preferences cannot be legislated.
Report comment to moderator
My, Victoria – panic mode much?
You did write it. Care to address it in the context of this?
TRS @ 18: But, we in no way teach our children to hate, or even dislike, a homosexual.
Like any other sin, we tell our children it is wrong, and that we will pray for the person involved in the sin to repent and overcome.
Otherwise, we still talk to the person, interact, buy things from them, visit their bookstores or whatever.
The whole idea of the mean-spirited, evil, anti-gay, Evangelical hater is (mostly) a figment of the imagination created to promote the gay agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – I have a question for you that is really confusing me right now and I promise this has nothing to do with whether I am for or against gay marriage.
You wrote: “the state didn’t stand against gay marriage.
Some cowardly legislators did.”
So in this case the “people” or “state” didn’t stand against gay marriage, some cowardly legislators did, but when it comes to health care and the millions of people who are against the public option you seem to post that it doesn’t matter what the “people” think because it is the legislators who are supposed to create the programs.
It seems to me that in one breath you are saying that the “people” want something but the dumb legislators aren’t smart enough to give them something but in another breath you are saying that the people don’t want something but the really intelligent, brave legislators are giving it to them anyway.
Which is it?
Report comment to moderator
@ 38: Silly question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070501100953AA8XiED
http://www.myspace.com/scottbarnesbeauty
Report comment to moderator
IAF – this is not a healthcare thread, but!
Poll on 10/20 shows clear majority support for the public option:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.02.09 AT 4:46 PM
Pastor Roy – at least some of them aren’t voting in a manner that is consistent with what their constituents want.
—
How do you know that? Do you think that these 38 people may have had ton’s of call from consistent who disagree with gay marriage? (no matter what the polls say) Some may object do to moral issues?
Report comment to moderator
Fortunately, Obama hasn’t been able to make SOCIALISM pass over everyone, so that we are by LAW required to have ‘personal services’ attended to by homosexuals – be it hair, nails, cosmetics, lingerie departments or any other sort of apparel. That of course would include homosexual women as well as men.
Homosexuals are NOT ENTITLED to give any of us assistance if we choose otherwise. What I’ve observed is a DEMAND that homosexuals be given the RIGHT to assist when they are clearly NOT WANTED to do so for a variety of reasons.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
As I said, even if it’s true that Victoria is the world’s worst raging bigot, you haven’t even dented the assertion that TRS made about bigotry being *largely absent* from evangelicalism.
But you keep at it. I find your ideological dry heaves entertaining… in a twisted sort of way.
Report comment to moderator
Every other poll including Gallop and Pew show falling support for a public option and I think you avoided my question.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: case closed. You and the folks of TRS’ acquaintance are clearly approaching evangelicalism from two different paths on this issue. You get props for honesty, if you weren’t making The Witches Of WestAcre Mall story up, that is.
David L., Victoria speaks of her group in plurals “we”, “us”, etc.
She makes it sound like there’s quite a few. And you say of Victoria: “sure we have bigots and she and hers may be too, but that doesn’t mean there’s a LOT” – hilarious!!!
I never said there were a lot. This isn’t about the law, either. It’s about the difference between what TRS wrote at 18, and Victoria’s wild tale, which sounds like some sort of evangelical church lady version of Gentlemen’s Agreement.
I find your pretzel logic defense of her more appealing than actual pretzels!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, 42
Gallup has that at 49% opposed to 44% in favor. This was done 11/30/09.
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Healthcare.aspx
When was your poll done? I’m not saying that it wasn’t recent, I just couldn’t find a date.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I see it in your post, Thomas. It was done 10/20/09. So, is public opinion swinging away? I know that these were two different pollsters…just wondering.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, IAF. This article appeared last Thursday:
Two weeks ago, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asked respondents the main reason they either supported or opposed the health care bills. Among supporters, only 2 percent cited the public option. Among opponents, only 3 percent did so.
It is only when surveys ask about individual elements of the legislation that the public option receives high marks.
For example, a nationwide Quinnipiac poll conducted shortly after the House passed its bill asked: “Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?” Fifty seven percent said they supported the option, while 35 were opposed.
Report comment to moderator
“which sums up the tone and fundamental substance of the entire anti-gay lobby” — Others have already pointed it out, but I just wanted to add my voice and say how ridiculous this is on so many levels.
#22: Why would a woman want a man to help her with make-up? You fail to prove anything about Victoria here. And even supposing you did, how exactly is that going to help you? Victoria isn’t necessarily representative of the “anti-gay” movement.
#26: This is particularly rich. Insulting Victoria’s intelligence because of a few minor grammar issues? I understand the desire to correct grammar, but I have no sympathy with doing so specifically to attack the poster or insult their intelligence. There isn’t a single argument against what she said in there. I think you realize this, and that’s why you specifically pointed out that you didn’t write it. And, there’s the fact that the entire thing is completely ridiculous. You go back two years to quote something out of context, that, even then, fails to actually make any sort of point?
Report comment to moderator
So, I believe that IBF’s question still has merit.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy 12.02.09 AT 4:55 PM
Thomas1 12.02.09 AT 4:46 PM
Pastor Roy – at least some of them aren’t voting in a manner that is consistent with what their constituents want.
—
How do you know that? Do you think that these 38 people may have had ton’s of call from consistent who disagree with gay marriage? (no matter what the polls say) Some may object do to moral issues
Report comment to moderator
When those polls are asked in a more honest, thorough manner, voters, even the 20 somethings, oppose it. Ask them if they want to pay to subsidize healthcare for all, and they will say “no”.
In a similar manner, a simple head count of Americans opinion about homosexual marriage shows that it is not even close.
Oh, I don’t believe in the tyranny of the majority. But I also do not believe in the tyranny of the minority nor the legislature nor the judiciary. Someday, public opinion may swing in your favor, Thomas et. al., but that day is not here.
Report comment to moderator
In my opinion, the homosexualist agenda is deeply destructive.
Everything that is healthy about human civilization depends on strong marriages wherein one man and one woman bond for life and raise their children as their dad and mom together. Distorting and changing the definition of marriage to suit some sexualist group is destructive and devastating to future generations.
In recent years, the left did all it could to destroy the healthiest and most constructive social organization for boys in our time–the Boy Scouts. Countless local Democrat politicans, radical leftist city officials, the NY Times, the ACLU and many other leftist groups and individuals all teamed up to willfully try to destroy the Scouts. Thankfully, they failed.
The left sought to force it’s will on the Scouts by demanding a change in a policy that the Scouts have had in place from their beginning. As Dennis Prager recently wrote; “There is no left-wing Boy Scouts. The left knows best how to crush the non-left Boy Scouts, but it has never made a boys organization of its own.”
These attempts to destroy the very defintion of marriage will not stop. Our only hope is in our moral vigilance! If we can radically redefine marriage for homosexualist aims, why not for polygamist aims too? And then why not for all sorts of alternative sexualist aims? Why not?
Decent Americans need to be well prepared to answer that question; “why not?”
Whenever the homosexualists (those who pursue the radical homosexual agenda, whether they are homosexual themselves or not)encounter opposition, they are often vicious in response to that opposition on one hand (calling it hate, etc.), and prone to whine a lot perceiving themselves as victims on the other hand. That’s been my observation.
Report comment to moderator
This really has gotten boring, though.
Same people, on the same sides of the issues, with the same arguments.
And I am among them…wake me up when it’s over.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – great statement
BrotherDan – wakeup the sky is fallen
Report comment to moderator
TJS Cats@ 51
You’re entitled to your opinion.
re: 22 – That’s not the point. Victoria thinks she is representative of an influential group, which is acting according to evangelical Christian principles. If you disagree, that’s another matter.
re: 26 – The poster was suggesting that the pretentious tone of Victoria’s language, coupled with poor grammar, belied certain things about her and the group she purports to represent. I make no informed judgments in this regard; I’m not a sociologist, as the poster was.
Hope this clears that up.
Report comment to moderator
…sky is falling!
…sky is falling!
…sky is falling!
Now, I need to cross the street to let them know. (That’s why the chicken crossed the street)
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan 12.02.09 AT 5:25 PM
…sky is falling!
…sky is falling!
…sky is falling!
Now, I need to cross the street to let them know. (That’s why the chicken crossed the street)
–
well watch out for the sky as it falls on this side or the road
Report comment to moderator
No, Thomas, this thread is not about health care, but that’s not what IAF was talking about anyway. Not that you’ll answer his question.
Report comment to moderator
Joel-55
I know that I said that this is starting to bore me. But I also know that we cannot sit by and say nothing. I just grow weary sometimes.
I grow weary of being called hateful because I believe God meant what He said in His word.
I grow weary of people telling me that I’m intolerant because I disagree with them and thier intolerance.
It really is starting to boil down to this: do I believe that God is and that He wants fellowship with me? And if I do, do I accept that the Bible is an accurate reflection of His revelation of Himself and how we can have that fellowship? Well, I do. And that determines what I think and do.
Thomas, I want to love you in the Lord. But I do struggle with it. I have noticed that you lead with hateful words to the Christians on this blog. You start out swinging. And I have reacted in kind. I am sorry for that reaction. And I pray that you, one that I believe calls himself by the name of Christ, I pray that you would consider your witness to those here that also call on the name of Christ. Please.
In His name, I ask this, as a weak and broken vessel.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer 12.02.09 AT 5:33 PM
No, Thomas, this thread is not about health care, but that’s not what IAF was talking about anyway. Not that you’ll answer his question
–
is it about the sky is fallen?
Report comment to moderator
BrotherDan – amen
Report comment to moderator
NJL – Thomas won’t give the thread name or LINK – see post my #37 – I wonder why? – who else was posting on that thread?
Report comment to moderator
This Witches if WestAcre Mall business — Is Thomas Lon?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, IAF in #40 asked Thomas a question using two examples. The question is really about the role of the legislature, not health care.
Report comment to moderator
Ignoring Thomas’s ridiculous, pointless side-track:
I’m not sure what this vote solves.
Supporters of traditional marriage “won” this one vote. There will be another, ASAP. If need be, they’ll sneak it through before the people even notice. That’s what, I think, they’ve done in Oregon on a few pro-gay bills.
The supporters of gay marriage like to be poor sports and whine that it doesn’t matter, because eventually traditional marriage will be overthrown despite these small setbacks. I have to say, I’d be surprised if they were wrong.
I think we need a more permanent solution. The entire gay movement is about being accepted. But, they can’t force this. So they disguise it, I think, by pointing out a few duties and privileges given to married couples under the law that they do not have. They say we have no basis for denying them these things. They have a point.
They reason, I imagine, that once they are granted state-recognized “marriage,” in order to give them these rights and duties, they’re lifestyle will be more widely and easily accepted. This is probably true.
Therefore, I’ve been thinking recently that the solution should be to give them what they want: equality under the law. However, instead of promoting them to the status of recognized marriage, we get rid of state-recognized marriage. The rights and duties in question don’t need to be tied to marriage.
Then, they would have no argument. They would be equal under the law, it would be fair, and we would still have marriage as a covenant before God, which is all that really mattered anyway.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer I believe when it comes to gay marriage it should be up to the people to decide. Not legislature, or courts
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 66 – it could be, OR Luke
Report comment to moderator
*their lifestyle.
*smack*
Excuse me, I have to go lecture myself on there/they’re/their.
Report comment to moderator
tjs catlover – God’s Word is clear in the end days man will embrace sin.
Report comment to moderator
The most liberal child expert in the world will tell a single parent that they need to find an opposite gender role model for their children. (Grandpa, Uncle) so clearly it is in the best interest of a child to have two parents of opposite genders.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I agree with you. The courts are not elected, and the legislature is too easily influenced by special interests. Marriage is what it is and redefining a word that has meant one thing for literally thousands of years is outrageous. Bluntly put, they want the rest of us to lie.
Now TJS Catlover’s idea might help me as a single person. It’s not like we have “equality” either. Or renters vs. homeowners. The list is endless really. There’s a lot in “inequality.” I mean, let’s pay taxes based on an individual basis. If I make $20,000, I should pay taxes on that. So should the breadwinner in the family — and it should be at the same rate. Did I tell said breadwinner to get married and have a couple of kids? No. Why should he get deductions that I don’t get? $20,000 is $20,000. That’s equal, no?
Report comment to moderator
As the old judge used to say: it all comes down to money.
Report comment to moderator
#15
So, they are sinful.
Sin apparently means:
“Something I don’t like, but assign to God because it is more impressive and more people are likely to agree with me if I claim I am listening to God.”
As far as I can tell:
“God” is based on dismay at death and relizing that we die without life having any meaning.
A side effect of this dismay is that we look for “scapegoats.”
Sometimes the scapegoats are probably not “sinful” as in the case of homosexuals.
A reasonable alternative to people who think they have a registered trademark on the word “marriage” would to allow homosexuals to have other alternatives such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.
Some scapegoats are probably well characterized as sinful (I prefer evil or unethical) such as Nazis and Communists. Some, such as homosexuals, are no more harmful than the average bear, or Christian for that matter.
However, having “sinful” scapegoats seems to alleviate some people’s need for mortality scapegoats.
Let the scapegoating comments continue. 7,357,210 homosexuals have been convinced to go “straight” by reading comments on worldmagblog since I began to read this web site.
Not only that, 3,107,553 abortions have been prevented by comments posted on worldmagblog in the same period of time.
Post more comments! Faster! Faster! You will live forever if you do!
Report comment to moderator
The acceptance that is required on the homosexual issue is something only the homosexuals can do for themselves. They don’t accept themselves for what they are — different.
Report comment to moderator
#22
Victoria, is it “Homosexual males” that you avoid in cosmetic and women’s clothing sales or would you rather be served by a women in those areas. Would you avoid a straight male while shopping for clothes or cosmetic? Do you avoid “Homosexual males” in the hardware or stero sections or Walmart?
Report comment to moderator
76. Sin apparently means:
“Something I don’t like, but assign to God because it is more impressive and more people are likely to agree with me if I claim I am listening to God.”
If that were true I would take gluttony and gossip off the list, I find both of them rather fun sometimes. .
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd – 78
See my post #44.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, this post isn’t about the law, as you well know. It’s about evangelical behaviors towards gay people, such as the ones TRS described in comment 18, and such as what *you* described doing in comment 22 – perhaps you’d care to address TRS’ comment at 18?
Or do you really think that by choosing to do business only with percieved heterosexuals or depriving gay men of honest labor via a whisper campaign, you’re being:
1) More Christian?
2) An exterminator?
3) A witness for Christ?
4) Converting gay people to heterosexuality?
5) A decent human being?
It would be so interesting to read a post by you that said: “Hey, re-reading that, I’m ashamed of my conduct towards these people. I could have done better. I really need to work on this.”
But it will never happen.
Report comment to moderator
David L. This guy and his “partner” (you can’t be legally married in Indiana) are some of the most friendly people I’ve come across. They recognize me and say a cheerful “hello, welcome” every time I come into the store. They remember me even if I don’t come in for a year. When I bring in my kids, they give them a free book. I have nothing personal against them; in fact, I like them; but, as I told my daughter afterwards, their arrangement is not only “weird” (as she remarked), it’s sinful and terribly displeasing to God. It’s in direct disobedience to His perfect Word. And yes, if they don’t repent they will find themselves on the receiving end of God’s wrath the moment they die.
I find it very sad that your religion makes it impossible for you to celebrate the happiness they have and accept their friendship and regard for the good thing it is, without having to add your “but, they are going to hell” to it.
This is possibly the biggest reason I’m not any kind of conservative Christian. Rather than celebrate the birth of a child to an unwed couple, the conservative Christian has to tsk-tsk over the “sin.” You can’t simply share the remarkable gift of life with homosexuals who genuinely like you, without having to temper any friendship you may feel for them.
And even sadder still that you’re raising your daughter with the same unreasoned prejudice.
Report comment to moderator
@ BrotherDan Thomas, I want to love you in the Lord. But I do struggle with it. I have noticed that you lead with hateful words to the Christians on this blog. You start out swinging.
You are very kind. However, it is not any particular Christian or Christianity that I’m swinging at.
“Debate as contact sport” is one of the characteristics of WMB.
TRS made a statement at 18. I happen to agree with it, mostly.
I had to point out that in the case of at least one group of people connected with this blog that it’s not true. I used a very specific example.
The person who purports to traipse about malls, shops and “Salons” actively seeking to ruin careers of men because she doesn’t like their sexual orientation is clearly ashamed, correctly so. She can’t admit it, so she reduces the hate-filled part of her activity to the idea that it’s not legally required of her to patronize anyone, for any reason. Legally, she is of course correct.
But we all know that’s not the point. And that’s why I come out swinging.
Have a blessed evening BrotherDan. I don’t ant to make it less peaceful with a question, but…
Do you think it’s right to do what Victoria describes doing, and if so, what purpose does it serve?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: You’re forgetting something very important – no one, either male or female is required in any way to have special services, such as hair, manicures, etc., attended to by a homosexual – that isn’t bigotry, it’s a CHOICE.
A choice based on bigotry.
Homophobia, unlike homosexuality, is a choice.
Report comment to moderator
#78 Lloyd,
I don’t like to be distracted by anyone’s blatant display of sexuality—overdone makeup, sexually revealing clothing, too much cologne or perfume, a 6″ gold plated pendant with your boyfriend’s name…. things like that. I don’t go shopping to be lambasted with someone’s sexual crusade, whatever it is. If the person makes me uncomfortable for any reason, I might go to another sales person.
How can you tell if they’re homosexual? Do homosexuals in those jobs wear placards identifying their sexuality?
Report comment to moderator
On its face, Victoria’s #44 is merely arguing for personal freedom to contract for personal services and I don’t see anything wrong with that. Or anything unconstitutional with that either. There is freedom of association which includes the freedom not to associate. She doesn’t force Christianity on anyone. Why should homosexuality be forced on her?
I like it, KBells: can we get rid of sloth, too? No sense in working when we don’t have to.
Report comment to moderator
Nothing wrong with growing weary, Brother Dan. What matters is why we grow weary. If we grow wearyl let it be from well doing!
Report comment to moderator
Conan: what is it you expect? David said he was friendly with these men. He simply explained to his daughter that homosexuality is a sin. And, like all sins, it cuts us off from God and salvation. People don’t go to Hell for being homosexual. People go to Hell for unrepentant sin, and lack of acceptance of Jesus, to cover that sin. Homosexuality can be a part of that. So can any number of other things.
It is doing people a disservice, to say the least, to tell them that a sin they are committing is not a sin. No one said anything about tempering friendships. On the contrary, it would hardly be friendly to lie to these people.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, all the things you describe are pretty much turn offs for most people and won’t be tolerated in most workplaces outside of Hooters, so that’s not really a good answer to Lloyd’s post.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, we’ve put the legalism to bed a few posts ago.
Do you think it’s right to go on a whisper campaign as fully and fulsomely described in #22? You and most Christians on the thread seem to be avoiding that issue like, well, the plague.
Report comment to moderator
Alas that it were so Thomas1. But I can tell you from personal experience that it is not…unfortunately.
Report comment to moderator
What I’m reading is not only a desire to redefine marriage, but a desire to change Scripture as well and a desire to make people feel guilty for their beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with marriage being defined as between a man and a woman. This has been the relationship for families for millenia, since the beginning of time. There has been no other.
Nor is there anything wrong with standing by one’s sincerely held belief that Scripture regards homosexuality as sin. It regards many things as sin, and it calls all of us to face our sin and reject it and mend our ways. No one gets a dispensation from that. No, not one.
Report comment to moderator
I have to tell you Thomas, if you substituted pornography for homosexuality in your “whispering” example, I would expect Victoria to tell me that such a shopkeeper indulged in that activity. I would not want to purchase from such a person. Why would I want to give the shopkeeper money to indulge his sin? What you really want is a Christian witness that turns a blind eye to sin, and you’re not entitled to that.
Report comment to moderator
Whispering, or gossipping on its face is sinful, but warning is not.
Report comment to moderator
I buy from those I choose, they are usually sales associates that I know or business people that I’ve known for some time.
There is no reason for being ashamed of shopping, buying from those who I relate to – it’s a choice. As a “CONDUCT” issue, those who demand counterfeit marriage – ‘in my face homosexuality’ – I don’t have to include that in my shopping experience, – it should be enjoyable for me as the customer, after all it is MY MONEY which I’m spending, I have every right to give the sale to anyone I CHOOSE!
Report comment to moderator
And you can’t say you’ve gotten rid of the legalism when you are asking people to forego their sincerely held beliefs. You want Christians to adopt a secular view of homosexuality, and you are not entitled to that. You want an exception.
Report comment to moderator
#93: I don’t know about that one…
I’m thinking the problem for me would come in if the money were specifically going to Planned Parenthood, or directly to a porn industry, or directly to a gay advocacy group. Not just if the person themselves had ever had an abortion, watched porn, or was gay.
Report comment to moderator
DJ,
I agree, I don’t like blatant displays of sexuality by gays or women. I went to the bank last week and the teller there sits at a desk. She was wearing a very low neckline blouse, I had to keep diverting my eyes from her cleavage and felt very uncomfortable.
And in certain professions, I would request assistance from someone else. I would not get a haircut from a blatantly dressed gay man. My money, my choice, and comfort! Stereo department at Walmart, give me service and I will be on my way.
Report comment to moderator
93, NJL, but we didn’t substitute anything and no one asked you to.
I might also point out that under most evangelical exegeses, homosexuality as an orientation is NOT a sin. Homosexual ACTS are. How does Victoria purport to know what anyone does when the lights are low and she’s not there? For that matter, how do you? (That is, without stretching your substitution so thin that moonlight can be seen through it.)
Pornography is not a good example. Shopkeepers don’t generally wave it about in malls and shops, unless it’s that kind of shop. (Although, you can’t always tell if a guy is gay, either.)
What I really want is a denunciation of idle hate-filled gossip and bigotry. I’m disappointed not to get one from you.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd, you have gotten a haircut from a gay man. Victoria, you have paid commissions to gay people. So have you, NJL.
And you related to them all just fine, simply because you didn’t know.
How does THAT make you feel?
Report comment to moderator
TJS: Conan: what is it you expect? David said he was friendly with these men. He simply explained to his daughter that homosexuality is a sin.
I suppose. I understand you have to see it that way. I just think it’s sad.
Report comment to moderator
Yay, 100! I dedicate that one to Old Hickory.
Report comment to moderator
#89
I have to agree with DJ, I have encounted in outside of Hooters. I don’t return to their business and it’s their loss of my business. If they are just an employee, their boss looses the business and by law can’t do much about it, if they own it, it’s their choice.
Report comment to moderator
Still waiting for the Biblical basis for depriving honest work to someone because they might be sinning when you aren’t looking.
I doubt I’ll ever see that one.
Report comment to moderator
It’s predictable every time a state makes a decision to NOT ALLOW counterfeit marriage – all those who favor homosexuality or are homosexual come out in force to attack those of us who won’t back down – we won’t accept or bless homosexuality OR support it with our money – and that simply means KNOWINGLY buying and doing business with them.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
Not one that flants his homosexuality.
Have I been by a gay man, who knows? And I don’t care.
Report comment to moderator
Whenever we hit triple digits, the icon covers third digit, does everyone have that problem?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, nothing is more predictable than your attempts to, by turns, deflect, deny, and justify your own behavior in this area.
I must confess I know gay people who would never behave in such an unChristlike manner, even towards someone who KNOWINGLY does the things you claim to do to them.
And you know what? I bet if some gay cabal got together and drove you out of a job you loved or a charity you were good at, you’d be the first one shrieking about the injustice of it all.
Report comment to moderator
It’s truly incredible how many people here see no problem with human rights being withheld from a minority group based on popular vote. Most of you should consider yourselves very fortunate that you are part of an overwhelming majority and will never experience state-sponsored bigotry directed towards you.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd,
I have that problem depending on which computer I use and which browser. It’s a pain.
Report comment to moderator
I think shopping is fun, but it certainly wouldn’t be enjoyable if I were to have a sales person in cosmetics female or a male homosexual help me – I’m not interested.
I’m not depriving anyone from anything – I shop to suit myself.
Wonder how long it will take the homosexuals and their pals to TRY and enforce laws, making us buy cosmetics, clothes, etc., from them or we will be fined or go to jail? Take a number, when it’s called the person you get is the one you are BY LAW MADE TO BUY FROM.
Report comment to moderator
Lloyd, yes on the icon issue.
So, only men who act feminine (by your standard) bother you? What about those of them who act feminine but are heterosexual? How about gay Marines?
What about conventionally pretty lesbian women?
Because if it all comes down only to what you’re guessing… my comment at 104 still goes unanswered.
Report comment to moderator
When you are the consumer you have the right to be serviced in a manner that is comfortable to you. If someone doesn’t like a certain sales person, they are certainly entitled to ask for another.
And since Thomas is throwing stories up about the poor homosexual people, and the idiocy they sometimes face, I have a story of my own. I went to a national chain for a haircut, it ends with Cutz. I waited patiently for my turn, and it was rather crowded being Sat. There were 2 women, and an obviously gay male. Well my turn comes and up walks the man. I politely tell the girl at the desk that I would prefer to wait for one of the ladies. She tells me fine, just take a seat and I’ll give you to the next one. As I walk away I hear the man say “It’s probably because I’m Gay.” I stopped, turn around and said to him “Perhaps you shouldn’t be assuming things. Since you have raised the issue, I will tell you why I don’t want you cutting my hair.” “The last 2 people I watched you cut left here looking like Moe from the 3 Stooges, and 1 was a women. My father made me get that haircut when I was a kid and I despised it. So why would I pay for someone to do it now? I then told him maybe he should get over himself just a bit, and took my seat. The next 2 guys in line skipped him too, although I’m not sure why. Perhaps they had overheard the conversation.
See, I control my money, and where I spend it. I still got a haircut and paid for the service, but with someone I was comfortable with. But due to some people thinking everything is about their sexuality, they almost didn’t. Get over yourselves. If it’s only a part of who you are, then stop making it the only one, by defining yourselves by that alone.
Report comment to moderator
111 – Victoria, you also seem to think that gossiping is fun. You like to speculate based on rumor what clerks might be doing in their beds when the mall is closed, and then – based on that speculation – deprive the victims of the gossip of work. Never mind that the manicurist may be lying to save her own job or get a big tip from you.
What fun!!!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, I have never had a haircut from a homosexual man, ever. That’s not because I rejected one because he was a homosexual, but because I have had my haircut by one man who put his knee where he shouldn’t have. Nothing homosexual about him at all.
I have no doubt that I have unknowingly interacted with homosexuals and with pornographers and even with drug addicts. I don’t feel anything about it. But I don’t go the “gay bars” either, ya know?! I have no business there.
Report comment to moderator
Tonight I am NOT experiencing the overlap of the third digit. First time.
Report comment to moderator
AJ – at least your choice was based on *observation* of the person’s abilities to do the job you were paying for.
Report comment to moderator
#109: There we go again, with the “human rights” being “withheld” from homosexuals.
I suppose, if pressed, these “human rights” would turn out to be those same tax and property issues. You’re right, there’s no reason that has to be tied to marriage. This is why I was saying we should get rid of state-recognized “marriage.” Then it’s fair.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: That’s not because I rejected one because he was a homosexual, but because I have had my haircut by one man who put his knee where he shouldn’t have. Nothing homosexual about him at all.
I had that happen too, and I’m sure they guy wasn’t gay, just clumsy or too lazy to move the chair. I didn’t go back to him either.
Any answer to 99 or 104?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas: There is no Biblical reason to shun sinners. Biblically, we’re sinners too. And our example of someone who wasn’t a sinner, (Jesus), spent a good deal of His time with sinners anyway. I suppose He would have chosen to spend time with the sinner over the person who was already saved. How are we to be effective witnesses if we’re not even friendly?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas: You know homosexuals who wouldn’t behave in an unChristlike manner? Really? They are behaving in an unChristlike manner every time they engage in homosexal conduct. Every time. Christ obeyed God, His Father. Again, you pick and choose and seek the exception.
And please don’t tell me they don’t lie cheat and steal, because the homosexual in the office does it all the time, and he gossips, too, worse than any woman, and he needs an awful lot of attention, and if he doesn’t get it, he gets depressed. As AJ points out, they can be incompetent at their job, too.
(AJ, I’m sorry about your haircut as a kid. I got one from a lady barber — my mother told her it was summer and to do what she wanted. She took my long pony tail, cut it off. I went home looking like a boy and washed my hair unde the tub faucet thinking if I watered it enough, it would grow overnight before school. It didn’t. Even my teacher gasped.)
Report comment to moderator
TJS,
Being friendly and cordial is much different than choosing to shop, and allow someone who is most likely a male homosexual to help me with skin care, cosmetics, or clothing. One can be a good example without taking the advice from a homosexual which is not welcome.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of Sin!
Gay-bashing woman humiliated for wearing hideous skirt
Report comment to moderator
Lets look at these verses:
This passage of Scripture is often referred to, however the next verse 20, is overlooked. Jesus upbraided those who did not repent, they stayed in their sins -
Jesus didn’t hang around with prostitutes and tax collectors, —- what Jesus did, was talk with them, as He did with the ‘woman at the well’ — she believed Jesus. The tax collector being Zacchaes, believed Jesus right away, see Luke 19. Many FORGET that it was AFTER they believed that Jesus spent a great deal of time with them. We can see this with Nichodemus, he was a great disciple of Jesus. It was this man and Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus in the tomb.
Report comment to moderator
Oops – wrong link – although that was pretty much sin too!
HERE’S THE LINK I MEANT
Report comment to moderator
TJS,
We will go there again and again with the human rights issue until they are corrected. The fact of the matter is that from the state’s perspective, a marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people that designates next of kin and has some other associated benefits. As long as the state recognizes this relationship for some couples and does not recognize it for other couples, the laws are discriminatory. Anyone who supports this state of affairs is a proponent of state-sponsored bigotry, plain and simple. I suppose your suggestion of eliminating state-recognized marriage entirely is one possible solution.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: One can be a good example without taking the advice from a homosexual which is not welcome.
Good luck with that good example thing, in light of 114.
NJL, that doesn’t answer 99 OR 104, not that I expected you would. Gay people have this funny quirk in that some of them are jerks – just exactly like the rest of us. All the more reason not to gossip ANYONE out of work. This is especially true because we don’t know the sins that others may commit in private.
Do you suppose Victoria is obeying Christ and God when she does this? I mean, she’s doing it in public and confessing it here, so there’s little guesswork to be done.
Report comment to moderator
#121 2NJL – Was Jesus Gay?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe for you, Thomas, but this guy wasn’t “clumsy.”
The principle is the same, pornographer or homosexual. How do I really know the pornographer is a pornographer? I don’t. But I have the choice to avoid someone if I get information that makes the person untrustworthy.
I don’t associate socially with adulterers or drug addicts either. I don’t invite them into my home. I have nothing in common with them. That doesn’t make me a bigot.
There’s a skunk outside the window, and I have to leave this room for a few minutes.
Report comment to moderator
I am to be a good steward of my money – that means I use it wisely, it also means I buy from those who will earn a commission from what I buy, and most likely have a family and live a different life than a homosexual who openly sins. If the sales associates are homosexuals and openly flaunting their lifestyle in my face, especially in cosmetics and clothing, I would NOT BE a good stward of the money GOD has blessed me with, knowing full well that I am helping them.
Report comment to moderator
#128: Is that you, Spinoza, in the video?
Report comment to moderator
Nope – but I agree 100%
Report comment to moderator
Spin –
Who would be surprised at your comments concerning Jesus, Christianity or the Word of GOD – here is just but one of your gems –
Report comment to moderator
Once again, the “rights” of homosexuals should be more or less equivalent to the rights of conservative Christians.
You want to “trademark” or register the word “marriage?” Fine.
Allow homosexuals to have legal arrangements by other terms, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.
You don’t think homosexuals should “convert” your children to be homosexuals? Fine.
People in other cultures, where religions other than Christianity don’t want to allow you to “convert” their children to your religion? Fine with me.
The geese and the ganders can all splash in the same sauce; or go on the same saucy diet.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, I will not grace that with answer. Saying such a thing is despicable. But at least we won’t cut your head off for saying it.
Thomas, I would want Victoria to warn me, yes. For a lot of reasons. Why wouldn’t she protect her friends? (And I’m assuming I am one.) She doesn’t have to hate a homosexual to warn me about him. And as a single woman, I would definitely want to be warned about a lesbian. I have my own reputation to protect. And I’m entitled to do that. I would feel betrayed if she didn’t warn me. The first thing you say is “pornography is not a good example.” Well, sure it is — just not to you because you want something, and what you want is for me to say that I condone homosexuality, and I don’t. And I will not knowingly do anything to advance their agenda. I think it’s wrong, and I think anyone who chooses to support it knowingly endorses sin.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, there’s nothing in what you wrote in 22 about “open” anything.
Here’s some food for thought:
LEV 19:16 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. “‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.
PSA 34:13 Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking lies.
101:5 Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence; whoever has haughty eyes and a proud heart, him will I not endure.
11:9 With his mouth the godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escape.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes, you gotta choose. And I choose the overall good of society in general by not advancing a perverse agenda that seeks to further destroy our society. I may not have children, but I know that it is best for them to have two parents, married, one of each sex. That’s the ideal situation for them. I so vote.
Report comment to moderator
How is she slandering someone when she tells the truth about their homosexuality? Truth is a complete defense to slander.
Report comment to moderator
TIT 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
1PE 2:1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind.
3:10 For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech.
Amen. Good night, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Twisting Scripture doesn’t phase me, I know what the Bible says – trying to make it support homosexual sin is to anyones shame.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, unless someone tells you that they are having sex or does it in front of you, you don’t know what they’re doing. Which is, of course, the point.
Report comment to moderator
You might know what it says, Victoria. But you sure don’t know what it means.
Report comment to moderator
When I was single, I wanted to move into another apartment. A woman whom I had known a very short time asked if I would consider allowing her to be my roomate. I thought it over and decided that might not be a bad idea.
LONG STORY SHORT – one of my friends came to my and told me she was a lesbian – I was shocked, but I listened, and decided she wouldn’t be moving into my apartment.
YES I would warn NJL and anyone else, she is my friend and a Believet in Jesus Christ – I would be NO FRIEND at all if I stayed silent.
Report comment to moderator
REGARDING post 143 – my friend was right -
Report comment to moderator
If I had moved in with that woman my reputation would have been ruined. My job would have been at stake -
Report comment to moderator
#143: Interesting. If I had a someone who wanted to be my roommate who was gay… I think I’d tell them that I was Christian, explain how I viewed homosexuality, tell them I’d certainly be willing to have them as a roommate regardless, and ask them if they’d still want to be my roommate. If they did, I think it could be an excellent opportunity to be a witness, if you’re up for it.
Report comment to moderator
I have the right to assume anything I please, Thomas. It’s still a free country, and I can base my choice to go to this salesperson or that salesperson on a mere whim, believe it or not. And you cannot force me into accepting the homosexual agenda.
Again, the defense to slander is the truth. It is a complete defense. If it is the truth, it is not slander. I fail to comprehend what you don’t understand about that, Thomas. If Victoria is telling me the truth, she is not slandering anyone.
Report comment to moderator
“I heard from a manicurist that so-and-so is gay.” is a pretty flimsy truth, NJL, not to mention difficult to prove absent evidence.
What you fail to comprehend is what Victoria admits to doing in 22, which is spreading gossip and (since she has no way of KNOWING the truth, unless she’s a window-peeper) slander. They’d still get her for peeping, so it wouldn’t do much good.
Report comment to moderator
An agent told me about a man who wanted to list an apartment in his house; he wanted only young women as tenants. What do you think he’s up to, Thomas? Do you really need to see the camera installed or see her raped?
Report comment to moderator
Evidence? I need evidence to decide which manicurist I go to? Really? No, I don’t.
Report comment to moderator
TJS
Being a testimony doesn’t mean you move in with the sin, make it your roomate.
Report comment to moderator
Nor do I need evidence to decide that I’ll hold my purse tighter if the person walking towards me seems suspicious.
Did you ever hear of “reasonable suspicion?”
Report comment to moderator
#128
I find that sentence (didn’t go see the video) horribly, horribly offensive.
Report comment to moderator
#146
You move in with a gay person, What would you when he brought his boyfriend home for the night?
Report comment to moderator
I admit my response to the suggestion TJS was “I’m not up to that.” We are warned not to associate.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Regarding post number 22:
Unless you are big enough to give the THREAD NAME and LINK, your credibility regarding what I wrote, to whom, and in what context is suspicious. You haven’t fooled anyone by AVOIDING to give that information.
Report comment to moderator
#151: It would certainly depend on circumstances and require thought and prayer. But, like I said, the most effective witnesses are friends.
#153: I did watch the video, (mainly to see if that was really the best they had), and it is offensive.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, it’s a sad paranoid world out there in NJ.
An agent told me about a man who wanted to list an apartment in his house; he wanted only young women as tenants. What do you think he’s up to, Thomas? Do you really need to see the camera installed or see her raped?
I think he’s up to stupidly assuming that young women are cleaner than men and more likely to let him make repairs instead of using duct tape on plumbing problems.
Nor do I need evidence to decide that I’ll hold my purse tighter if the person walking towards me seems suspicious.
Well the gay guy working in the mall is only likely to tell you (nicely) that it’s too clunky and suggest a better one.
Did you ever hear of “reasonable suspicion?”
Yes. You’re a cop now?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, if you don’t like your own words and are too lazy to refute them, I can’t help you. Everyone knows you wrote it. Go find the thread yourself and try to explain how you didn’t mean what you said.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
I’m not so sure they are my exact words – if you can’t do a link and a thread name, that’s your problem -
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
I haven’t really thought about it much. I have had male hairdressers. And, I had a make-over once done by a male. And, they may well have been gay.
But, like TJS says, I don’t really have a problem with that so long as the money is going to their salary and I’m not directly supporting some sort of gay agenda, charity, etc. I’m sure it works similarly in reverse. Most gays are fine supporting something I’m doing, but probably don’t want to support a Christ-centered scouting fund-raiser, or my church directly.
I must admit that I would not be comfortable letting a flamboyant gay help me, anymore than I’m comfortable being helped by a woman with her boobs hanging out all over the place, or a man that is trying to be “come on” sexy, or someone who is smoking or obviously high. If you’re going to have a sin (we all do), at least don’t flaunt it in my face.
But, if you’re going to be polite and friendly, and reasonably normal in dress and behavior, then I would let you help me.
I would be friendly (and have) to even the above named people, but I think that people should have intimate things (i.e. make-up, dressing, hair, etc.) done by someone who makes them feel comfortable. So, I don’t really have a problem with Victoria having a choice in who serves her. (And, since she can’t tell who is or isn’t gay unless they’re being flamboyant, then I’d guess we’re somewhat similar on that front.)
We all make such choices all the time. If my mother sees someone handling the money, and they don’t wash their hands, she will not eat at that restaurant. That’s her choice.
But, I also don’t think Victoria is representative of the majority in her attitudes or opinions. I think you threw her in (and went looking for a post from her) just to throw a red herring into the mix.
And, like TJS, I thought the post analyzing her grammar, writing style, etc. was beyond rude and in extremely poor taste.
I happen to be quite educated and did very well in school and I wouldn’t want someone analyzing my posts with such a ridiculous, unfair, and persnickety fine-tooth comb.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, there are laws against discrimination, surely you knew that. This man wants ONLY young women, not women my age.
And your little joke about the purse indicates to me that you’re just about done, you’re grasping.
No, not a cop, just a lawyer. Learned that in law school. Still grasping?
(Victoria, he’s not Lon or Luke, I don’t think.)
Report comment to moderator
TRS sums it up nicely in 161.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I agree, mostly. I don’t want boobs in my investments or a drag queen’s sequins in my salad, for example, but I don’t care what others do in their bedrooms. Mostly because I don’t know and am unwilling to speculate about it. I think that you and I agree that perverse, gossip-fueled speculation on private sexual proclivities is not the same as *seeing* someone not wash their hands or give a bad haircut.
As for Victoria, I posit that she’s not quite as much of a red herring as you might think. You are the first person here who claims to be a Christian who’s disagreed with her, besides myself.
You may have read quickly, but I didn’t provide the critique of Victoria’s writing style, etc. The person who did (on another site) was speculating as to what sort of person does what Victoria claims to do, and was using those things as cues.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, reasonable suspicion applies to police detention. Clutching your purse and pearls are precautions you take when you think that you might be the victim of a crime. Age discrimination is indeed illegal in housing.
And you’re the one who’s grasping, because NONE of that applies to gossipy biddies depriving people of work based on speculation/rumors they get from those people’s co-workers or eachother. Your attempt to turn the subject was met with gentle, but appropriate derision.
It’s sad, really, how unBiblical and unChristian comment 22 is.
But some of you will do and say anything to justify the sin it represents.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
“(Victoria, he’s not Lon or Luke, I don’t think.)”
Agreed – however I do believe I know who it is.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: She doesn’t have to hate a homosexual to warn me about him. And as a single woman, I would definitely want to be warned about a lesbian.
“Warned” about what? That you might get the gay cooties if so-and-so does your hair or sells you shoes?
I have my own reputation to protect.
Your reputation is quite secure. It’s just probably not quite the reputation you think it is.
Report comment to moderator
#134 – “Once again, the “rights” of homosexuals should be more or less equivalent to the rights of conservative Christians.”
Should the “rights” of polygamists and polyamorists (all consenting adults potentially “in love”) be more or less equivalent to the rights of conservative Christians?”
After all, “equal rights” does NOT mandate or mean changing the definition of marriage. That would be a non-sequiter.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – “Saying such a thing is despicable. But at least we won’t cut your head off for saying it.”
Ah your characteristic grace speaks again for itself.
Report comment to moderator
Comments on this thread are distinguished for articulating a level of homophobia that is unusually high even by WMB standards!
Congratulations girls! I leave you with Miss Manners comment in today’s Washington Post:
“A gentleman of Miss Manners’s acquaintance was once subjected to a barrage of unwarranted insults. Outraged on his behalf, she asked why he did not trouble to defend himself.
His reply (and please forgive the inelegance for the sake of vividness) was: “If someone is throwing up on you, you get out of the way. You do not stay around to examine what is coming up.”
There is nothing you can say to people who, whatever they may think, see fit to hurl crude insults…
A stiff “I’m sorry you feel that way” is all you can utter before turning your back.”
NJL and Victoria – I’m sorry you feel that way.
Report comment to moderator
To come in briefly on this, when I moved into this house I made a $1,000-plus purchase of furniture from a man I knew was homosexual, and didn’t blink. I wanted what he and his “partner” were selling, the quality was good, and except for their seeming to go out of their way to let a different customer in the store know about their relationship, they were professional.
However, I don’t want a man doing my makeup or otherwise interacting with me in an “intimate” way, whether he is homosexual or not. And I’m not going to want him to give me advice about clothing; I simply go to a woman for womanly things. But NJ Lawyer is right, that if I know a woman is a lesbian, as a single woman I’m going to be extra cautious with that one as well, lest that woman or other people get the wrong idea. And I wouldn’t want her living in my house, because I’d be constantly worrying about having to be fully dressed, not doing anything to give her the wrong idea, and especially not doing anything to give the neighbors the wrong idea. But honestly, I don’t want a roommate in my house who’s involved in any sort of sexual sin (or other open sin); I want someone who can be a friend and engaged in mutual edification.
Report comment to moderator
Miss Manners has less to do with manners than with selling newspapers. We are not amused. Shop your morals someplace else.
Report comment to moderator
#173 – is not
Report comment to moderator
er wait, let me rephrase that in the lingo of which you are so fond.
THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MEN. IT WAS NOT … I REPEAT … NOT WRITTEN BY GOD
Report comment to moderator
Spin
You can post whatever you like – this I KNOW:
The Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God – you don’t have to believe it, but I DO, and so do others who are Believers in Jesus Christ.
You spend a lot of time here Spin, but what have you accomplished? – why not spend it on a blog that agrees with your agenda?
Report comment to moderator
“this I KNOW:”
You think you know, and you are wrong. The Bible is clearly not inerrant. And there’s every evidence it was written by the men, sometimes (but not too often) even by the same ones who claimed to have written it, and not by a Deity.
Why post on a blog with people who already agree with you? Where is the “accomplishment” in that?
I don’t really spend a lot of “time” writing here, anyway – and I believe my posts have the typos to prove it!
Report comment to moderator
#164: I think you’re inventing your opponents. TRS is not the only Christian to disagree with your portrayal of what Victoria said: NJL agreed with TRS in #163, Cheryl gave her opinion in #171, I have been saying so all along (look again at #97 and #120), and even Victoria herself hasn’t been defending that position. To clarify: gossiping about and shunning homosexuals is WRONG, with the note that you always have the right to buy from or accept help from people who make you comfortable. (TRS said it well in #161.)
You’re making up straw men. #22 is your post. Victoria isn’t the one saying these things. You quoted it, you interpreted it, you extrapolated on it, and then you attacked it, all without noting that no one here is advocating what you describe, and ignoring any possible context for a quote that you dug up from some ancient thread. It was an attempt to derail the thread, and it worked. Or, at least, you were trying to attack the Christian viewpoint by making it out to be paranoid and damaging, with the side effect of derailing the thread.
Report comment to moderator
How in the world is it that a guy like Thomas1 can’t be sensitive to other people’s choices without calling names and hurling fatuous accusations? No one individual deprives a homosexual man or woman of a job by choosing another salesperson, roommate or hairdresser. I used to live in an urban neighborhood where the homosexuals painted their front doors shades of pink or lavender and were proud of who they were.
I get plenty of bad vibes from all kinds of people I’d rather avoid, so I do. And so do homosexuals. I woman I worked with was refused as a tenant for an apartment by lesbian staff members of the Empire State Pride Agenda who only wanted homosexual tenants. Do you think she could have made a federal case of that as reverse discrimination? The preference door doesn’t always swing both ways.
This nonsense of demonizing specific posters only discredits those who are so thin-skinned they can’t stand the truth.
Report comment to moderator
SPIN
So what you are saying is that liberals should post here and conservatives should go to a liberal blog and post there?
Then who would you “debate” with?
Report comment to moderator
Actually, as proved when standing in the Palin line on Tuesday, Conservatives like to talk to people who are like minded. We discussed how it feels to post on a liberal blog. The liberals get really nasty. I think you know what I am talking about.
Being told we are stupid just because we believe in the Bible. Or being called stupid because we don’t side with liberals is wrong. (There are many ways to call someone stupid without actually saying the word stupid. As many liberals have shown on this blog.)
Why go to a liberal blog when we get plenty of bashers coming here to post?
From what I surmised from speaking to other bloggers the other day, they do go to Liberal blogs but there is not much debating there, mostly bashing. What kind of person purposely goes into an alley when they see a gang lurking there?
Report comment to moderator
#181 was for SPIN – (as well as this post)
Also, why do you come here to tell us NOT to believe in the Bible. The Bible is what we try to use as our compass in life.
BIBLE – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
Albeit we sometimes don’t do a very good job, but don’t bash us for believing in it.
Since you don’t believe in the Bible, what book(s) do you use as your guide in life?
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L #139
Thank you for your post
Report comment to moderator
AJ #113
Good story. Thanks for sharing.
Report comment to moderator
It will be interesting to see if Obama upholds his support of the gay community by putting a law thru to override what each state decides about gay marriage. If he wants to stay in good graces with certain countries around the world, he may not take part in passing a law for gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #172
Good story. Thanks for sharing.
Report comment to moderator
TRS #159
good points
Report comment to moderator
Is the LIBERAL BIBLE Miss Manners?
Should we be reading Miss Manners every morning to get our words to live by for the day?
Report comment to moderator
IAF #40
Good point!
Report comment to moderator
N2M,
That reminds me of when I was teaching my boys about the importance of writing thank you letters for the Christmas presents they had received in the mail from various people. They were complaining that their friends didn’t write thank you letters, why do they have to, etc. They were used to referencing things from the Bible, and one of them said “Where does it say you have to write thank you letters?” But I was ready for them; I whipped out a large volume of Miss Manners and showed them. Their mouths fell open. It was a real eyeopener that there could be so many etiquette rules for everything. They still laugh about it today.
Some have difficulty discerning social etiquette which helps people of different social traditions live together with a minimum of misunderstanding and violence, from the real principles by which we live.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
“pretentious tone of Victoria’s language, coupled with poor grammar”
You have the nerve to talk about tone?
Just like you to always tell people their grammar is lacking. Who died and made you the Grammatical Police?
And what does grammar have to do with homosexuality? Are you saying that all people who have “poor grammar” are anti-gay?
Report comment to moderator
N2ML Conservatives like to talk to people who are like minded.
Of course they do. Then they don’t have to deal with any challenges to their positions. The echo chamber, in which everyone affirms what you say and says the same thing back, is comfortable and warm, but leads to very little expanding of the mind.
From what I surmised from speaking to other bloggers the other day, they do go to Liberal blogs but there is not much debating there, mostly bashing.
And the same doesn’t happen here?
Report comment to moderator
DJ #190
What does Miss Manners say about belittling people and calling them names?
Even Obama tells his followers to “get in their face” if they disagreee with you. One actor was videotaped saying “drag them”. I got this chilly feeling he wasn’t kidding. Letterman is praised for his extramarital affairs. Clinton set the example for people in public office who have affairs not to leave public office because they can still be trusted. These things are ok?
I don’t think people should say bad things to anyone. But if I believe that homosexuality is wrong, I should not be dragged into submission because someone screams “oh the humanity!”
Personally I think that many homosexuals don’t want to get married, just as many heterosexuals are not getting married. But there are some homosexuals with another agenda–and it isn’t about marital rights.
Did anyone think that there might be homosexual partners who are secretly voting against homosexual marriage so they don’t HAVE to marry their partners? Once it passes, there will be many partners dragged to the altar. Then we will have statistics on gay divorces. Then we can argue whether they got divorced because they are gay or not?
We believe that homosexual sex is a sin. We believe that having sex outside of marriage is a sin. We believe that having the wrong sexual thoughts is a sin–hence avoiding women with exposed parts. (Yes, women still wear such clothing to church. It is sad that we don’t tell them NOT to wear such clothing.)
We as Christians do NOT believe that we are without sin. But we must at least TRY to do the best we can to avoid sin.
Report comment to moderator
This thread shows something that I’ve long been told: evangelicals are not close readers.
How else do we explain comments like TJS at 178, which clearly shows a lack of reading of the comments referenced?
Facts:
In # 18, TRS announced that discrimination against gays in business was not prevalent.
In # 22, Victoria outlined the steps that she and her friends take to discriminate against them and cost them work. It involves salacious, prurient speculation about what guys who work in stores do when they aren’t working. It’s a vile, bigoted tactic of discrimination – assuming she’s telling the truth. Frankly, I have a hard time picturing it outside of the 1950s, but certainly some parts of the country seem stuck there. The point is, she admitted doing it and no one rebuked her for it.
#22 is not an interpretation of what Victoria said. It’s a direct quote. She does not deny it. The only person who said s/he disagreed was TRS, which is not exactly a denunciation. No one else denounced it. Instead, we got legalism about how no one can be forced to be served by anyone – which is true, as far as it goes, but doesn’t address the REAL issue.
Then we have News2Me, who we know is not a close reader. She read # 26, and falsely attributed it to me despite several discussions showing that I merely quoted it.
Then this: And what does grammar have to do with homosexuality? Are you saying that all people who have “poor grammar” are anti-gay?
No. But prejudice, bigotry and ignorance are inextricably linked. In the case of what Victoria wrote at 22, this was pointed out by someone other than myself.
Report comment to moderator
From Overheard in NY – very apt:
Daughter: I’m just thinking out loud.
Mother: Well, don’t. Keep it in your head.
Daughter: But mom, it’s the only way I can include you in my thoughts.
Mother: That’s okay.
Daughter: But mom, don’t you want to be smart?
Mother: No, I’m okay the way I am.
–Kew Gardens Road & Union Turnpike
Report comment to moderator
CONAN (are you a librarian?)
Actually if you read my posts you will see that I clarified WHY we do not go to liberal blogs. Liberals do not “debate”. You either agree with what they are saying, because they are smarter than you, or they call you names.
I knew someone I would have sat down with to discuss his being a Democrat–he is dead. Other than him I have yet to meet anyone who can understand the conservative reasoning. And when we come to an impasse, you belittle me. I’ve had enough of that growing up. I can CHOOSE the company I keep now.
See that is what a liberal can’t seem to understand. You think I should keep the company YOU CHOOSE for me. Because I can LEARN MORE from liberals. WHY? And we are back to the “because it’s obvious from your posts that you need to learn something”.
Hence my analogy about going into an alley knowing there are thugs lurking to beat me up. Now THAT would be a STUPID person.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas #194
I am so totally sorry and I humbly apologize for misquoting you.
I am totally humbled by a “close reader” such as yourself.
Please forgive me. I cannot go on in life, or at least today, until you forgive me.
I am always humbled by your liberal grace at these most humble blogs.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas #194
I am happy that you have found someone you can agree with when they state,
“prejudice, bigotry and ignorance are inextricably linked.”
If you quote it and agree with it, can we also attribute it to you? Besides we have seen previous posts about your lack of patience for any Conservative grammar that does not meet with your standards.
Report comment to moderator
News2Me – Thanks! You’ve made my day to the full extent that someone on a blog can. I do forgive you and note your newfound humility. Carry on!
Report comment to moderator
SPIN #175?
Thank you clarifying that about the Bible–we’ve never heard that before.
We believe in God and His Word, which happens to be the Bible. We quote the Bible, just as liberals quote their favorite books.
Just because we quote the Bible, it makes us look like we can’t read? Is that the reason we are called stupid? I accept that.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Thomas writes and makes me laugh: “NJL, reasonable suspicion applies to police detention.”
Well, sorry I can’t stop laughing.
Report comment to moderator
#190 N2M,
I don’t think any of us are paying too much attention to Miss Manners unless she happens to agree with us.
I’m just not that interested in what people are doing in their bedrooms unless they start to promote it publically—as in legalizing homosexual ‘marriage’ , wearing the 6″ gold plated pendants, cross-dressing buffoonery, and such. Then it is no longer a private but a public matter
Report comment to moderator
Today’s newspaper says NJ is next. We’ll see.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – The homosexual community’s initial arguments for greater tolerance by the wider society seems to have been something of a ruse. Many of us thought that tolerance included the right to offer negative or positive judgments and the ability of anyone to shape policy consistent with those judgments.
After the Prop 8 was approved, thousand of its opponents protested in a number of venues including in front of the Mormon Temple in L.A. and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church. Their rage and anger towards Mormons and Evangelicals was palpable.
Don’t you see an irony by those who speak so often of tolerance and understanding using the occasion of a political loss to unleash a torrid of vitriol that no one would ever confuse with tolerance and understanding if the perpetrators were burning crosses.
They seem to see failures in legislating same-sex marriage as a grave injustice, but their tolerance evaporates in hissy fits.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
You’ve posted many times on this thread. You even quoted scripture to make your point about gossip and slander. That’s good, however I notice you didn’t quote scripture with regards to what it says about homosexuality. You’re being selective in what you quote to fit your agenda.
You claim to worry about slander and gossip, yet I’ve seen no rebuke from you to Spinoza, only Victoria and NJL. His link was offensive, slanderous, and gossipy. Yet you didn’t even flinch about it, because he’s on your side of this issue. He infered a profane insult on Christ. And you said nothing. You cannot serve 2 masters. You will love one, and despise the other. It’s time to make a choice. Is God your master, or does your agenda rule you? You can’t serve both. I was a drunk, a druggy, and a womanizer. But I have a new master now. Not He, or his people, would stand by and let me continue to worship those things. They would, and did, point out my errors, as He required them to do. Who or what will you serve? And if you don’t choose God, at least be consistent. Slander and gossip are wrong no matter who does it.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Diaz is a straight-shootin’ politician. I’m amazed that he rebuked Eric Adams’ disingenuous BS. You can tell a man’s politics by the religion he keeps and vice versa.
Report comment to moderator
205:
Not if you’re a situational ethics relativist.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – bigotry is not tolerable. No one needs to tolerate it.
AJ – I was uncomfortable with Spinoza’s comment – not germane, insulting to Christ and all that. But it was one out of many in this thread and I guess I missed responding. So, Spin, let’s try not to insult Christians, okay?
I didn’t quote scripture on homosexuality for several reasons. One is that it isn’t the basis of our jurisprudence. If it was, unbelivers wouldn’t have to be subject to the law, and I know that isn’t what we all want.
Another is that scripture on homosexuality is subject to various exegeses and interpretations. We ALL agree that slander and gossip are bad. We don’t all agree on what scripture says about gay people and how they should be treated.
As for your comment on choice, I put forth that it’s a false dichotomy. Being a drunk, drug abuser and womanizer is no good for anyone, and I’m glad you stopped, for your health if nothing else.
But I think that a choice between loving God and loving your fellow man is not the same thing at all. In fact, both need to be done.
I love Victoria and her Legion of defenders. I just hate their sin.
Report comment to moderator
wow the place got hopping
Report comment to moderator
208:
By what measure can one make such a claim? It is unquestionable to many people that universal absolutes don’t exist. However, regional absolutes do become necessary to prevent those regrettable instances when pedestrians try to occupy the crosswalk at the same time and space as the bus barreling down the street. But, when it comes to matters of behavior, who’s to say one behavior is better than another? Do you realize that you are glorifying and honoring God with those words? God bless you! This is why God wrote in Romans 2:14 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:” Amazing! Even though they deny God, they do by nature what is required by the law. God gets the glory even when pagans obey His laws out of their own ignorance. TGBTG!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
I didn’t quote scripture on homosexuality for several reasons. One is that it isn’t the basis of our jurisprudence. If it was, unbelivers wouldn’t have to be subject to the law, and I know that isn’t what we all want.
Another is that scripture on homosexuality is subject to various exegeses and interpretations. We ALL agree that slander and gossip are bad. We don’t all agree on what scripture says about gay people and how they should be treated.
–
The problem is God’ Word is clear on homosexuality , but we have a group who have redefine God’s Word in order to meet their world view. So they can avoid dealing with sin inside their churches.
Thomas1 I would encourage you to look at God’s Word from Genesis to Revelation, you will see that God has not change His views on homosexuality, sin and marriage. Also look at Church History an see what past Christian Teachers, Theologians, Pastor and Leaders have said about God’s Word and God’s views on homosexuality, sin and marriage.
Report comment to moderator
CCC; By what measure can one make such a claim?
Alcoholism and drug abuse cause mental and physical health problems, destroys lives and relationships, and culminates in homelessness and death.
Womanizing is a bit more sticky. But in general, it involves deception. We generally think that lying is wrong and hurts people’s feelings and wastes their time.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, As long as your words agree with God’s Word, God gets the glory! Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
CCC 12.03.09 AT 10:41 AM
Thomas1, As long as your words agree with God’s Word, God gets the glory! Thank you.
–
an what happen when someone words do not agree with God’s Word
Report comment to moderator
214: Pastor Roy; an what happen when someone words do not agree with God’s Word
The record of God’s Chosen People in the Old Testament gives clear evidence what’ll happen; destruction, exile. It’s unpleasant. A good definition if insanity is, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
Report comment to moderator
CCC 12.03.09 AT 11:00 AM
214: Pastor Roy; an what happen when someone words do not agree with God’s Word
The record of God’s Chosen People in the Old Testament gives clear evidence what’ll happen; destruction, exile. It’s unpleasant. A good definition if insanity is, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
–
I believe we are starting to see this play out in the Christian Circle’s today
Report comment to moderator
Until I see the LINK for the post in question, #22 and the thread name, I’m not going to concede that it is my post – the reason for this is ….. there must have been an interesting exchange, but the most curious is WHO WAS IT WITH, what is the name of the poster? – who is/was Thomas1?
There is a REASON why the information has not been posted – GEE I wonder what it could be?
The GAME IS OVER!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – you lose.
You lose this debate.
You lose the opportunity to be a better Christian.
You lose the opportunity to recant your horrible behavior.
It was you. Your writing is like a signature. Everyone knows it was you.
Go to the archive and pull the thread yourself, if you need to.
But we all know better.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas said,
“As for your comment on choice, I put forth that it’s a false dichotomy. Being a drunk, drug abuser and womanizer is no good for anyone, and I’m glad you stopped, for your health if nothing else.
But I think that a choice between loving God and loving your fellow man is not the same thing at all. In fact, both need to be done.”
Correct. However my point still stands. What I engaged in, the Bible clearly calls sin. My Christian brothers and sisters called me on it, as God commands. Sometimes they were a bit harsh, but sometimes that is necessary. It was with me.
The point is that sin is sin. Gay people don’t get to avoid the consequences of theirs, just like I couldn’t my own. You are not loving someone if you allow it to continue, while sitting quietly and ignoring it. The Bible is clear on what sin is. It is the standard. My wife loved me enough to demand I stop, as did others, because they loved me enough to speak up about the harm I was doing myself, and others. Their love of God, His Word, and me, required that they help me overcome. They would not have been faithful to God, His Word, or me, had they ignored it. That is loving your brother. Allowing it to continue is not.
Report comment to moderator
N2M: Letterman is praised for his extramarital affairs.
By whom???
A lot of people have chosen to not hold it against him. I’m not aware of anyone who has “praised” him. At the risk of placing an unfair burden on you, can you show me a source documenting any praise?
Report comment to moderator
Back to the NY senate’s vote, which was at one point the subject of this thread: A couple of good comments from National Review Online:
By an unexpectedly lopsided margin, the New York Senate voted thumbs down to gay marriage in New York, 38 no to 24 yes. Every Republican senator voted against it, as did one-quarter of Democrats.
This is a huge victory. As Brian Brown, NOM’s executive director, just said, this win “puts the nail in the coffin of the idea that gay-marriage advocates can persuade a majority of Americans their cause is just.” (Full disclosure: The National Organization for Marriage spent $600,000 in advertising, automated calling, and other voter outreach over the last few months in New York alone.)
The debate was also lopsided: a remarkable display of self-indulgence, tone-deafness and hubris on the part of gay-marriage advocates. Many senators suggested people who see marriage as a male-female union are like slave owners or segregationists. They compared themselves to Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, and even Nelson Mandela. Sen. Suzie Oppenheimer upped the ante by suggesting the hate and intolerance of those of us who think marriage is the union of husband and wife is akin to the Nazism that killed her husband’s family.
This kind of disrespectful treatment of diverse views on gay marriage really needs to stop. Now. Today.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGE0NjIyOGQ3NTllNDRiNWM0ZWYyMjQ0NTc4YmNiNTM=
Contrary to what some people (like those predicting the vote count in the New York Senate this morning) seem to think, same-sex marriage is not a “no brainer.” The very notion cuts against the deeply rooted sense of most people that marriage is about something more than adult desires. That sense, I believe, is at the root of the continuing series of no votes on same-sex marriage in the states where there’s been a popular election, in a number of court decisions (New York, Maryland, Washington), and now in the New York Senate.
That is why the marriage redefinition push has relied so strongly on the inevitability claim — to overwhelm legislators’ and voters’ qualms about same-sex marriage with a fear that they will be labeled bigots. The leader of the Human Rights Campaign reacted to today’s vote with this inevitability talking point: “The senators who voted against marriage equality today are on the wrong side of history, but the history of marriage equality will not end with today’s vote.”
Again and again, the inevitability claim has been rebutted by reality, but it is a tenacious idea, at least partially because it appeals to the cult of novelty that holds sway among media elites. That’s why every “setback” for gay marriage is proclaimed a “shocking” development even though each is just a repeat of something that’s happened over and over again.
In fact, the Northeastern experiment with same-sex marriage is looking ever more isolated, and that’s good news for marriage.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGRiZTc1MWVmZGU3ZjJiZWE0ZTY0NjMxZWEyYzU4YWQ=
Report comment to moderator
N2M: CONAN (are you a librarian?)
Ha! No, but there’s a story behind it. The movie “Conan The Barbarian” came out when I was in high school, and some friends and I made a list of puns on the name. Conan the … librarian, grammarian, Rotarian, etc. I was an avid reader and could usually be found in the school library when not in class, so one of my friends called me “Conan The Librarian” for the rest of the school year.
So, just a silly nickname but it works for an online handle.
Actually if you read my posts you will see that I clarified WHY we do not go to liberal blogs. Liberals do not “debate”. You either agree with what they are saying, because they are smarter than you, or they call you names.
Well, I’m just saying there’s nothing unique to liberals about that. Try going to Red State or Little Green Footballs as a liberal and see how much reasoned debate vs. sheer hostile insult you get. This is one of the few blogs I’ve participated in, conservative or liberal, where some reasonable debate goes on without devolving to namecalling.
I knew someone I would have sat down with to discuss his being a Democrat–he is dead. Other than him I have yet to meet anyone who can understand the conservative reasoning. And when we come to an impasse, you belittle me. I’ve had enough of that growing up. I can CHOOSE the company I keep now.
I don’t mean to belittle you or anyone. I do, I admit, sometimes give in to temptation and say something condescending, but I hope not too often.
See that is what a liberal can’t seem to understand. You think I should keep the company YOU CHOOSE for me. Because I can LEARN MORE from liberals. WHY? And we are back to the “because it’s obvious from your posts that you need to learn something”.
Don’t we all need to learn something? All of life is learning. I think it’s value to engage in discussion with people you don’t agree with, because if you only talk to people you do agree with, you’ll never hear good arguments for any other ideas.
Report comment to moderator
AJ, you mention that they were harsh.
Did they conspire behind your back to deprive you of work? Did they gossip about your most intimate sexual behavior? Did they organize a group of people to determine if you’d beaten your sin or not? Did they undermine your efforts at recovery by doing all these things even when you were not actively sinning?
There’s a difference between intervening in a loved one’s addictive, health-destroying addictions, and dirty speculation about shop clerks followed by depriving them of work, correct?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – Did they conspire behind your back to deprive you of work? – The GLBT Community did that out in CA to those who stood in their way.
Report comment to moderator
Great point Pastor Roy.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 12.03.09 AT 12:26 PM
Great point Pastor Roy.
-
what thomas and other forget is all the hate on the other side of the issue.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, there’s a difference between a public boycott and the sneaky dirty gossip campaign that Victoria described starting and participating in, right?
I do hope you see that.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.03.09 AT 12:30 PM
Pastor Roy, there’s a difference between a public boycott and the sneaky dirty gossip campaign that Victoria described starting and participating in, right?
I do hope you see that.
–
Thomas – cutting tires, break car windows, stores windows, spray painting on churches and stores and homes. Tell people boss they need to fire someone because they stood in the way of the GLBT Community. This goes beyond a public boycott .
Report comment to moderator
Really, Pastor Roy?
Can you verify the extent of this gay crime wave?
And does it justify Victoria’s conduct?
And which came first?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.03.09 AT 1:32 PM
Really, Pastor Roy?
Can you verify the extent of this gay crime wave?
It was report in many Christian news shows.
It was report in yes foxs news
Thomas I can tell you at one job I worked at a gay man made it clear he was going to get me fired because I was a minister. The end result he was fires then yelled as he was living I will be back. He came back tell everyone that all he did was to make one phone call to the GLBT Community and they company was told to rehire him or get sued. He was rehired for about 3 months, then he did something, that they could fire him on again.
And does it justify Victoria’s conduct? No
And which came first? it does not matter.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: And does it justify Victoria’s conduct? No
_______________________________________
So you think she was wrong to do what she did? If so, why? I mean, Leviticus calls for gays to be put to death, and under Victoria’s method, they only get slandered and lose work. She might think they’re getting off easy by Biblical standards.
Report comment to moderator
I’m curious.
How do Christians of this kind (like on this thread) believe an effective witness of the Good News of Jesus Christ should be made to homosexuals?
And
For Homosexuals (or others who feel maligned by Christians), What kind of approach (from an individual Christian) would help you be inclined to sincerely consider what they believe about Jesus Christ?
Report comment to moderator
fisherman 12.03.09 AT 1:41 PM
I’m curious.
How do Christians of this kind (like on this thread) believe an effective witness of the Good News of Jesus Christ should be made to homosexuals?
–
As a dear friend of mine who is gay told me just talk to us.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
Your comments are starting to sound rather fixated on one poster—for no real reason. Who a person gives their business to when they shop is a PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Period. There is no Biblical or moral injunction either way.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.03.09 AT 1:40 PM
Pastor Roy: And does it justify Victoria’s conduct? No
_______________________________________
So you think she was wrong to do what she did? If so, why? I mean, Leviticus calls for gays to be put to death, and under Victoria’s method, they only get slandered and lose work. She might think they’re getting off easy by Biblical standards
—
Thomas I can not answer for Victoria’s comment, just like you can not answer for musing comments. The issue of Leviticus is a simple issues the Old Testament Law was written for the Jewish People. In order to be under the Old Testament Law you had to convert to Judaism. The Old Testament Law was like a slave master very stricked. Now When Christ died on the Cross, He took away the slave master and open the door for grace. The sinful behavior that the Old Testament Law is still sin but the stricked punishment was replaced with forgiveness through Christ.
Thomas, I want to ask you a question you can answer it if you want to or not. Are you gay or do you have someone close to you who is gay? I am trying to understand where you are coming from.
Report comment to moderator
#232 How do Christians of this kind (like on this thread) believe an effective witness of the Good News of Jesus Christ should be made to homosexuals?
Fisherman,
I would think the same way effective witness is made to anyone else: to care about them as human beings. We are, after all, more than our sexuality. Homosexuals are not another species; they’re just people who are supporting a perversion. I expect that many feel rejected as human beings, which is probably a side effect of identifying themselves primarily (or being identified) with that particular perversion. But they are no further beyond God’s redemptive power than anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, you’ve missed the point entirely.
No one here ever argued that anyone be compelled to do business with anyone. When I need religious materials, I’m certianly not going to a shop catering to evangelicals. I won’t find what I need, most likely, and I don’t want to support their sin.
What I will NOT do is engage in a sneaky, prurient gossip campaign to deprive evangelicals of work in their chosen fields. And that’s where Victoria and her apologists part company with me. They think it’s okay to do that to gay folks.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t go about telling everyone I know, who is and who is not a homosexual – the person who is fixated on this idea, is just that FIXATED.
We as Believers can share the Gospel with anyone – however when people tell me they aren’t interested, I don’t go any further with it in my 3D world. The blog is much different because we discuss doctrine, politics, and many other subjects.
The verse below is explicit as to how we are to handle those who either aren’t interested, or who have chosen to go another way, perhaps have left Christ.
There isn’t even ONE passage of Scripture where the LORD Jesus Christ ran after anyone who didn’t want to follow HIM or believe in HIM for Salvation – This is true of all the Apostles as well.
None of us as Believers, are required to placate sin, or indulge those who are fixated upon those of us who choose not to associate with them in any way.
Report comment to moderator
Fail. Epic, total Fail.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.03.09 AT 4:47 PM
Fail. Epic, total Fail.
?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, Fail is an internet slang term to describe an obvious failure.
I was referring to Victoria’s denial of her self-described behavior. She was either lying then (which I hope) or is lying now.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 12.03.09 AT 5:01 PM
Pastor Roy, Fail is an internet slang term to describe an obvious failure.
I was referring to Victoria’s denial of her self-described behavior. She was either lying then (which I hope) or is lying now.
–
thank you I did not know that
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1
Accusing me of lying is against the rules within WMB – you’ve run your course as far as personal attacks, either you stop, or I am going to report you – that is if some of the others haven’t already done so.
Report comment to moderator
Go right ahead and report away, Victoria.
I’ll produce the link and post to the moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Alright, I’m kind of embarrassed that I didn’t do this before.
Thomas, I looked through the archives for January 2008, and December 2007 for good measure. I did not find the “quote” you referenced in #22. So, until further notice, I don’t believe that it ever existed.
For this entire thread, I’ve wondered why Thomas would have gone back two years, find some random quote from Victoria, of all people, blow it up into a huge deal, and then refuse to mention where exactly he got it from.
Now I’m wondering if perhaps he didn’t make it up, or at least disguise where it came from to prevent a fact-check. What’s that, Thomas? You insist it does exist? Prove it, why don’t you. I looked for it and didn’t find it.
Report comment to moderator
POST the LINK Thomas1 – I think all of us would like to see the thread you have been playing with, LOL – your threatening to post the thread if you’re reported is a HOOT!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas – Calm down, please. There is no “there” there! Victoria hasn’t gossiped, slandered or conspired to deprive anyone of making an honest living. It’s your hyperventilating on a perceived issue that’s more like slandering Victoria. Get a grip.
There is nothing to your accusations except in your own mind. And before you make snarky insults to me, reconsider how you come across and read carefully the comments who know you’re making a mountain out an imagined molehill. No slights, no accusations, no ulterior motives, just a different way of living one’s life.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t see it either Thomas. I didn’t search every single story, but I did look. Please post the title or link and maybe we can clear this up. If you can provide it to the moderator, you could let us have it too. I would appreciate it.
Report comment to moderator
TJS, I did the same thing and at this point there’s no turning back from the vile charges Thomas made against Victoria unless he apologizes for carrying on so against her personally and then drops the whole bogus issue.
Report comment to moderator
DJ, I think most of us have been waiting charitably for Thomas to take a deep breath and get over his vendetta against Victoria. It’s a sad state to be in and I sincerely hope he pulls himself together to deal with reason.
Report comment to moderator
Nana I have been here only a short time but has there always been this much bad blood between Thomas and Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
As far as I know (I’ve been on the blog for almost three years) Thomas is a ‘new name’ maybe a few months or so as…… Thomas1.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I was under the impression he has been here along time. My mistake.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I’ve only been here a little more than 5 months and also suffered the wrath of Thom until I apologized, after falling into his nasty form of baiting and treated him the same way. But his word games have it all over the majority of us.
Victoria backs down and apologizes when she’s realized she was mistaken. When she’s right, she also rightly stands up for herself, as she should under his slurring tactics. Thomas just strikes me as a sad case who goes overboard to prove himself. I’ve been wrong before and could be totally misreading this, but it’s so unfair and tedious to carry on so.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, Pastor Roy, I’m glad you’re here. You have a consistently sweet and straight forward nature. I appreciate your posts and wisdom. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
I want to set the record straight here; ….. I don’t care for the phrase “bad blood” – I don’t hate anyone, nor do I carry a grudge – - – but I DO AVOID a few posters – I don’t have control of how others feel towards me, I can only be responsible for my own heart.
The definition of “bad blood” is as follows:
Definition:
ill feeling: an intense and usually long-lasting feeling of hatred, anger, or resentment
Report comment to moderator
When I observe a situation as we have here on this thread, I can only see someone who has bottled up a great deal of anger.
Grudges are a terrible way to live, they are like a cancer which grows at different rates, dependent on how often the individual encounters or visits their resentment – it festers and brings forth far more pain for the one holding the grudge than their target.
We would all do well to pray about this, there is no other answer.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria sorry I did not mean to upset you
Report comment to moderator
I agree Nana, I too am glad that Pastor Roy has come to this blog,
Report comment to moderator
All is well Pastor Roy, you didn’t upset me, I just wanted to set the record straight – I do appreciate you, and know you love the LORD Jesus Christ. I’m glad you’re here
Report comment to moderator
Thanks you folks, the key thing as I have said before it is not what I say or you say or thomas says. It is what God’s Word say that count.
Report comment to moderator
My Christian theory is based on three simple ideas
R – We are to Read God’s Word
P – We are to pray about God’s Word
W – We are to walk a life worth of the Calling of God as the His Word Changes us.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – the WORD of GOD is my joy, from which we can depend upon knowing the truth if we study. I love the passage:
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I had a friend who would call me young Timothy, when I meet her in 1990. She look me in the eye an told me you will be someone who will be a defender of the faith.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy – my mother said something similar to me a short time before she went home to be with the LORD – I will never forget her voice when she spoke that blessing upon me, …. it wasn’t so long ago that she died.
GOD bless you my friend – I’m glad we have gotten to know one another. I’ve enjoyed getting to know Nana too, she’s a wonderful woman who loves the LORD.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, doing what you outlined in #22 is not defending the faith.
You carefully don’t deny it. You’ve never posted that you wouldn’t do such a thing and didn’t write it, and you want me to post the link… not to prove you didn’t say or do it, but for “context”.
I have news for you: there is no proper context at all for prurient, unsubstantiated gossip about someone’s sex life and denying them work in their chosen field based on said gossip. None.
I’ll provide the link to the moderator only, for this and other reasons. But the sad truth we all know is that you did write it, and either you were indulging in hyperbole or something far, far worse.
I’ll pray for you and those who defend this kind of thing. I do love you. Your sin, however, is detestable.
Report comment to moderator
Here we have the famous post #22 –
This is true – there is no sin or gossip in NOT WANTING a male homosexual to assist a woman in cosmetics.
There is no sin or gossip in looking for a woman to help us when we are in cosmetics rather than a male homosexual.
There is no sin gossip in not wanting to be served by homosexuals – it’s a choice.
Yes the manicurists to talk openly regarding who is a homosexual and who isn’t – we can’t stop them from expressing themselves. That isn’t gossip on our part, …. obviously no sin or gossip on our part as well, we can’t control what manicurists say.
There is no sin or gossip in avoiding male homosexuals when we as women shop for clothing. I choose who will help me, there is no sin or gossip involved. Men don’t work out well in the ladies clothing department, so the stores understand and place them in shoes, men’s clothing or other areas.
And there shouldn’t be a law which demands that anyone be helped by a homosexual in a store, restaurant, salon, as manicurists, or stylist – there is no sin or gossip in choosing a heterosexual person over a homosexual, it’s simply a choice.
Here we have it, there simply is NO SIN or gossip in choosing who will and who won’t help a customer.
Report comment to moderator
TJS Catlover #245,
I also browsed through the archives from Dec. 2007 and early Jan. 2008 and didn’t see any threads with a comment by Victoria at #31.
Further, I searched the World web site for the text in comment #22 using the search box in the top corner of the page and only found this thread.
Further again, I searched Google for the same text, and the only thing that was returned is Thomas1’s comment #22 here.
If Thomas1 wrote this text himself and then falsely attributed it to Victoria in order to slander her, he should be immediately and summarily banned. This is just ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #267: Re-read that post, except every time you wrote the word “homosexual” change it to “black person” and see how it sounds.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, you’re trying to change the subject. It won’t work.
Report comment to moderator
The subject is bigotry, Nana. No change.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – 269
A black person has committed no sin in being black, any more than a white, brown, yellow, or red person.
Your request in changing it from homosexual to black is a moot point, ridiculous at best. Homosexuality is a sin, the color of ones skin isn’t a sin.
Report comment to moderator
ConanTheLibrarian – 271
Homosexuality is a sin – when we choose not to associate with those who continue to live that lifestyle, it’s a choice, it isn’t bigotry.
Our country was founded on freedom of religion – in so doing those of us who are Believers are not forced to accept sin as a lifestyle, …… therefore it is not bigotry.
Those who are homosexuals or sympathizers want to force their lifestyle on EVERYONE, it hasn’t worked – NY and CA have made it plain, we don’t want their countefeit marriage.
Report comment to moderator
No, CONAN. If you seriously buy in to that, nothing you say about this can possibly carry any logical weight at all.
Report comment to moderator
David, I agree with you, but whether or not Thomas provides a link is beside the point now, and he isn’t fooling anyone but himself.
Report comment to moderator
Now really, this is ridiculous.
Victoria: I wonder why you haven’t just said you did or didn’t write it. If you did, what on earth happened to it? If you didn’t: problem solved, and Thomas is revealed to be less scrupulous than I ever imagined.
I should think, Thomas, that if you were going to invent something to make Victoria look bad, as I’m going to assume you did, not being able to verify a source, you could have done a better job.
Understandable. How could any man be as good as a woman at understanding cosmetics for women? Having this attitude doesn’t make someone discriminatory toward homosexuals: it would be a stupid idea for stores to do this in the first place.
As I said, it’s understandable for women to want a woman to help them with specifically feminine things. That’s kind of why we have gender segregated changing rooms, etc. anyway. For example: there’s a bill here in Oregon, saying that anyone can enter a bathroom or changing room of the opposite gender, simply by saying that they feel masculine or feminine today. Typical government, in all its wisdom. Who do you think is going to take that offer up? Homosexuals? Or perverts who just want to get into women’s bathrooms? I can just imagine: anyone who simply says they’re gay could get access to women’s changing areas, just because we can’t seem “discriminatory.”
This is true, if unfriendly, according to Constitutional rights. Out of the post, I think this is the part I have the most problems with. It’s true that we’re not called as Christians to shun sinners. And waiting tables has nothing to do with sex.
I don’t know what the point of this part is. You interpreted as *gasp* gossip, but it certainly isn’t screaming to be interpreted that way. I guess it’s just explaining how you might know someone was gay in the first place. I’d agree that gossiping the way you, Thomas, describe, is wrong, although I’m not sure that’s what’s being described here. Like I said, if you were going to slander Victoria, you could have made it clearer.
I’d agree about the men going to escort women to dressing rooms: see what I said above about Oregon’s ridiculous law. You can’t be sure that any given man is actually gay, or just banking on the fact that no one wants to look discriminatory. It would certainly creep me out, and I wouldn’t want some woman who said that she’s lesbian around in my bathroom or changing area: talk about awkward.
Again, this is true legally. However, I state again that Christians are called to be loving, even and especially toward sinners. Shunning people where it’s not called for (like in the restaurants: why couldn’t a gay person serve you food?) is not Christian behavior.
In short, Thomas, even if you hadn’t invented the post, it’s not as horrible as you’d have everyone believe. There are a few places where it steps over the line, but the majority is understandable. You should have gone for something that more clearly backed up your wild interpretation.
Report comment to moderator
Back to 18, from TRS
And, as David pointed out, the vast majority of us are friendly, caring, and don’t say a rude word one (or even any words about it most of the time.) We think it is a sin. We teach our children it is a sin. But, we in no way teach our children to hate, or even dislike, a homosexual.
Like any other sin, we tell our children it is wrong, and that we will pray for the person involved in the sin to repent and overcome.
Otherwise, we still talk to the person, interact, buy things from them, visit their bookstores or whatever.
The whole idea of the mean-spirited, evil, anti-gay, Evangelical hater is (mostly) a figment of the imagination created to promote the gay agenda.
Sure, there are some bad people or misguided people who call themselves Evangelical. But, it doesn’t even begin to be close to a majority.
Report comment to moderator
TRS would appear, based on this thread, to be very, very, incorrect.
Report comment to moderator
It appears that the problem isn’t gay men in these positions but men in these positions — rather sexist don’t you think.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Now that you know the definition it doesn’t fit the problem with men wanting to sell women’s lingerie, or clothing, escorting them to changing rooms – that isn’t “sexist” anymore than not wanting men to help me with cosmetics.
HRW are you thinking of selling cosmetics? – does it bother you that women might not find you behind the counter annoying, then looking instead for a woman to help them? If you want to sell something, why not choose appliances or men’s clothing? Maybe you could sell mens shoes?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
Who are you REALLY trying to convince that homosexuality is ok?
Report comment to moderator
I have no idea what Thomas thinks he’s doing. This thread is one of the clearest examples of straw men I’ve seen. I mean: he invented the original post, for crying out loud. And it didn’t even prove his point effectively then, so he had to twist it until it did. He is the only poster who has mentioned or advocated the behavior he is ascribing to Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I mean: he invented the original post, for crying out loud. And it didn’t even prove his point effectively then, so he had to twist it until it did. He is the only poster who has mentioned or advocated the behavior he is ascribing to Christians.
Nope. But you shall see, mayhaps.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, still waiting for you to deny writing the above or doing it.
TJS Catlover’s inquiring mind wants to know.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas,
Someone might not even remember the details of what they wrote a couple of years ago. Please give the link. You sound like you care deeply about this subject. Perhaps it affects you or someone you love. When this is the case I know it’s hard not to be emotional about the topic. I pretty much agree with TRS and also CatLover (#279) above, but I’m bowing out before someone gets banned. If that someone is you, I wish you God’s best for your life.
And be well.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – can you provide the story it would put to rest the issue.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria wrote; “Homosexuality is a sin, the color of one’s skin isn’t a sin.”
This ovious and true statement will offend the morally blind. Frankly, it IS indeed offensive and racist in the extreme for anyone to equate skin color with an immoral attitude and lifestyle.
It is because I hate racism that I am offended by those who equate race with unrepentant homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
I am offended by those who defend their bigotry by pretending it is righteousness.
Report comment to moderator
ok.
Report comment to moderator
This is on the FRONT PAGE of DRUDGE:
People wonder WHY California and New York REJECT counterfeit marriage? The czar that Obama has chosen certainly doesn’t represent what the vast MAJORITY of U.S. citizens want their children taught in school.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – should this shock us?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!