Gay liberals show their true colors (hypocrites)

#76
#76
droski said:
i'm not sure this is the "gay community" or because of the lack of real news needed to fill 24 hours of 3 all news networks.

and as was said prior i'm very confused as to how this is going to encourage teachers to teach homosexuality in schools. i went to a catholic school and wasn't taught heterosexuality in school.
Click to expand...

I don't think I said it was. I would tend to agree with you on that.
 
#77
#77
san franciscians are some of the most angry people in the world as a group. i've never understood why. i can't tell you how many times i would just go to the grocery store and get bitched out by someone for no reason.
 
#78
#78
JZVOL said:
I agree with everything you said but this.

Name one person who has lived up to what the Bible says?

The only difference in a Christian and non-Christian is the forgiveness of Christ; it doesn't make one sinless.

According to the Bible, gay acts are an abomination, a perversion and a sin.

I'll be the first to admit I don't live up to what I believe in the Bible but that isn't a valid reason for me accept homosexuality.

I don't look favorably on any sin, including my own, so why should I feel any different about homosexuality?

Look if gay marriage is voted on I will vote against it. If the majority vote yes and it passes I will accept that. BUT if people vote no and a judge overrules that vote I have a large problem with that.

If a state passes gay marriage by vote that is fine with me but I will choose to not live in that state. It should be a state-by-state issue IMO.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to imply that they had to be perfect. I was referring more to what I'd call selective enforcement. I personally know a number of people who profoundly point to a verse as proof positive of the way things should be and who condemn all those who do not follow suit, only to promptly, repeatedly, and proudly live in direct conflict with a verse on the next page.

Figuratively speaking, of course.
 
#79
#79
My view on the issue:

1. It should be decided by voters not the courts.
2. Being "married" is not a constitutional right - Prop 8 doesn't violate civil rights
3. The benefits conferred by the state should be available to civil unions
4. I'm on the fence about the issue - I wouldn't vote for the ban (didn't in my state) but believe society should be able to define the concept of marriage -- if society wants to maintain the notion of one man/one woman then so be it.
 
#80
#80
volinbham said:
My view on the issue:

1. It should be decided by voters not the courts.
2. Being "married" is not a constitutional right - Prop 8 doesn't violate civil rights
3. The benefits conferred by the state should be available to civil unions
4. I'm on the fence about the issue - I wouldn't vote for the ban (didn't in my state) but believe society should be able to define the concept of marriage -- if society wants to maintain the notion of one man/one woman then so be it.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
#81
#81
lawgator1 said:
I didn't mean to imply that they had to be perfect. I was referring more to what I'd call selective enforcement. I personally know a number of people who profoundly point to a verse as proof positive of the way things should be and who condemn all those who do not follow suit, only to promptly, repeatedly, and proudly live in direct conflict with a verse on the next page.

Figuratively speaking, of course.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with that. I disagree with how many churches and Christian people deal with the gay issue.
 
#83
#83
My views aren't based on religion at all - it's more of a voter vs. court bias. When possible, I defer to the choice of the people over the dictate of the court.
 
#85
#85
droski said:
san franciscians are some of the most angry people in the world as a group. i've never understood why. i can't tell you how many times i would just go to the grocery store and get bitched out by someone for no reason.
Click to expand...
Shame on you for allowing such unwarranted behavior to be directed at you.
 
#86
#86
JZVOL said:
According to the Bible, gay acts are an abomination, a perversion and a sin.

I'll be the first to admit I don't live up to what I believe in the Bible but that isn't a valid reason for me accept homosexuality.

I don't look favorably on any sin, including my own, so why should I feel any different about homosexuality?
Click to expand...

The Bible also teaches us that it is not our position to judge others. The whole splinter/plank thing. Christians are to be accepting of all people and for all their transgressions.
 
#87
#87
volfanbill said:
The Bible also teaches us that it is not our position to judge others. The whole splinter/plank thing. Christians are to be accepting of all people and for all their transgressions.
Click to expand...
You are grossly misrepresenting the Bible here.
 
#90
#90
what on earth does Paul charging Timothy to continue to fight the good fight and be a minister have to do with making it legal or illegal for homosexuals to marry?

Again, we can teach the Christian way, but we can't force it on people.
 
#92
#92
volfanbill said:
what on earth does Paul charging Timothy to continue to fight the good fight and be a minister have to do with making it legal or illegal for homosexuals to marry?

Again, we can teach the Christian way, but we can't force it on people.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between forcing and judging. I am not in favor of forcing my views on anyone. However, saying that it is not Christ like to judge is closer to blasphemy than it is to truth.

Christ simply says that you should only judge others by the standard at which you are willing to be judged yourself. If you notice also, that earlier in his Sermon on the Mount, he reaffirms the Laws of Moses...most people who try to use "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" in order to exact their own moral relativism seem to overlook the following:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, "You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment." But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, "Raqa" will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, "You fool," will be liable to fiery Gehenna....Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown in prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny"
Click to expand...
It certainly does not seem as though Jesus was speaking out against all forms of human judgment.
 
#93
#93
therealUT said:
There is a difference between forcing and judging. I am not in favor of forcing my views on anyone. However, saying that it is not Christ like to judge is closer to blasphemy than it is to truth.

Christ simply says that you should only judge others by the standard at which you are willing to be judged yourself. If you notice also, that earlier in his Sermon on the Mount, he reaffirms the Laws of Moses...most people who try to use "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" in order to exact their own moral relativism seem to overlook the following:

It certainly does not seem as though Jesus was speaking out against all forms of human judgment.
Click to expand...

I'll never change your view, nothing you've said has even remotely made me doubt my view and I'm not in the mood to continue this anymore
 
#94
#94
I find that using religion as a basis for condemning gay marriage to be quite ironic. Take a look at the recent history of Catholicism. That generalization can be no more ridiculous than the first post of this thread's generalization.
 
#95
#95
therealUT said:
Homosexuality and gay marriage is of little, direct moral concern for 99.99% of American adults. There are no national security implications riding on the issue and little to no implications regarding interstate and foreign trade, arising from the issue of gay-rights.
Click to expand...

Too bad that wasn't true for Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
#97
#97
JZVOL said:
Fair enough, I just don't understand how a Bible-believing church could have a gay minister.

If you are going to have an openly gay minister, why wouldn't you have one who openly admits to stealing, lying or having premarital sex?
Click to expand...

Epic fail.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top