Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would definitely find any flaunting of contempt toward God's word offensive. That's like asking a Christian whether he finds people boasting about ignoring his laws on fornication, adultery, murder, bestiality. or incest offensive. Of course it's offensive. That doesn't mean that a Christian approves of persecuting anyone. You see, the two issues are cunningly spliced together to make it appear otherwise. Very astute! Very pitifully transparent as well.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of people I know and interact with in day-to-day life would find that commercial offensive. I can think of a small handful I know for certain wouldn't be offended, and would in fact approve of it. But by far the majority I know would hate it. Why? Because of their religion. My boss once said "I think all homosexuals should be castrated." And she didn't sound like she was kidding.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of people I know and interact with in day-to-day life would find that commercial offensive. I can think of a small handful I know for certain wouldn't be offended, and would in fact approve of it. But by far the majority I know would hate it. Why? Because of their religion. My boss once said "I think all homosexuals should be castrated." And she didn't sound like she was kidding.
That is just unbelievable to me! Would they be offended by a psa which suggested that step parents should be tolerated? After all, remarriage (with few exceptions) is considered to be adultery since every sex act with the new spouse is adulterous. I highly doubt it. In fact, not only do some of these same people NOT find remarriage offensive, but they are probably in one themselves!
That is just unbelievable to me! Would they be offended by a psa which suggested that step parents should be tolerated? After all, remarriage (with few exceptions) is considered to be adultery since every sex act with the new spouse is adulterous. I highly doubt it. In fact, not only do some of these same people NOT find remarriage offensive, but they are probably in one themselves!
No they wouldn't find that PSA offensive, but they're not exactly consistent, either.
I would definitely find any flaunting of contempt toward God's word offensive. That's like asking a Christian whether he finds people boasting about ignoring his laws on fornication, adultery, murder, bestiality. or incest offensive. Of course it's offensive. That doesn't mean that a Christian approves of persecuting anyone. You see, the two issues are cunningly spliced together to make it appear otherwise. Very astute! Very pitifully transparent as well.
Wow. Your prejudice is pitifully transparent as well.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of people I know and interact with in day-to-day life would find that commercial offensive. I can think of a small handful I know for certain wouldn't be offended, and would in fact approve of it. But by far the majority I know would hate it. Why? Because of their religion. My boss once said "I think all homosexuals should be castrated." And she didn't sound like she was kidding.
That's really sad.
All those Christians condemning themselves.
We're pretty much just maintaining the status quo. Same-sex marriage doesn't even exist in secular France and has no history in the US.
The status quo doesn't always need to be maintained. It was shaken up when Loving v. Virginia made it legal for blacks and whites to marry one another throughout the country. This was not a bad thing.
The status quo doesn't always need to be maintained. It was shaken up when Loving v. Virginia made it legal for blacks and whites to marry one another throughout the country. This was not a bad thing.
But by that point the majority of states allowed interracial marriage. And four of the original thirteen states (Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York) never had restrictions on interracial marriage. While Pennsylvania had abandoned their restriction before the US Constitution came in force.
Still it is true sometimes change is necessary. The two kinds of change are just not analogous. Prohibitions on interracial marriage existed from 1660 to 1967, the idea that marriage is "man/woman" is pretty much the whole of Western history. Such a thing could still be wrong, like slavery was wrong, but I'm not convinced. Still traditionally I felt like if the people of a state or nation want it they should have it.
There were a lot of people offended when MLK Jr. and his contemporaries called for people to stop abusing and degrading people of a different skin color. The reaction of those radio hosts about sexuality is no different.
Someday, homosexuals will not be beaten, abused, or treated as second-class citizens. Until then, we need people like Dan Savage to help the most vulnerable to make it through the gauntlet of bigotry held by those who have not yet found the love of Christ in their hearts.
Wow. Your prejudice is pitifully transparent as well.
What is it that I am pre-judging? Homosexual behavior? If so how?
BTW
Please try not to use words that are totally inapplicable. At the least look up the word's definition. Otherwise what is written runs the risk of either being inapplicable or totally nonsensical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
