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.
Christians pick and choose what to follow in the Bible all the time. You say your tolerant but your post reads anything but. If you had a child or sibling that was gay I bet you'd feel very differently.
I tolerate uneducated inbred hillbillies. But I also tolerate Republicans. Often one in the same.
Actually, most actual undereducated hillbillies are died-in-the-wool Roosevelt democrats. Really . . . you didn't know that?
As for how my post read, it is completely consistent with my assertion of tolerance. I think you mistakenly believe that tolerance means acceptance, and it's actually two different things. And no ig one of my children were gay or one of my siblings . . .no, my opinion wouldn't change, any more than I suddenly become an undereducated hillbilly democrat just because a relative chose to. If one of my kids was Gay, I'd still love them. They would be welcome in my home. But the "significant other?" No, not welcome. I'm tolerant, but not an all encompassing tolerance. It is not acceptance.
One of the problems with, for example, Heterosexual parents who find out their children are homosexual suddenly becoming "tolerant" is that it's generally a false acceptance. A HUGE majority of those very "My son is gay and that's okay" type parents would still breath a HUGE sigh of relief if their son came home one day and told them "Mom, Dad, I'm getting married . . .to a woman"
So the idea that many heterosexuals are perfectly cool with homosexuality is false. It's an artificial acceptance, based on a denial of their true and actual feelings. In essence "A lie" . . . to themselves and others.
You are correct though in your assertion that Christians pick and choose what they feel like following in the Bible all the time, I do concur with you on that.
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
Your opinion doesn't require forgiveness, you are not required to be tolerant and you have every right to be intolorent (without hurting anyone), once you pass that part the last line of your post will come to you.
We need to be understanding of ourselves before we can begin to understand others.
The term marriage is a religous term. Marriage is a religous practice belongs to religion.
Please forgive me and pray for me please because I do not won't to be intolerant of anyone, I have no right to be intolerant of others.
I just don't understand why the gay community insist having the term "marriage."
Tolerance is of course expected of, and granted by, most in today's society. A person's religion, race or sexual activity, (provided it does not infringe upon the rights of another, or is not illegal), is usually tolerated. There are laws both on the Federal and State level which generally serve to protect citizens of every state, regardless of their philosophies, beliefs, or private activities, which can indeed be viewed as progress in our society, not in support of any particular activity or behavior, but in the general interest of protecting the citizens of our nation.
With regard to public opinion, importantly, if a man and woman decide to live together, (while also being sexually active,) there are moral and religious stigmas surrounding their choice. Consequently, if two people of the same sex decide to cohabitate, (and are sexually active), they become subject to considerably more than society's usual perception of sexual activity and cohabitation, outside of wedlock.
Completely reversing DOMA, the Federal act of 1996, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, is more than simply a civil rights battle but, ironically, a religious one. Many gays still adhere to some form of a belief in God, some considering homosexual/lesbian behavior to be completely accepted by God.
While the battle front may seem to be one of a civil rights nature, make no mistake, there is a very real and present struggle for these unions to appear godly, righteous, and fully accepted, not only in the eyes of the general public, but in the eyes of the church, even though gay rhetoric, and heated opposition to well known scriptural interpretations adhered to by the main stream church, would seem to indicate otherwise.
Marriage, until select groups began to oppose orthodox church theology, was, for the most part, the witnessing and recognition of a union between a man and a woman, signified by the making of a covenant before God. Most Christians still hold to that definition today. In addition, because homosexuals have not successfully cleared scientific hurdles, proving by irrefutable evidence, that homosexual behavior is completely physiological in its origin, homosexual unions, while tolerated, are still very foreign, and even considered perverse.
Therefore, logically speaking, in the minds of many, legalizing homosexual marriages on a large scale would be perceived as an indication of a moral and religious decline in our society, or biblically speaking, 'a sign of the times'. Abandoning the scientific front to take on the even greater opposition of religion and federal law, is therefore a battle than can only be won in part, and therefore at best, for this reason, any small victory would still cause homosexual unions to be viewed as a mere mimicry of marriage.
It is common among the liberal minded in society, to assume that the nation, as a whole, now sees homosexual behavior as an acceptable alternative lifestyle, an assumption supported by news media, television series, and even a little skillful propagandizing within certain educational institutions, and that we have progressed both ecclesiastically, and socially, to a new level of understanding, and therefore as a society, have readily adopted a more evolved, contemporary opinion, but due to the aforementioned facts, in actuality this only serves, among homosexuals and sympethizers, to fortify a delusion.
While I fully expect that additional states will begin to recognize homosexual unions, the nation will always be divided over this issue, and as a result, real equality, beyond the legal arena, will never be fully achieved.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 01-14-2011 at 02:10 AM..
Actually, most actual undereducated hillbillies are died-in-the-wool Roosevelt democrats. Really . . . you didn't know that?
As for how my post read, it is completely consistent with my assertion of tolerance. I think you mistakenly believe that tolerance means acceptance, and it's actually two different things. And no ig one of my children were gay or one of my siblings . . .no, my opinion wouldn't change, any more than I suddenly become an undereducated hillbilly democrat just because a relative chose to. If one of my kids was Gay, I'd still love them. They would be welcome in my home. But the "significant other?" No, not welcome. I'm tolerant, but not an all encompassing tolerance. It is not acceptance.
One of the problems with, for example, Heterosexual parents who find out their children are homosexual suddenly becoming "tolerant" is that it's generally a false acceptance. A HUGE majority of those very "My son is gay and that's okay" type parents would still breath a HUGE sigh of relief if their son came home one day and told them "Mom, Dad, I'm getting married . . .to a woman"
So the idea that many heterosexuals are perfectly cool with homosexuality is false. It's an artificial acceptance, based on a denial of their true and actual feelings. In essence "A lie" . . . to themselves and others.
You are correct though in your assertion that Christians pick and choose what they feel like following in the Bible all the time, I do concur with you on that.
I totally disagree.
This view is an opinion unsupported by any evidence that I have encountered in life.
If we are talking about parents accepting their gay children, I will tell you that many, many parents do in fact have sincere and heartfelt acceptance of their gay children.
Are you familiar with the national organization called PFLAG - Parents, Friends, Families of Lesbians and Gays? This organization, which has hundreds of chapters and thousands of members and holds large conventions demonstrate a zeal and passion towards acceptance of their gay children and siblings and also stand for gay civil rights issues. Have you ever attended a meeting of this group? I have.
There are multitudes of heterosexual parents who have gone out of their way ... and way above and beyond the 'call of duty' to be educators and activists on behalf of their gay children. I see them in gay rights organizations, speaking to the media, in Pride Marches, etc. It takes a profoundly sincere belief and devotion to take such risks of advocacy to support their children.
It sounds to me like you yourself harbor prejudice against the LGBT community which is perfectly fine, it's a free country and you are entitled to your beliefs ... but please do not project your personal views on other people.
You would still love your gay child, but his/her 'significant other' would not be welcome in your home? That doesn't sound like love to me! If I was that gay child I would terminate my relationship with any parent who is so disrespectful and inconsiderate to me. I call it hate ... not love! ... a hate coated with a veneer of patronizing "tolerance."
Everyone is entitled to express their opinions. I must respond to such an opinion I consider totally and outrageously bogus and unsupported by any factual evidence. Woodcutteron, you don't know what is going on in the hearts and minds of every parent of a gay child; you are not a mind reader. I am telling you that your view is wrong. I have known parents who have total, complete, and unqualified love and support for not only their child but the one their child loves and is in a relationship as well!
Why would you even say that? Is that you make judgements in your life - if you find something "creepy" or not?
Love is love. I'm sorry if you find love "creepy."
With all due respect, love is not just love. We create, on a daily basis, barriers or limits, which must be set in order to maintain a civilized society. For example, in the history of serious pedophilic addictions, perpetrators of molestation often claimed that they were very much in love with their victim or partner.
Love is actually a multi-defined emotion loosely used in today's society, to describe ones sense of attraction to another. This is often intertwined with sexual attraction which is the primary reason why limits must be set. As in my previous example of pedophilic addiction, if a 45 year old man claimed to be 'in love' with a 14 year old girl, and has expressed that love through physical means, in the public eye, even if the the act was consentual, the public outrage would reflect a concern for something far beyond the obvious fact that the action was illegal.
The man, and the behavior would, in addition, be considered perverse or, in a word, 'creepy'. If we strictly adhere simply to the definition that 'love is love', legal parameters should not play a part, because the emotion and the behavior is strictly involuntary, but on the contrary, as we well know, it is very controllable and equally voluntary, which allows us to dismiss or subdue unusual affections on a daily basis.
We live in a very highly sexualized society which is slowly shedding itself of sexual boundaries. Sexting (the act of sending nude pictures via cellphone), pornography sites, (glorified legal exhibitionism), and the controversial NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) which seeks to eliminate the age of consent, are only a few symptoms indicating that the nation has become somewhat morally challenged.
To simply conclude that 'love' is the culprit, would be to burry ones head in the sands of naivety. This is the reason why 'love' is not an acceptable argument when substantiating homosexual attraction, and in fair tolerance to the masses who are still quite uncomfortable with these types of relationships, 'creepy' still reflects the way a large number of people rightfully characterize same sex relationships.
Last edited by Pennsylvanian1; 01-14-2011 at 02:23 PM..
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.
