The quote feature isn't working .....

smoothseas posts #14: 

I simply strongly disagree with those who are trying to impose their beliefs on others through the lawmaking process.

 

In the end maybe you will realize that it has very little to do with what you believe....It has EVERYTHING to do with the people who are trying to impose those beliefs on others.

 ..................................................

 

 Listen to you!

By changing one man one woman marriage, homosexualists are trying to impose their beliefs on others through the lawmaking process.

Their belief in which they try to get the State to legitimize is that sodomy is equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

It isn't on grounds of nature and the natural law....the body parts don't fit and the only life produced is bacteriological. Yuk.

That sexual arrangement is most often detrimental to the individual participants, to their families, as well as the greater society.

 

 

You are barking up the wrong tree.

This is the most reasonable explanation I have seen here ... it is one I can approve of because it is honest for a change, how refreshing. There is no real debate here … just a bunch of debaters. Religion is nothing short of magic and that is a hard sale in the modern world. I think atheists are just tired of being dumped on for all man’s problems which couldn’t be further from the truth. The problem is that the RCC refuses to deal with the individual preferring to classify everyone into nice manageable groups for dissection. I don’t do groups very well is all as I am a unique individual and don’t belong in some group circle based on someone else’s religious opinions. Religion is different … because they have this old book that supposedly tells them how to act human ‘properly’. We don’t have a book and thus are individuals with likeminded ideas about freedom … but religious folk are trained to act and respond as one especially in response to a perceived attack which covers just about anything opposed to their specific canon.  How many different religious beliefs are we to try and accept … as many as Christianity do huh? Or is Christianity the only one of concern to the world’s religious communities? This is all just a bunch of nonsense. The day Christianity accepts any other religion in the world as having merit and offers them respect; they will get none in return. You guys want us guys to accept your magical beliefs ONLY … so we can all make fun of the rest I guess, pure hogwash. No religion seems to promote any degree of glasnost for obvious reasons … they all consider themselves ‘right’ and everyone else is wrong. There is no reason whatsoever why people should have to choose just one magician out of the lot and then hypocritically slamming the rest of them for their faulty magic … of all things. Just plane nuts if you ask me?

Simple my dear just considering the title of the post. Apparently, there are only two kinds of people in the world, theists and atheists ... where do you expect a conversation entitled “Science and God …” to go if not to the core of the matter. Where would you have it progress?

Obviously we differ on the definition of hate speech. Maybe you could point out all the "hate" in your quote or are you going to be another who just says things and moves on. If you actually think what I said was 'hate speech' ... it might be better off to move on because you haven't even gotten close to anything resembling hate coming from me ... in those quotes anyway.

And there would be some reason to attack Islam while we are chatting with Christians ... hahaha, yea that will prove fruitful I am sure; not. When they come in here (JU) and start preaching their nonsense, I will be the first one to show them the error of their ways too.

 

 

And so, what of subtly encroaching Sharia Law?

Examples? 
I think prayer and bible-reading should be allowed in schools; this country survived and thrived for many years with it. Yet,  it has been disallowed by law. I don't believe in, say, abortion, yet its existence is forced on me by law.
Let's say I don't believe in gay marriage; yet, its existence is being increasngly forced on me by law. Exreme examples, perhaps, but no less vaild. Why is it okay for us to be coerced, by force of law, to tolerate that with which we vehemently disagree, just because some--in many cases, a relative few--agree with, or want it?

Well, oddly, I live in America, and therfore, mainly encounter American atheists; for the sake of argument, we'll limit that statement to American atheists, then. In defense of my own religion, I will say that Christianity does not call for such things as honor killings, beatings, stonings, forcing others to adopt the faith, etc. In fact, Christ implicitly insructed against it.

 

Well, according to what I've been able to find, China is the only country (outside Africa) where heterosexual contact is causing a jump in AIDS cases, with a 40% increase. Of the rest, 32% is still through good, old homosexual contact and, of course, drug abuse.
 

I'm not confusing anything; i was the one, in disagreeing, was accused of hatred, remember? Simply because I disagreed with the way homosexuals do their thing. That's my prerogative, isn't it? it's her preogatve to disagree with me. There is a lot of unnecessary heat in her comments, though, that, I'm guessing, doesn't stem merely from her reading my little post.

And you tell me you don't see the hate in there? But, of course all religions think they ave it right. It's the nature of religion; even differing sects and denominations within religions....according to Gandhi, though, if not for Christians, Christianity is the one major religion that makes the most sense.

Yes, because most everything atheists in this country charge Christians with, Islamists are guilty of, in a big way, but no one seems to want to notice. Europe is finally starting to stand up and say "enough Islam". There are places in cities in France and England where the laws do not apply, and police do not go, because they have no authority; the Muslims have made themselves little enclaves, or ghettos, perhaps, where they govern themselves.
Banks in England can't even give out a freaking piggy-bank, because it insults Muslims. Some public schools in America have prayer rooms for Muslim students, who are excused from classes to pray; yet, if I wanted to go in and start a Christian Youth group, I'd be put through the wringer, if permitted at all.
There are judges in America, now ,who are deferring the application of our own, constitutional laws to Sharia, in cases where the couple is Muslim. Do you not see the danger, here?

Well...maybe hate is in the eye of the beholder, then? But see, you'te allowed to say hateful things about, say, my faith or views, if you like, without being called on it, I'm not, even if I wanted to. That's where I'm coming from.
No one should be accused of hate, simply for having an opinion contrary to the one in the room. That's where the "standard of decorum" part comes in. Often, I find, such things are simply an attempt to summarily silence the one expressing the contrary position.

Rightwinger posts 21:

I'm not confusing anything; i was the one, in disagreeing, was accused of hatred, remember? Simply because I disagreed with the way homosexuals do their thing. That's my prerogative, isn't it?

------------------------------

And this is the crux of the matter and where calling you hateful or a hater is leading. This is leading to those who disagree or disapprove of homosexuality not being allowed to openly disagree or disapprove of it. They will go so far as to declare the Bible "hate speech" for after all, it soundly condemns it. It's just a matter of time.

It's really coming down to being not your prerogative to disagree or disapprove of homosexuality, at least openly.

They used to be tolerant of us being tolerant of them, but this is ending. Now, if we don't hum to their tune, they want us to shut up.

.......................

 

BT posts:

The Pope when he travels around the world and speaks of other religions always offers respect. But respect and thinking all religions are equal are two different things. They are not.

Rightwinger posts:

Yes, it's true all religions think they have it right. But that is not possible. If any one of them is right , then it follows that the others are all wrong. And it's our duty to inquire and find the right one.

Got to agree with you here. By far, Christianity makes the most sense.

Rightwinger; you need another bible because all you mentioned (and some) is well documented in the ‘real Bible’ or did you miss those passages? Gay marriages exist and always will if not legally (for now) so get over it. Regardless of the law, do you think many self-respecting gays are going to flock to the local church to get hitched … forced on you HOW? Same with abortions … they will continue regardless of the law or the church’s view, so get used to that too. All you are going to do with this great cause … is to jeopardize the lives of the mother too. Leave the gay community alone; they have nothing to do with science OR religion, give it a brake. You religious folk get this crap taken care of in court … then come and pester us and our children if you can hahaha; we have many options too. Submit your ‘scientific papers’ and have them peer reviewed just like everyone else does and stop whining. You couldn’t BS the School Board, the legal system or the scientists … so please stop trying to BS us?

 

For years beyond counting, the Catholic Chruch has always placed children for adoption and foster children with a man and a woman as the mother and the father. Catholic Charities will not place children with homosexuals or with unwed couple. 

For the good of these children, please tell the homosexuals to leave us alone and not sue us.

It's no BS that the medical scientific community have proven children are far better off with a mother and a father.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And while I was doing research, I found this...

Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06032203.html LifeSiteNews.com Wednesday March 22, 2006 San Francisco City Government Calls Catholics 'Hateful, Discriminatory, Insulting, Ignorant' Top Cardinal is "decidedly unqualified", says resolution   By John-Henry Westen SAN FRANCISCO, March 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In one of the most startling attacks on the Catholic Church coming from a governmental body in the United States in half a century, the governing body of the city of San Francisco - the Board of Supervisors - voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a non-binding resolution blasting the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. While many city's residents agree with the Church's stand against homosexual adoption, the resolution stated "It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city's existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need." The city supervisors levelled an ad hominem attack on former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada, who has been appointed to head the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), one of the most senior posts in the Church.  " Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear,'' the resolution stated.  The supervisors also demonstrated their childishness as they attempted another dig at the Cardinal by indicating in the resolution that the CDF was once known as the Office of the Inquisition.  "That the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households," reads the resolution. The resolution attacked the teaching of the Catholic Church that homosexual adoption does "violence" to children since they would be placed in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.  The resolution blasted the teaching as "hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.'' Demonstrating their own profound ignorance, at least in terms of biological realities, the supervisors contend, "Same-sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples." Concluding, the board urged current San Francisco "Archbishop Neiderauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada." See related LifeSiteNews.com story on recent, major French government study which concludes that raising of children by same-sex couples should not be allowed: Reasoning Behind France's Rejection of Same Sex Marriage Published in English http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06032004.html

 

You are so full of yourself. If that is the case, why are there so many single parents? If you knew anything about gays you would have to rethink things ... you are just plain stupid if you continue with this shit, no pun intended. You will never win these kinds of arguments ... as long as free people have rights under the law. Besides you and the other sheeple, who gives a damn what the RCC thinks about anything anyway?

You tell them yourself silly, you never had any problems slamming people behind their back before when they weren’t here. What is wrong with homosexuals having children? Do you teach your children who and how to screw? I never did and they don't either ... only in your mind. It must be a cruel life to grow up hating everyone around you that is differs from you or your ideals. I have gay friends, Indian friends, religious friends, Muslim friends, black friends and a couple of Pollock friends too. How many friends do you have outside your protected RCC environment to give you any credibility at all in real world matters ... or did everything you know and believe come from your appalling Church masters?

Lula, how about referencing an article and commenting on it and maybe quote a section … but please leave the article elsewhere?

Lula, this is from San Francisco ... the gay capitol of the USA (maybe the world) ... what do you expect, hahaha. But I don't see anything wrong in the articles title, do you?

Straw man; Lula already said they're better off with a mother and a father, when possible. I don't want to have to get into how the Great Society has destroyed urban America and the black family unit.

Boobztwo, you probably claim to be very tolerant and accepting of others, but your liberal atheism is showing. Most of what I see in your posts is arrogance, dismissiveness , and belittlement of other ideals. You're free to argue, just stop being such an ass, if you can.

Lula and I are discussing. We're not angry, we're not upset and we're not being jerks. You are. Please knock it off.

But I do have to agree with you on one thing: it's San Fran; what do you expect? Their city council also recently passed "legislation" requiring businesses to pay a $10/hr min. wage. can they even do that? I thought min. wage increases came from Congress. At any rate, that'll be great for jobs and business growth, won't it? You won't see a McDonald's for 10 miles outside the city. Which is probably what they want, anyway; San Fran hates McDonald's.

Rightwinger, this may seem strange to you, but when you quote someone by name, they are probably going to have something to say about it (I normally do). If you actually want to debate ‘Science or God, you just let me know but drop the tough guy act, it’s not very conciliatory. And besides, Lula is perfectly capable in her own defense as you will learn with time. If you just want to pat backs, you had better be Catholic because if you aren’t ... you are just waiting for the shoe to fall but don’t know it yet … and it will I assure you.

BT posts:

Lula posts:

 

BT posts:

 

This is the point of Rightwinger's article and of the examples I've given. When it comes to adoption or placing foster children in homes, we have told the homosexuals to leave us alone, but by the San Francisco article, they call us hateful, discriminatory and ignorant  for it. 

The sexual progressive forces have turned "discriminate" into a negative word, when it is not. There are two kinds of discrimination, just and unjust. Unjust discrimination is treating people differently becasue of irrational prejudices and that certainly is wrong. Just discrimination means choosing between competing rights based on a legitimate priority, or for some good reason---like to protect the health, safety and welfare of society or our children in particular. At those times, we should and must discriminate.

It's neither hateful, unjust discrimination nor ignorant becasue science that has been peer reviewed has clearly shown across the board, children do much better with a mother and a father. And so the Church when opposing homosexual adoption is quite in line with science.

So why do you insist we Christians leave the "gay" community alone but refuse to tell the homosexuals the same for us?