Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

Ok then from now on we'll just use the word "CULT" instead. And lump you in with the likes of COS . And the Islamic terrorists. .

Since one bad apple is seriously bound to spoil the bunch.

So . A bunch of cult member went and tried to screw with some people they thought were weak and an easy target . The CULT got shown that the peaceful gatherers were nobody fool and stood up for themselves Cult member got arrested.
Now other factions of there regime are crying foul .

Does that about cover it?

(Since the other posts were removed/changed . If needed please do the same to this . Though i stand by it . Was just pointing out how "spin" words can be played either way)



[edit on 20-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

reply to post by elevatedone


They use it as a term of endearment all the time but fine.. I am done here. The Homosexuals have once again hijacked the thread and made me the topic of conversation... How about an off topic ban on the posts above with a T&C reminder?

Whatever, the usual M.O. prevails in threads like this... Don't discuss the topic but kill the opposition through vilification. Sounds a lot like what the Philadelphia 11 got.

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
Ok then from now on we'll just use the word "CULT" instead. And lump you in with the likes of COS . And the Islamic terrorists. .

Since one bad apple is seriously bound to spoil the bunch.

So . A bunch of cult member went and tried to screw with some people they thought were weak and an easy target . The CULT got shown that the peaceful gatherers were nobody fool and stood up for themselves Cult member got arrested.
Now other factions of there regime are crying foul .

Does that about cover it?

(Since the other posts were removed/changed . If needed please do the same to this . Though i stand by it . Was just pointing out how "spin" words can be played either way)



[edit on 20-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

and just what about COS makes it a cult exactly?

this whole thread is nothing but ignorance and hatred being thrown around with the sprinkling of few rational voices that go unheard. listening to straight men that believe what they see on fox news makes as much sense and men deciding abortion rights. and now you are gonna start calling the COS a cult? why drag them into this and why call them a cult based on nothing?
other than that you had a good point, shoulda stuck to it.

reply to post by Perplexed


My post was completely on topic . I was just trying to clarify if i got this right?
Semantics is a funny game .

Also i hear blacks using the N word all the time . Does that make it ok? Is it just cause there isn't much threat of them(homosexuals) shooting up your house that you use the word loosely?

I must have missed where anyone came out and said they were gay in here also . Only your accusations to that were made (if i missed I'm sorry)

Whats sad is we (straight intelligent people) still have to defend the basic human rights of another group that for some reason certain cultist are determined to undermined .

Black rights woman rights gay rights . Who were the major proponents against all of these things again ?
If it were not for people like us speaking out , And condemning the cults for these things . Only rich white male would have any rights at all.

and now you are gonna start calling the COS a cult? why drag them into this and why call them a cult based on nothing?
other than that you had a good point, shoulda stuck to it.

Far as this thread seems to be concerned it don't matter what you are or do . Only whats perceived . And that was my point. Use a spin word that scares people and you will get crazy people to follow you in your crusade.
The statement wasn't so much about the content as the irony to the statement itself.
Besides that i own a dictionary. And i wasn't singling them out by any means . I believe all religions are cults with tax exempt status. They just have a more demonized name at the moment .


[edit on 20-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Originally posted by Gandi
Number of Christians: 11
Number of Gays: Many more than 11

The larger group got their way
Democracy in action

why yes, of course. Mob rule. Let's forget this thing called the constitution. Oh, wait...most of the country already has....

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05

and now you are gonna start calling the COS a cult? why drag them into this and why call them a cult based on nothing?
other than that you had a good point, shoulda stuck to it.

Far as this thread seems to be concerned it don't matter what you are or do . Only whats perceived . And that was my point. Use a spin word that scares people and you will get crazy people to follow you in your crusade.
The statement wasn't so much about the content as the irony to the statement itself.
Besides that i own a dictionary. And i wasn't singling them out by any means . I believe all religions are cults with tax exempt status. They just have a more demonized name at the moment .


[edit on 20-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

well you do single things out when you um, well, you know, single them out as you did. the COS does not have tax exempt status. although qualifying, they turned that option down.

reply to post by EnlightenUp
A Y Hall and D Kimura of the University of Western Ontario examined the fingerprints of 66 homosexual and 182 heterosexual men, comparing the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand.

If the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand exceeds the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand, one's fingerprints are said to exhibit leftward directional asymmetry. Hall and Kimura found such leftward directional asymmetry in the fingerprints of 30% of their homosexual subjects versus 14% of their heterosexuals.

"Some may refute such theories but they essentially point to the fact that homosexuality is, to some extent, determined even before a child is born," says gay activist Ashok R Kavi, who runs Humsafar Trust.

"Another study has found that in case of males, if there is less testosterone (male hormone) secretion during the development stage, they may have some girlish traits, and could even be attracted to boys. Daryl Bemm, a psychology professor at New York's Cornell University, had propounded a theory that hormonal levels are the causes of homosexuality," adds Kavi.

Interestingly, zoologists have discovered that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. Experts say that all in all, as many as 1,500 different species of birds and animals are known to have displayed homosexual behavior.


timesofindia.indiatimes.com...


[edit on 20-7-2008 by ofhumandescent]

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

A Y Hall and D Kimura of the University of Western Ontario examined the fingerprints of 66 homosexual and 182 heterosexual men, comparing the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand.

If the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand exceeds the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand, one's fingerprints are said to exhibit leftward directional asymmetry. Hall and Kimura found such leftward directional asymmetry in the fingerprints of 30% of their homosexual subjects versus 14% of their heterosexuals.

"Some may refute such theories but they essentially point to the fact that homosexuality is, to some extent, determined even before a child is born," says gay activist Ashok R Kavi, who runs Humsafar Trust.

"Another study has found that in case of males, if there is less testosterone (male hormone) secretion during the development stage, they may have some girlish traits, and could even be attracted to boys. Daryl Bemm, a psychology professor at New York's Cornell University, had propounded a theory that hormonal levels are the causes of homosexuality," adds Kavi.

Interestingly, zoologists have discovered that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. Experts say that all in all, as many as 1,500 different species of birds and animals are known to have displayed homosexual behavior.


timesofindia.indiatimes.com...


[edit on 20-7-2008 by ofhumandescent]

exactly. i have gotten more than enough evidence the homosexuality is something inborn, beyond choice.

i am still waiting on any evidence that anyone is born christian

reply to post by re22666

post by EnlightenUp
A Y Hall and D Kimura of the University of Western Ontario examined the fingerprints of 66 homosexual and 182 heterosexual men, comparing the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of the right hand. Hall and Kimura found such leftward directional asymmetry in the fingerprints of 30% of their homosexual subjects versus 14% of their heterosexuals.

Interestingly, zoologists have discovered that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. Experts say that all in all, as many as 1,500 different species of birds and animals are known to have displayed homosexual behavior.

i have gotten more than enough evidence the homosexuality is something inborn, beyond choice. i am still waiting on any evidence that anyone is born christian

Small Samples Lead To Big Mistakes.

Cesare Lombroso, born Ezechia Marco Lombroso (1836-1909) founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology. Lombroso rejected the established Classical School, which held that crime was a characteristic trait of human nature. Instead, using concepts drawn from physiognomy, early eugenics, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that someone "born criminal"' could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as savage, or atavistic.

In attempting to predict criminality by the shapes of the skulls and other physical features of criminals, he had in effect created a new pseudoscience of forensic phrenology and craniometry. While Lombroso was a pioneer of scientific criminology, and his work was one of the bases of the eugenics movement in the early twentieth century, his work is no longer considered one of the foundations of contemporary criminology.
en.wikipedia.org...

I concur Mr R2, that homosexuality is genetic. I have homosexuals in my close family and I have associated with homosexual people all my life. I'm convinced sexual orientation is primarily genetic but as in most primates, occasional preference deviation is not unexpected nor inconsistent with basic orientation.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by daniel191159


You can call it something else because it isn't marriage. Gay civil union or whatever, but it isn't marriage. I have no problem with gays and lesbians cohabitating and getting the same treatment as far as tax laws and other matters of state go, but getting married and having children is an abomination in my eyes.

reply to post by infinite


Its right for me and I have a right to speak out about my beliefs. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to read it. Ergo, I am not forcing my beliefs on you, no matter what you say.

Originally posted by Perplexed

Originally posted by mystiq
Finally, I can agree with a court decision, which is getting harder to do lately. Gay and Women's rights should equally be addressed legally as well. Religions should be forced to upgrade to the highest degree of human rights, and I wish it would happen the world over. They are ancienct and barbaric and the human race needs to evolve (nwo aside for a moment.) I left the Catholic Church over its male priests and only went to Churches with female ministers onboard. Now, I prefer my own spirituality in my own home. But every now and again, I get the urge to attend somewhere, the question is where. Well if I do put in a few appearances, the ones that manifest the highest level of human rights fit the bill for me. They've known sexuality was related to physical differences for years. I remember a good friend making a presentation like that before his United denomination, which was more up to date.

Ok so we should be forced or we should evolve? Which one is it? Or is this a new age religion of forced evolvement?

How can you agree with this court decision? The homosexuals are doing the exact same thing to everyone else everywhere else so how can you agree with it unless you are part of the radical homosexual movement?

I will say it again... The queers have more rights than the normal people walking down the street. If you are queer by all means have sex in the street. If you are a married hetrosexual and protest this sickness off to the lions with you... Whatever...

Anyway, Forced Evolvement huh? Sounds very new age for the queer movement!

Because Religions are tax free institutes that are extremely influential in peoples lives, there should certainly be a certain legal requirement to maintain the highest standards of equality and human rights. Otherwise, I understand courts handing out this decisions. Do you really think the medical knowledge available thousands of years ago is enough to forever label people? Religions need to be upgraded. Also, this new age bashing doesn't make sense to me either. I agree with some of that, some of the writings in Buddhism, in Krishna Consciousness, and Christianity as well. But organized religions have controlled and held people back for so many years, they are not suitable for my children, ie. they are not child friendly. And by that I mean, for my child to accept who are they, whatever their orientation should be, whatever their sex, to be respected for their own thoughts and empowerment. My children are being taught to meditate and seek God through many paths.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by mystiq]

reply to post by daniel191159


You are welcome to your opinion. You aren't me and you haven't had the experiences that validate my belief. My spiritual beliefs in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior have been validated beyond any doubt for me. I freely admit my belief isn't logical, it is supernatural and inexplicable and I don't expect you to understand it. The Bible contains every answer to any question I could ever ask. If or until you have a salvation experience and see the truth of God unfold in your own life for you, you won't believe me or anyone else who is a believer. It is a personal relationship with the Creator God of this universe. I will continue to quote the relevant passages of the Bible that I feel apply to any given circumstance, whether you like it, or approve of it, or think its logical, or not.

reply to post by SilentBob86


You have it all wrong, like the rest of the unsaved world. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. We are all sinners in one way or another. The Bible encourages us, all of us, to turn away from our sin and seek a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean we stop sinning. It changes the emphasis from sin to sanctification. We seek to turn away from our sin and surrender our will to God. Everything that happens is God's will. It doesn't end suffering. It doesn't make everything right and perfect in an instant. It gives us peace in the midst of our trials, and appreciation for the blessings we receive from God.

reply to post by Icarus Rising

You can call it something else because it isn't marriage. Gay civil union or whatever, but it isn't marriage. I have no problem with gays and lesbians cohabitating and getting the same treatment as far as tax laws and other matters of state go, but getting married and having children is an abomination in my eyes.

An old judge once said, "The law says what we say it says." Not necessarily a good premise for democracy at work, but more truth than we'd like to admit. It's for real if you don't have the money to appeal. I hate to disappoint Mr I/R, but the last time I looked at my old dog eared dictionary it said Merriam Webster's on the cover and not Icarus Rising. Under "marriage" it offered 3 definitions and 2 sub-headings. You might say 5 definitions.

"Men" and "women" was mentioned in only one definition. in the other definitions the sex of the participants was not described. Not relevant. "An intimate relationship" was one. I know where you are coming from Mr I/R, but you have missed the train! If you run fast you may catch it before it leaves the station. If you don't you will be diagnosed as anachronistic and you know what that means!

[edit on 7/21/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by truthquest


Great post. Thanks for contributing. That is what a lot of folks, including Christians, miss about Christ's message. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

To me, this story looks like the Christians were angry because the police stopped them from deliberately getting into a fight with the gays who were already assembling.

I see nothing wrong with separating two groups who would inevitably get into a violent fight if allowed to mingle.

The gays already obtained their permit to assemble on that day. So the Christians are just going to have to wait their turn and do it on another day.

They're not fooling anyone. They were there to try and disrupt the gays assembly.

So, really, they're angry because they weren't allowed to violate the gays right to assembly.

Figures.

Response to Icarus Rising:

"You can call it something else because it isn't marriage. Gay civil union or whatever, but it isn't marriage."

Here we run into the problem of defining marriage. It is clear that we are using two different definitions; this is fine. A word can have many definitions. My definition of "marriage" just seems to be more broad and inclusive than yours.

"I have no problem with gays and lesbians cohabitating and getting the same treatment as far as tax laws and other matters of state go"

I would like to stop here and point out that you have admitted that you think that the homosexual community should have the LEGAL results associated with marriage. It is only logical for me to believe that you disagree with giving them the RELIGIOUS results associated with marriage.

Now you hit a roadblock. Your statement is incomplete. It should more closely resemble this: Homosexuals should not be given the right of a Christian marriage.

I think this more accurately reflects the reality of your argument.

Now, I must ask you this: What about other religious forms of marriage?

Heck, what about marriage as percieved by another branch of Christianity. Using the word "you" as a blanket term for all Christians, you can't even agree on how to view your own faith. I must now ask, in the midst of all of the uncertainty within Christianty, is it rational for you to make the claim that homosexuals should not be entitled to a religious marriage?


"but getting married and having children is an abomination in my eyes."

It may be an abomination in your eyes, but that says little as to wether it is in your Diety's. To better understand where you are coming from I ask you this: do you believe that A)the Old Testament can be applied as divine law to today's world B)only some parts of the Old Testament can be applied as divine law to today's world or C)the Old Testament can't be applied as divine law to today's world?



"I will continue to quote the relevant passages of the Bible that I feel apply to any given circumstance, whether you like it, or approve of it, or think its logical, or not."

It is entirely your perrogative to quote scripture. I would just like you to know that if you even remotely hope to achieve the end result of persuading others that you are correct you must first give them a reason to believe that you are correct. Quoting scripture and claiming it to be proof of the correctness of your beliefs on the grounds that it is what determines your beliefs is, at least for most people, NOT adequate grounds for a convincing case.

If your goal is to simply give your opinion then I think you have achieved that goal. However, I do not think this to be the case as you continue to try and defend your beliefs against the criticisms of others. This behavior shows me that you posted your refutes with the intent to validate your beliefs over the beliefs of those that criticize you. That is clearly an attempt at persuasion, see the previous paragraph.

Essentially, if you don't propose a convincing case for your beliefs and why others should believe them you might as well be shouting in a language incomprehensible to everyone else. It would have the same result.

A piece of advice: You seem to have great pride in your belief. Reread the story of your screen name's namesake: Icarus.

reply to post by donwhite


A lot of "we don't knows" and "what ifs" there. You are right though. I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows for sure. We have a murky historical record, probably purposely so. Like my title line says, half of writing history is hiding the truth. Modern man, maybe except for a select few who aren't talking, except to each other, doesn't know.

I am convinced, however, that God knows. I am also convinced that He reveals His wisdom by the Holy Spirit through His Word to those who seek Him diligently via His Son Jesus Christ. It has happened over and over again in my life since I got saved. There is no such thing as coincidence, luck, or chance. There is only God's will.

Romans 8

38 For I am convinced, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,

39 Nor heights, nor depths, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

reply to post by donwhite


I believe homosexuality is a choice, though people mature with different experiences and differing hormone balances that create a spectrum of behavioral characteristics. We all have our "cross to bear."

Take Donnie McClurkin for example.

Although he identified as gay for several years, McClurkin states that he is now an ex-gay. In his book Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor McClurkin wrote that homosexuality is a spiritual issue and that one can be delivered from it by God;

"The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."

He then describes himself as going through a process by which he became "a saved and sanctified man". McClurkin has stated that homosexuality is a curse.

source