Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Note to Stormbringer

     If your desire is to draw attention to the fact that there is persecution in the world, I would suggest that you not focus on christians exclusively as the targets. Oh, there's persecution here in the US. But it's persecution by christians, not persecution of christians. For example, some people think that it is acceptable for a "good christian" to take a homosexual, bind his hands and feet, tie him to the back of a pickup truck, and drive around town. If you want to speak out against persecution in general, you will find that I agree that it should be stopped. On the other hand, if you want to play the "christians are victims" card, you will find me quite unimpressed.

6 comments:

Dan +†+ said...

Complete hogwash. We do not want gay people hurt, we understand free will given to us by our Father. We do not want to hold anything against an adult to adult relationship in privacy at all. We love them. We may not agree with their choices, but I will fight for their liberties. We certainly do not want it to be illegal to be gay or to discriminate against gay people.

The ONLY thing we have any gripes about is the dilution of, and the gift of, marriage. Many gay people are trying to press their agenda on a sacred institution. Why do they care to be "called" something, other then married, as long as they enjoy the benefits of being married? It boils down that in a society it has been proven, over and over again, that one man one woman, having children, is the very best for society and its health. Single parents and odd families are not healthy for a sound society and children. Its purely for the welfare of the future children and our society. It's guided by the instructions of our Creator to make a good society. That is what the foundation of this country is based on. Liberty and a sound society. Gays are part of both. Many are not satisfied with that.

Pvblivs said...

Dan:

     You don't think that the dragging behind a pickup truck actually happens? Or perhaps you don't believe the people who do that are bible-believing christians? Now, I am in no position to say all, or even most, christians do this. But it is being done; and the people doing it are christians. For the record, the target (as I understand it) does not have to be seeking the rights and priviledges of marriage.

     Since you brought up the topic of gay marriage, I would like to point out that all the "marriage lite" proposals fail to extends the same legal benefits of marriage. They only offer a small subset of the protections. When and if it is passed into law that "civil unions" or whatever you want to call it enjoy all the same benefits, including but not limited to federal recognition and a requirement that all states recognize and accept each others' civil unions, then your question of "why do they care to be 'called' something..." will have merit.

Dan +†+ said...

Pvb,

>>But it is being done; and the people doing it are christians.

According to who? Christ? Certainly not. I think Christ alone has the justification to claim who is or who is not a Christian. Don't you agree? Same for the next subject of the word "married"

>>When and if it is passed into law that "civil unions" or whatever you want to call it enjoy all the same benefits, including but not limited to federal recognition and a requirement that all states recognize and accept each others' civil unions, then your question of "why do they care to be 'called' something..." will have merit.

Poppycock. The ONLY reason why they are doing it is to shove it into God's face. If I want to visit someone in a hospital, I do it. If they refuse anyone, THAT is the problem and is wrong and should be changed. From what I heard they do not refuse "partners" anyway. Its a myth conjured up for their own benefit. Same with the "woman may die" for the abortion excuse. These are outdated arguments and modern medicine and hospital rules have all but eliminated those excuses. What else? Taxes? Give me a break, I didn't care about tax breaks when I was single. I am certain no one cares about gay marriage so much for the tax breaks. Besides, income taxes are unconstitutional in the first place! That is where the problem is. What else? Wills? I can give all my estate to a cat if I wish. What else? I am serious what is the list of demands? I have yet to see them, besides "we want to be called something God abhors."

I don't care what they call me and my wife. According to the US we have a civil union. Great! I am fine with that. In God's eyes we are married and that, to me (and probably the gays), is more important.

The State should get out of the marrying business anyway and that was their mistake in the first place, that is for God alone, and just call EVERYONE civilly unioned. I would be more then happy to support that. Where do I sign?

Something tells me that just will not be "good enough". I think you know that too.

Dan +†+ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan +†+ said...

Since when did "God sanctioned" mean "State sanctioned" anyway? That's where the real ridiculous, and mistakes, comes from.

Pvblivs said...

     "The State should get out of the marrying business anyway..."
     You'll get no objection from me on that point. There are a lot of things that I think government should be out of.
     "According to who? Christ? Certainly not. I think Christ alone has the justification to claim who is or who is not a Christian."
     Well, I don't see any mile-high, flaming letters in the sky declaring that these people are not christians. I am, therefore, going to assume that "the annointed one" does not raise an objection to their being considered christians. Now, if I ever do see those mile-high, flaming letters, I will take notice.
     "The ONLY reason why they are doing it is to shove it into God's face."
     You are a mind-reader now? I can see where those legal benefits would be desireable. But I would be happy to put that to an empircal test. By the way, the fact that Texas amended its constitution to state that it would not recognize any "marriage-like" institution that provided any legal benefits without actually being a marriage between one man and one woman strongly suggests (although I could be wrong) that those people think the homosexual advocates would be satisfied with all the legal benefits, just under a different name. It also suggests that it is the secular legal benefits that the officials want to deny people.
     "Besides, income taxes are unconstitutional in the first place!"
     You may think they are immoral. But they are not unconstitutional. The text "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration," is quite clear.