Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

[soleil10]

Well, without repeating myself, I was only trying to suggest an answer to the question posed in your OP. I agree that the answer does indeed lie in the mirror.
It is not propaganda, it is about simple, clear-sighted acceptance of reality. Some people are gay. End of. Whether any particular group / society / faith want to have an "issue" with that is another matter; but it is a good enough example of why this “cultural war” is being lost, IMO.
s.

Ok, if I go with your comment that some people are gay. Does it mean that they have the right to redefine marriage and its meaning for the rest of the population ?

They should create a new institution and be proud of it; not hijacking or stealing what marriage is because it will loose its value and mean everything and nothing That is just a simple fact. 40 eyars of assault on marriage is enough.

Or the issue is really to force other to accept their lifestyle.

Let's be honest.

If tomorrow, I create a new way of living, I will create a new name and definition for it. I will not impose it on others by hijacking the name of their lifestyle and putting my lifestyle under it.

Fundamentally, the issue is not about marriage. It is obvious

 

[iBrian]

I have no idea what you mean. Anything we do is transparent to God. It is recorded in our spirit too

Simply because you provided a list of sexual classifications, as if implying what others do behind closed doors is wrong to you.

Which of those in the list would and would not be acceptable between consenting adults?

Anything we do is transparent to God. It is recorded in our spirit too

So if two people live together, or even have a spiritual ceremony of togetherness, but decline to sign a civil document instilling tax and inheritance privileges as a married couple, does this mean the couple are not married in the sight of God?

 

[wil]

Does it mean that they have the right to redefine marriage and its meaning for the rest of the population ?

Since states are attempting to pass laws or constitutional ammendments that say marriage is only between a man and a woman....it isn't gays that are changing the definition!

It is insurance companies who deem for a couple living together to have joint insurance they must be married.

It is hospitals that say unless you are married you can't visit and go into stay with your mate in ICU.

It is these other institutions that are using marriage to define legal ramifications not associated with a religious institution.

 

[soleil10]

Simply because you provided a list of sexual classifications, as if implying what others do behind closed doors is wrong to you.Which of those in the list would and would not be acceptable between consenting adults?

You may want to start a thread on this. I do not have much interest in answering this question.

if two people live together, or even have a spiritual ceremony of togetherness, but decline to sign a civil document installing tax and inheritance privileges as a married couple, does this mean the couple are not married in the sight of God?

At this point I do not put much value in the civil document because the state does not seem interested to protect the concept of marriage and family for the greater good of the country.
I feel that I am (with my family) on my own at this point.The country is in big trouble.

I did get my marriage licence from a state that had a constitutional amendment to protect marriage because I needed this piece of paper for some other reason.

Marriage is an institution created by God. He wants to be at the center of our marriage. There is more to what a God centered marriage really means but I do not want to make this post too long.

 

[bob x]

For instance, you were not aware of the final version of the law and did not know about the rule of evidence.

Your claim was that the law was about "hate speech". That was a lie: it was, and always was, about violent crimes of assault and murder. You and your kind have been spreading the lie that the bill was about hate speech for years, ever since it was first introduced. So, a clause has been added making it absolutely explicit that it is NOT about "hate speech": and you state, even with the text posted right in front of you, that it says the opposite of what it does say.

Meanwhile you kept accusing me, it was not there and You did not even apologize when it was posted.

I "kept" accusing you? I said I had read the text of the bill, and as I acknowledged once it was pointed, what I had read was evidently not the final text. No, I did not know that Congress had tried to end the lies from you and your kind about "hate speech" by including a clause that specifically excludes "hate speech"; but I am not going to "apologize" to you for your lies about what that clause said.

You did no disagree with my point about Canada.

Your claim about Canada was that the US legislation sets up a system like that in Canada. This is utterly untrue: the bill sets up no new courts or "tribunals", defines no offenses, does not even (like some "hate crimes" bills at the state level) increase sentences for any existing offenses. The legal system of Canada, like that of the UK, is totally different from the system in the US in lacking any special protection for free speech; that is why what happens in Canada is utterly irrelevant to what is happening here, so far as the issue you pretend to be concerned about goes.
And I told you this before: so when you claim I did not disagree with you on this point, you are simply lying again.
I don't have much interest in discussing the cases from Canada you linked to for three reasons: one, as I keep saying, that it has no relevance here; two, I do not know the facts, and obviously would never trust the sources you gave to be honest at all; three, even from the facts as your source presents them, it appears that the "good Christians" in these cases were acting in viciously spiteful manners in response to no provocation, so whether or not I would want the US to have laws against such conduct, I have zero sympathy for the "good Christians" here.

I am correct when I write that the congress refused to define sexual orientation. This open the door to protecting many strange behaviors

The only "protection" here is the protection against being murdered. The sick obsession your church and others like it have shown over the years for protecting murderers against protection can only rouse the suspicion that you wish to commit murders yourself.

The idea that consensual adults can do whatever they want is a very bad idea and a wrong principle to live by.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. It is the foundation of our society. You are trying to turn the world back to a barbarous time when a few people were allowed to act as gods and push everyone else around.

If I pollute, it affect the whole earth, if I steal and cheat, it affect the whole society

The people downstream from your pollution and the people you steal and cheat did not consent. This has no relevance to your arrogant meddling in the affairs of people who are doing nothing to you at all.

 

[greymare]

Wow Sol, it seems like you have all the answers.

 

[soleil10]

Since states are attempting to pass laws or constitutional ammendments that say marriage is only between a man and a woman....it isn't gays that are changing the definition!

Really. The constitutional amendments came to stop the redefinition of marriage. There were not needed before. You are rewriting history.

is insurance companies who deem for a couple living together to have joint insurance they must be married.
It is hospitals that say unless you are married you can't visit and go into stay with your mate in ICU.It is these other institutions that are using marriage to define legal ramifications not associated with a religious institution.

Be honest Wil. When they have all those rights and more, they still want to redefine marriage.

 

[greymare]

I have the answer!!!!
Lets just gather up all them homos, lesbos and weirdos and ship em off to some remote place so they wont bother us good, god fearin, christians, e? What do you reckon Soleiel, sound like a plan? That way they wont be able to interfere in your good life and community. Cos we all know how bad they really are.
They are the spawn of the devil, arent they Sol?

(the above is spoken in redneck tone, with plenty of facial tics in between sentences!)
Fair dinkum, Sol, give me a break. How does anyone else relationship, married or otherwise affect you. ?

Love the Grey

 

[soleil10]

Your claim was that the law was about "hate speech". That was a lie: it was, and always was, about violent crimes of assault and murder. You and your kind have been spreading the lie that the bill was about hate speech for years, ever since it was first introduced. So, a clause has been added making it absolutely explicit that it is NOT about "hate speech": and you state, even with the text posted right in front of you, that it says the opposite of what it does say.
I "kept" accusing you? I said I had read the text of the bill, and as I acknowledged once it was pointed, what I had read was evidently not the final text. No, I did not know that Congress had tried to end the lies from you and your kind about "hate speech" by including a clause that specifically excludes "hate speech"; but I am not going to "apologize" to you for your lies about what that clause said.
Your claim about Canada was that the US legislation sets up a system like that in Canada. This is utterly untrue: the bill sets up no new courts or "tribunals", defines no offenses, does not even (like some "hate crimes" bills at the state level) increase sentences for any existing offenses. The legal system of Canada, like that of the UK, is totally different from the system in the US in lacking any special protection for free speech; that is why what happens in Canada is utterly irrelevant to what is happening here, so far as the issue you pretend to be concerned about goes.
And I told you this before: so when you claim I did not disagree with you on this point, you are simply lying again.
I don't have much interest in discussing the cases from Canada you linked to for three reasons: one, as I keep saying, that it has no relevance here; two, I do not know the facts, and obviously would never trust the sources you gave to be honest at all; three, even from the facts as your source presents them, it appears that the "good Christians" in these cases were acting in viciously spiteful manners in response to no provocation, so whether or not I would want the US to have laws against such conduct, I have zero sympathy for the "good Christians" here.
The only "protection" here is the protection against being murdered. The sick obsession your church and others like it have shown over the years for protecting murderers against protection can only rouse the suspicion that you wish to commit murders yourself.
I could not possibly disagree with you more. It is the foundation of our society. You are trying to turn the world back to a barbarous time when a few people were allowed to act as gods and push everyone else around.
The people downstream from your pollution and the people you steal and cheat did not consent.This has no relevance to your arrogant meddling in the affairs of people who are doing nothing to you at all.

We are obviously not communicating. I was guilty in your mind before I wrote even one word. By the way I am writing in my name and nobody else.

 

[soleil10]

I have the answer!!!!
Lets just gather up all them homos, lesbos and weirdos and ship em off to some remote place so they wont bother us good, god fearin, christians, e? What do you reckon Soleiel, sound like a plan? That way they wont be able to interfere in your good life and community. Cos we all know how bad they really are.
They are the spawn of the devil, arent they Sol?
(the above is spoken in redneck tone, with plenty of facial tics in between sentences!)Fair dinkum, Sol, give me a break. How does anyone else relationship, married or otherwise affect you.? Love the Grey

I am sure you can pray about this. I do not have the answer

 

[greymare]

I dont need to pray about it. Its not a problem.
God dont make no junk.

 

[wil]

Really. The constitutional amendments came to stop the redefinition of marriage. There were not needed before. You are rewriting history.



Be honest Wil. When they have all those rights and more, they still want to redefine marriage.

If a law is required to define marriage as being between man and woman...that means it wasn't.

No they don't have those rights. They've been denied them numerous times and it is exactly what brought this to the forfront. They are being treated exactly as blacks were in the past. And folks are using the bible today just as they did then to prove that they are second class citizens and acceptable to abuse/be prejudice against.

Anyone that reads history would realize we are simply repeating it with new characters...

 

[soleil10]

If a law is required to define marriage as being between man and woman...that means it wasn't.

The laws are in the books. To make them part of the constitution because they voters feel they are threatened by the judiciary is another step.
For instance in CA, they has already voted on it in 2000 but it had to be in their constitution for the judge to stop overturning the will of the people.

. They've been denied them numerous times and it is exactly what brought this to the forfront. They are being treated exactly as blacks were in the past. And folks are using the bible today just as they did then to prove that they are second class citizens and acceptable to abuse/be prejudice against.

Once again in a state like CA and others where they have the same rights as married couple, it was not enough. The ultimate goal was not what you are saying
Comparing ssa to the situation of slaves and the fight for their basic civil rights is quite a rewriting of history

 

[wil]

The laws are in the books. To make them part of the constitution because they voters feel they are threatened by the judiciary is another step.
For instance in CA, they has already voted on it in 2000 but it had to be in their constitution for the judge to stop overturning the will of the people.


Once again in a state like CA and others where they have the same rights as married couple, it was not enough. The ultimate goal was not what you are saying
Comparing ssa to the situation of slaves and the fight for their basic civil rights is quite a rewriting of history

Have no fear. 40 yeas ago it would have been 90%...20 years ago 80%, CA last vote 53%? Next time the vote comes up gay marriage will be legal...

And I guess you'll be moving.

 

[bob x]

I was guilty in your mind before I wrote even one word.

No, you were guilty after you wrote several words.

By the way I am writing in my name and nobody else.

You are parroting lies which have been spread for years. There is no originality in it.

 

[Snoopy]

Ok, if I go with your comment that some people are gay.

That would be good IMO because a lot of folk seem to stumble at this first idea that this is simply an aspect of what they are.

Does it mean that they have the right to redefine marriage and its meaning for the rest of the population ?

I understand your concern. The "definition" of what marriage means varies between individuals and societies/countries. The US has (to me) this bewildering array of differing laws across the country; to a Brit we are used to just the one law (sorry to ignore the fringe bits like Scotland and Wales - Tao! - trying to keep it simple!). I think historically most people in the UK thought of marriage as being between a man and a woman and this was in a (by and large) Christian country. With the advent of greater equality in society, which laws then encapsulate (usually after a struggle), marriage has come more to mean (as it does to me) a public commitment to a lifelong partnership. With the loosening of ties between indiviuals, the state and the Church of England, how that declaration is expressed has come more and more to be a matter of personal choice. Personally I think this is a good thing. I don't have your perspective though but I'm just trying to put some stuff up to consider. I don't mean to offend your religious sensibilities, but I suspect I have.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

They should create a new institution and be proud of it; not hijacking or stealing what marriage is because it will loose its value and mean everything and nothing.

If you think (as I presume you do) that a marriage is a ceremony that is carried out between a man and a woman in the eyes of the God that you accept and understand then I can see that this is a hijacking for you. I do have sympathy for your annoyance at this.

Or the issue is really to force other to accept their lifestyle.

Let's be honest.

I don't think I can see how it is forcing others to accept the "lifestyle" of others by changing what marriage means. Presumably heterosexual couples that think as you do can still get married in the same way and live a "lifestyle" that you see fit to. Can you explain?

If tomorrow, I create a new way of living, I will create a new name and definition for it. I will not impose it on others by hijacking the name of their lifestyle and putting my lifestyle under it.

This is a broader point I think but nevertheless I agree, this could be most irritating.

Fundamentally, the issue is not about marriage. It is obvious

Without trawling back through all these pages I think marriage is a concrete example that can be used to discuss the "cultural war" of your OP. Otherwise it would remain an entirely abstract discussion.

s.

 

[soleil10]

If you think (as I presume you do) that a marriage is a ceremony that is carried out between a man and a woman in the eyes of the God that you accept and understand then I can see that this is a hijacking for you. I do have sympathy for your annoyance at this.

It is not just a ceremony, it is the cornerstone of our society. As marriage goes , so goes the nation.
This has never be more true

don't think I can see how it is forcing others to accept the "lifestyle" of others by changing what marriage means. Presumably heterosexual couples that think as you do can still get married in the same way and live a "lifestyle" that you see fit to. Can you explain?

People are worried about their kids, starting kindergarten. One ss nuptial is law, it has to be taught in schools and with all the new laws designed to silence those who disagree, it will be one more source of confusion the coming generation will have to face.
Once again ultimately, it is not about marriage.

is a broader point I think but nevertheless I agree, this could be most irritating.Without trawling back through all these pages I think marriage is a concrete example that can be used to discuss the "cultural war" of your OP. Otherwise it would remain an entirely abstract discussion.s.

The parent child relationship is key to the welfare of our society. Once you break up the biological connection of of child to both of his parents, you cut of his own identity and history.That is why, I call it homofacism. It is just evil

 

[wil]

People are worried about their kids, starting kindergarten. One ss nuptial is law, it has to be taught in schools and with all the new laws designed to silence those who disagree, it will be one more source of confusion the coming generation will have to face.

And what marriage laws or divorce laws or tort laws were you taught in Kindergarten....

You should do standup...this is funny stuff.

I was just reading the thread about winning an argument. And one of the concepts was to exagerate the others point to the nth degree to prove it ludicrous. Interesting how you do this to your own argument!

 

[soleil10]

And what marriage laws or divorce laws or tort laws were you taught in Kindergarten....You should do standup...this is funny stuff.
I was just reading the thread about winning an argument. And one of the concepts was to exagerate the others point to the nth degree to prove it ludicrous. Interesting how you do this to your own argument!

You did not read my post correctly.
Once ss nuptial is law, it has to be taught in school. Some teachers will not, once their classroom door is closed they will disregard it, some will do the minimum to get away with it, some will go out of their way to push it. It is the same with school districts.

Just look at curriculum by grade, talk to teachers, attend board of education meetings and look at Massachusetts and California for what is coming.