greymare
Well-Known Member
soleil, you sound a lot like a politician skirting around not answering simple questions.
S
soleil10
Guest
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
ah, now it is so clear, you are promoting nudism!
Thank you for no longer beating around the bush....
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Now you've gone from misrepresenting legislative process to making up things about public attitudes. Contrary to what you are contending, the majority of Americans support a legal arrangement for gays that gives them many of the same rights married couples have.
Doesn't DC have a predominantly Democrat/politicaly progressive population? That being the case, what makes you think there would be much opposition to same sex marriage from the voting public?
In DC's environment, there is no need for subterfuge and there is no need to railroad anything in a way that would bypass community wishes. So I disagree with your portrayal of the situation, which would seem to involve either a tendency toward misrepresentation and distortion or some kind of wilfull ignorance.
S
soleil10
Guest
In the latest CBS only 33% support gay marriage, down 9% since April.
The subject we are discussing here is marriage.
Then let them vote. The issue we are discussing here is the taking away of the basic right of people to vote. I will go with the result. What are you afraid of ?
Citizens are following the law and asking to vote on a referendum That is the wishes of the population.
Marriage in DC has been one man and one woman since DC exist. Now using their citizen rights to challenge city hall on their decision according to the law,they are being stopped with false political excuses
Check the facts. Your accusation are unfounded
With a majority of African Americans and 3% of the population with HIV (as much as some countries in Africa) the political elite is snubbing their nose to the people with total arrogance and selfishness
The polarity on this issue is pretty much blacks against whites, much more than California.
It is amazing to see someone like Walter E Fauntroy that was one of the right hand of MLK fighting for his civil right to vote in 2009.
What is progressive about that ?
Back to the original thought. Why is Christianity losing the cultural war? Because as a religion, it is DEAD. In fact, as a religion it was still born. But as a "faith", it is alive and kicking, and has nothing to do at all with one culture or another. As a faith, Christianity crosses over any and all cultures, but it is not supposed to be a "culture" in and of itself.
Christianity judges no one...most people professing to be "Christian" on the other hand, have a nasty habit of doing just that, present company included...
So what is "losing" the cultural war is people of a particular mind set, who happen to hang their "christian" shingle out the door for everyone to see and "admire", while inside they are acting just as "worldly" as the "world" they allegedly despise, and want to change into their own damaged image.
Q
Christianity judges no one...most people professing to be "Christian" on the other hand, have a nasty habit of doing just that, present company included...
So what is "losing" the cultural war is people of a particular mind set, who happen to hang their "christian" shingle out the door for everyone to see and "admire", while inside they are acting just as "worldly" as the "world" they allegedly despise, and want to change into their own damaged image.
Q
nativeastral
fluffy future
the voice of reason
Janz
What's Amatta U
Excellent and I totally agree with you: thumbs up.
S
soleil10
Guest
Oh, I totally disagree!
I learned a new term, HOMOFASCIST.It would appear that I'm not the only one concerned with labels.
Citizen, I am very glad that you learn this new word
Yup, now how do we get enough momentum to get it put into "Webster's" dictionary (unabridged of course)?
S
soleil10
Guest
Yup, now how do we get enough momentum to get it put into "Webster's" dictionary (unabridged of course)?
We can ask Perez Hilton
roflmaopmp...:d
S
soleil10
Guest
Quahom, on the issue that this post ended up focusing on, this is what it boiled down to for me
Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!
All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.
Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.
So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:
First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.
Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.
Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.
A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.
Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.
Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.
Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.
Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.
There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.
And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.
Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.
The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.
Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose
Q[/QUOTE]
Fine and good for serious debate, in another thread. Gays are not the down fall of Christianity, therefore not to be focussed on here. Families have been crumbling decades before "gays" became open season for cannon fodder. The American culture, has been struggling since its inception. Christianity had nothing to do with the culture becoming a culture, let alone losing it to another. If anything, Christianity was a way to rise above the clutter of "culture" in order to get a breath of fresh air, rest a bit, then dive back in and make that culture something to write home about...
I could take each commandmant and make it a seperate thread to discuss why Christianity is losing a "cultural war", but still it would not touch the original question, let alone provide an answer, because the original question - "Why is Christianity losing the cultural war", is non-sequiter.
Christianity DOES NOT CARE, about murderers, thieves, rapists, exthortionists, dead beat dads, drunk moms, unfaithful spouses, hawks, doves, pedophiles, tax evasionists, poachers, charlatans, abortionists, the future of the world as it stands, or gays...
Christianity is about people having faith in a God, who will take them as they are, no judgement, no condemnation...and simply say "I love You".
Once that "God-truth" gets into a man's heart, all bets are off...
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Which of these have an empirical basis? Anybody can dream up reasons, regardless of whether they have a doctorate.
Support for same sex marriage is now at its highest point since CBS News starting asking about it in 2004.
.... supporters have outnumbered opponents.
You're fighting a losing battle. Consider directing your energies toward a cause where you can accomplish something.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Someone remarked that the reason the Commandments were given was to clarify that people would not be able to keep them.
Indeed, and that was only "ten" printed for all mankind. Before that there were only seven Noahidic Laws. There are actually 613 given to Moses...might as well curl up and die right now...
See the laws are not for man to follow, and the Bible is not a manual for operating man (independent, all by himself, just read the manual and everything will work fine).
They are to show us that we can't possibly follow them on our own (independent of God). We don't have what it takes.
Do you know what the Bible is? It is a portrait...
S
soleil10
Guest
Netti, your response is so shallow. That is typical. When faced with some serious information, you just brush it away. I realize that you could not care less about the natural right of children to a father and a mother. I hope one day you grow up to understand that their rights are more important than yours.
I have no desire to continue this discussion with you.
For the CBS poll you information is 2 months too late.
(CBS) June 17th 2009
Support for same-sex marriage has declined from two months ago, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds.
The poll found 33 percent favor marriage for same-sex couples, down from a high of 42 percent in April, and another 30 percent support civil unions. A third of Americans think there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex couple’s relationship.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Yet you are the one trapped by the rising tide with the water nearly at your nose.
Social progress can be slowed, but it cannot be stopped.
You will be remembered as one left behind.
S
soleil10
Guest
Citizen, thank you for your encouragement.
Gay marriage is actually social regression. Hopefully, one day you will understand it. I do not want you to be left behind.