BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You really misunderstood Frank's quote.
And now apparently you don't know what namecalling actually is...
And now apparently you don't know what namecalling actually is...
Both you and I know that what you chose to respond to was not in any way the real question that Irvine was posing to you. Hence the conclusion that you're dodging the real question, which has been asked numerous times this thread, and which you've yet to directly answer.
I think I've made it obvious that I subscribe to a translation of the Bible that indicates that homosexual acts are immoral (i.e., bad choices). Combined with my interpretation of natural law, biology, and physical health - I have sufficient cause to think that homosexual acts are "wrong".
You really misunderstood Frank's quote.
...
Don't call people bigots just because you disagree with them
~Barney Frank
Ok, enlighten us then, explain what Barney really meant by this:
<>
Don't call people bigots just because you disagree with them
~Barney Frank
but it does sadden me that you believe people are homosexual by choice.
Diemen said:Actually, no, in this thread you had not made that obvious at all, and did everything to avoid stating your beliefs on why homosexuals don't deserve marriage.
AEON said:I happen to agree with the Catholic Church's view that being a homosexual is not a sin, but acting it out is. I don't fully understand why God creates the desire - then forbids it. But I can say that about a great many desires. It goes all the way to the beginning of mankind's relationship with God - desiring what is forbidden.
It has been my observation - that over time - God's wisdom prevails both personally, and socially. I concede that Melon's interpretations regarding the Bible's stance on homosexuality may be correct, and I always pray that the Holy Spirit will open my eyes and heart to the actual meaning of any passage, not just the ones concerning homosexuality.
As it stands now, it just seems that if the Bible genuinely wanted to make an exception for homosexuality (and as many have pointed out, there were certainly homosexuals in Biblical times) then there would be more written about it. Every instance of homosexuality written in the Bible is portrayed in a negative light. It would seem - that if God did intend to permit loving gay marriages - there would be at least one example and just a tad bit of wisdom thrown their way on how to be a good loving gay married couple.
The trick part to this is: when did anyone choose to be straight?
Additionally, like most human activities, sexual acts are choices and I don't view "orientation" differently than any individual's battle to lead a moral life. We all have burdens and inclinations, some have more - some have less
AEON, do you think there are other sins that do not have any standing in logic, well besides the levitical laws? Why do you think this is the only one?
I'm thinking he regrets abolishing indentured servitude...
Combined with my interpretation of natural law, biology, and physical health - I have sufficient cause to think that homosexual acts are "wrong".
I do not call David Duke a bigot because I disagree with him, I call him a bigot because he is one...
So people who favor Gay Civil Unions but also favor traditional marriage are similar to David Duke-bigots?
<>
Indeed. And that's the main problem with the left. If one holds certain points of view, one is automatically, de facto, a bigot.
Could you elaborate on this?
I would rather not “go down that path” because I do care for the feelings of people in here. Getting into a “nitty gritty” list of why I think homosexual acts are wrong will only hurt people and would be unproductive. I think it is sufficient to say that the information is out there – and you either accept it or reject it.
That being said – I do realize my conclusions are different from others and this matter involves two consenting adults. That is why I propose the state not be involved.
I think I addressed this...
Oh, and is anyone keeping a score of the questions AEON had dodged?
AEON said:In forums like this, or in any debate - it is far easier to ask the questions than to answer them. It seems that there is a bit of trend of people unwilling to post a full, well thought out opinion - choosing to deride the opposition instead of supporting their own ideas which of course, would open their stance to questions and scrutiny.
So, we are going the Biblical route?
You're still not getting it, and I'm convinced by now you're purposely being obtuse.So people who favor Gay Civil Unions but also favor traditional marriage are similar to David Duke-bigots?
And what do you call folks who oppose both Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Unions?
<>
FALSE.Indeed. And that's the main problem with the left. If one holds certain points of view, one is automatically, de facto, a bigot.
What part do you not get?Yeah, but I'm with Barney Frank here, I don't think one should do that.
It's too bad many on the left in FYM didn't get the same memo Barney got.
<>
Martha, you seem rather upset most of the time. Perhaps it just the way you express yourself in this forum. I'm not making a value judgment, you can be angry - it just makes it more challenging to have a dialogue with you.
The way you addressed it bothers me.
Imagine if someone told you this:
"AEON, it is not wrong to be heterosexual. In fact, God made you that way, so it can't be wrong. But if you decide to act on it, if you decide to pursue someone you're interested in, fall in love with that person and want to spend the rest of your life with that person, you are actively choosing to live in sin.
So rather than try and find happiness in the companionship of a partner like most of us do, you must live the rest of your life resisting any urges to express your sexuality the way the rest of us do, because your sexuality may not be a sin, but expressing it is."
Does that not, on any level at all, register to you as extremely irrational? As extremely unfair?
AEON said:It has been my observation - that over time - God's wisdom prevails both personally, and socially
Diemen said:Now imagine if someone used that justification to bar you from getting the same protections under the law for a committed, monogamous union between you and the love of your life.
AEON said:…I do realize that my opinion is only one in a sea of opinions. And more often than not, when we are discussing activity between two consenting adults, my opinions end where their freedom begins. Because of this, among other things, I have taken a rather libertarian view that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage process.
Diemen said:Now imagine if you did not believe in God and people still used that justification to deny you legal rights.
AEON said:I have taken a rather libertarian view that the state should no longer be involved in the marriage process
You brought it up.
However, out of respect for those that have called for a "secular" discussion - and the fact it has been covered already by both sides of the argument - I would like to table my personal opinion
What part do you not get?
nevermind. Out of respect for AEON's wishes to keep his personal opinions and beliefs out of this, I'll refrain (frustrating as that may be...).
Why you label people bigots when they are not.
<>
Martha, you seem rather upset most of the time. Perhaps it just the way you express yourself in this forum. I'm not making a value judgment, you can be angry - it just makes it more challenging to have a dialogue with you.