Ex-homosexual now hated for pro-family views
Ex-homosexual now hated for pro-family views. (OneNewsNow.com)
Love winsA former homosexual is responding to being designated as a hater by a left-wing group.
Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to bestow that title on Greg Quinlan, who has been interviewed many times by OneNewsNow.
He summarizes the organization’s comments about him.
“It just goes on and talks about how I left homosexuality,” he tells OneNewsNow. “I'm past president of PFOX, I'm the founder of an anti-LGBT group called Garden State Families of New Jersey, and my crime is that I purport to advocate for the natural family.”
Quinlan, Greg (NJ Family First)That is to say he supports male-female marriage and the biological children they produce.
“It also says I use the term 'homofacism', which I do, and that it threatens liberty, and [I also support] anti-homosexual legislation,” he says. “Now this is all true. These are things I've absolutely said and I take credit for it. And I have to say I'm honored to be hated by those who hate for a living, and that's what the SPLC does.”
Lauded by the Left for its "hate map" that targets right-wing groups, the SPLC was infamously used as a source by a homosexual rights activist who attempted mass murder at the Family Research Council in 2013.
The SPLC can trace its roots to the Civil Rights movement but it's since been labeled a money-chasing scam operation by its detractors.
"12 ways the Southern Poverty Law Center is a scam to profit from hate-mongering," begins the headline of a May 17 commentary by The Federalist. https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2017/05/23/ex-homosexual-now-hated-for-pro-family-views
Love winsA former homosexual is responding to being designated as a hater by a left-wing group.
Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center has decided to bestow that title on Greg Quinlan, who has been interviewed many times by OneNewsNow.
He summarizes the organization’s comments about him.
“It just goes on and talks about how I left homosexuality,” he tells OneNewsNow. “I'm past president of PFOX, I'm the founder of an anti-LGBT group called Garden State Families of New Jersey, and my crime is that I purport to advocate for the natural family.”
Quinlan, Greg (NJ Family First)That is to say he supports male-female marriage and the biological children they produce.
“It also says I use the term 'homofacism', which I do, and that it threatens liberty, and [I also support] anti-homosexual legislation,” he says. “Now this is all true. These are things I've absolutely said and I take credit for it. And I have to say I'm honored to be hated by those who hate for a living, and that's what the SPLC does.”
Lauded by the Left for its "hate map" that targets right-wing groups, the SPLC was infamously used as a source by a homosexual rights activist who attempted mass murder at the Family Research Council in 2013.
The SPLC can trace its roots to the Civil Rights movement but it's since been labeled a money-chasing scam operation by its detractors.
"12 ways the Southern Poverty Law Center is a scam to profit from hate-mongering," begins the headline of a May 17 commentary by The Federalist. https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2017/05/23/ex-homosexual-now-hated-for-pro-family-views
Who is online
79 visitors
A former homosexual is responding to being designated as a hater by a left-wing group.
Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate organization.
Yes it is. It has long since left its original mission and is now nothing more than a progressive hate group.
Yes. They are an intolerant hate organization.
There needs to be more coverage of ex-homosexuals to let people know that it's just a behavior that can change like any other behavior and not an immutable characteristic.
Lol. Former homosexual = bisexual.
Bisexual = choosing to keep one eye open.
Homosexual = clinching both eyes shut, claiming to be born blind.
Homosexuals can see just fine.
Homosexuals can see just fine.
Yep, once they ad the "ex" to homosexual.
One down, ten million to go. Good luck.
By the way, there's already an "ex" in homosexual.
One down, ten million to go.
I'll just buy stock in adult diapers. As they age, the incidence of rectal incontinence will skyrocket, diaper sales will soar, and I'll be rich.
There are probably more women in this country taking it in the can than men. Oh, but you're fine with that.
Hal,
Thanks for the description LOL, but you are probably right there.
Oh, but you're fine with that.
Sure . Why not ? Women can use adult diapers too ...
There are probably more women in this country taking it in the can than men. Oh, but you're fine with that.
With women it's optional and not nearly as frequent as it is with homosexual men who think all holes are created equal. But if the gay guys don't mind wearing diapers, then that's fine by me.
Not nearly as frequent? Did God tell you that? How on earth else would you know that?
I don't need God to reveal the obvious. Generally, if you only have one vehicle to drive, then it's used more frequently than if you have two. Especially, if one vehicle is a garbage truck and the other is a Benz.
Why can't people just let people be? Even if you don't believe in homosexuality, why bother them? It's a strange obsession.
Why can't people just let people be?
Yeah , the same attitude should have been applied to Typhoid Mary ...
If gays treated their sexual behavior like a foot fetish and kept it to themselves, then I wouldn't care. But when they parade it in public and demand that I treat it as normal, then that's going to far. That crosses the line from tolerance to acceptance.
Gays are parading their sexual behavior? That is so not the case - you just can't help yourself from thinking about what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Some would think that a little suspicious, btw.
Gays are parading their sexual behavior? That is so not the case - you just can't help yourself from thinking about what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
They parade it in the sense that they declare it to be normal.
Some would think that a little suspicious, btw.
Some might wonder about you as well. Anyway that lame tactic won't shut me up.
If gays treated their sexual behavior like a foot fetish and kept it to themselves, then I wouldn't care. But when they parade it in public and demand that I treat it as normal, then that's going to far. That crosses the line from tolerance to acceptance.
Good point. And I would imagine that homosexuality would be especially annoying to someone like you (given the fact that you are such an exceptionally tolerant person!)
Good point. And I would imagine that homosexuality would be especially annoying to someone like you (given the fact that you are such an exceptionallytolerant person!)
If I could reach your zen-like level of tolerance, I could watch a Democrat marry a chicken and not laugh thinking about them pushing eggs in strollers. But alas, I'm not you.
If I could reach your zen-like level of tolerance, I could watch a Democrat marry a chicken and not laugh thinking about them pushing eggs in strollers. But alas, I'm not you.
Indeed! No one will ever accuse you of being tolerant.
Indeed! No one will ever accuse you of being tolerant.
Good. That kind of bovine tolerance is best left to those who are content to be led.
Intolerant... and PROUD of it!
That's a pretty good summary of the alt-right...
Intolerant... and PROUD of it!
That's a pretty good summary of the alt-right...
And an even better summary of the left who think tolerance is refusing to entertain a different point of view. You should put your thoughts on tolerance to the song "what's the matter with kids today" in the musical Bye bye birdie. It could have the refrain "why can't they be like we are, perfect in every way, what's the matter with the right to day."
... refusing to entertain a different point of view.
Let me repeat:
My problem with you is NOT that you hold a different opinion. It is that you would impose that opinion on others.
Let me repeat:
My problem with you is NOT that you hold a different opinion. It is that you would impose that opinion on others.
And I'll repeat:
I'm not imposing my view of the world on others any more than you are. You want to normalize same-sex marriage and I don't. If I let you get your way, then your view was imposed on me.
Allowing gay marriage harms no one.
Forbidding it harms those who desire it.
Duh.
Allowing gay marriage harms no one.
Forbidding it harms those who desire it.
Duh.
The same thing can be said of marrying your parents, pets, and inanimate objects. Nobody will be harmed if you marry a chicken but I'm not going to vote for chicken marriages either.
Duh
I'm with Bob on this.
Those who want not to be involved with gays or gay marriage, can chose to do so.
Those who want to invite gays into their life and accept gay marriage can.
I don't see how someone else accepting gay marriage affects you. On the other hand, you trying to force people not to accept it, removes my freedom.
I don't see how someone else accepting gay marriage affects you. On the other hand, you trying to force people not to accept it, removes my freedom.
We can agree to disagree since I will never share your perspective on this.
We can agree to disagree
No. As long as you want to control others' behavior, this is not a simple difference of opinion.
Does that mean that photographers, bakers, caterers, wedding planners, etc can choose to refuse to involve themselves in gay marriage as you stated?
Does that mean that photographers, bakers, caterers, wedding planners, etc can choose to refuse to involve themselves in gay marriage as you stated?
They mean they have a right to do what they want and you have an obligation to do what they want and it's intolerant to stand in their way of getting their way.
1ofmany, you can use that line of defense when gay people start wanting to marry chickens. Until then, it makes no more sense than comparing marriage equality to scuba diving.
1ofmany, you can use that line of defense when gay people start wanting to marry chickens.
You can draw the line wherever you like. I draw the line at same sex marriage and everything over that line is out of bounds, including marrying a chicken. And that will be so no matter what the chicken thinks.
You can draw the line wherever you like. I draw the line at same sex marriage
So you have no justification... You simply decree what marriage should be. You define morality for everyone.
You can draw the line wherever you like. I draw the line at same sex marriage
So you have no justification... You simply decree what marriage should be. You define morality for everyone.
Yes as you did by declaring that a societal norm should be changed to acccomodate your opinion without regard to what I think.
Do you really equate gay people with chickens? Really? Do you greet a gay, when you encounter one, with "Cluck-cluck"?
Or did you just post a very silly notion?
Do you really equate gay people with chickens? Really? Do you greet a gay, when you encounter one, with "Cluck-cluck"?
Yes, bob, I think gay people are chickens . . . sigh.
But when they parade it in public and demand that I treat it as normal,
And yet you obsessively parade your views about sexuality (anti-gay) in public and demand that people treat your views as normal.
(Well-- maybe not in public. I suppose there is a possiblity that you can post things on the Internet here and have no one see them. Yup-- good way to keep things private-- post it on the Internet!)
/s
But when they parade it in public and demand that I treat it as normal,
And yet you obsessively parade your views about sexuality (anti-gay) in publicand demand that people treat your views as normal.
Yeah, well I'll shut up right after you do and since we both know you'll never shut up, I'll keep keep right on talking.
You parade your heterosexuality around in public...I don't see the difference.
You parade your heterosexuality around in public...I don't see the difference.
They're equally free to parade their heterosexuality as well.
They parade their sexuality and so do you yours. Again, I don't see the difference.
I know you don't see the difference but I do.
Then you need to open your eyes.
We don't have to see eye to eye. On this subject, we simply disagree and I have to leave it there for tonight.
We can disagree, but I remain curious of if you chose to be straight, because gay people chose to be gay the exact same way as straight people chose to be straight. No difference at all. None.
Good point. The progressive homosexual lobby should leave the man alone who made the change to heterosexual and now advocates for traditional family values.
Why can't people just let people be? Even if you don't believe in homosexuality, why bother them? It's a strange obsession.
I would say it's more of a fetish then an obsession.
If homosexuals treated their behavior like a fetish and didn't make an issue out of it, then I wouldn't care about it at all. To me, this is like people with a foot fetish marching in the streets to demand the right to marry each other's feet. It's not normal (despite what they say). I don't want to permit marrying feet (and I don't care how happy it makes them) and I don't want to hear about it. I don't hate them. They can love feet all they want but keep it to themselves.
People who are obsessed with the fact that homosexuals are out and about in public have a fetish about it. It bothers them to the point to where it has become a fetish to them. It's beyond an obsession and has become fetishistic. They can disprove of trees for all I care, just as long as they keep it to themselves. Personally I feel sorry for them. And that's all I have to say about it, because it's their fetish to deal with, not mine
If homosexuals treated their behavior like a fetish and didn't make an issue out of it, then I wouldn't care about it at all. To me, this is like people with a foot fetish marching in the streets to demand the right to marry each other's feet. It's not normal.
Yup-- its an obsession. Gays don't want to be discriminated against (as is still thye case). So far they haven't achieved that goal-- so they make their case for equality public in hopes of gaining support for equal rights. (Just like those pesky blacks and other minorities who have a "fetish" about equal rights under the law-- and make a big deal of it by demonstrating in public, etc! In fact, anyone who's not exactly like you that demands their Constitutional right to equal protection under law is a sicko-- with a "fetish".
Angels and Ministers of grace defend us!
Angels and Ministers of grace defend us!
That's a quote from some famous person or other. But i goet the source, you'll have to google it. (Actually it might not be applicable here-- but its always fun on online discussion to quote stuff like that in a futile attempt to convince that you are erudite-- intelligent and well read even!
(P.S: If you have no idea what "erudite" means, you can also google that while you looking for that other quote. The Newstalkers-- GET SMARTER HERE!*
__________________________________________
*Those last three words were /s...yes, definitely /s!
Yup-- its an obsession. Gays don't want to be discriminated against (as is still thye case). So far they haven't achieved that goal-- so they make their case for equality public in hopes of gaining support for equal rights. (Just like those pesky blacks and other minorities who have a "fetish" about equal rights under the law-- and make a big deal of it by demonstrating in public, etc! In fact, anyone who's not exactly like you that demands their Constitutional right to equal protection under law is a sicko-- with a "fetish".
I suppose even you can figure out that being black isn't a behavior and I agree that all deviant sexual behavior deserves equal treatment.
And being gay isn't a choice any more then being Black is.
And being gay isn't a choice any more then being Black is.
Your opinion; not mine.
The opinion of every gay person I have ever known. They know they never chose to be gay. Did you choose to be straight?
The opinion of every gay person I have ever known. They know they never chose to be gay. Did you choose to be straight?
Their opinion is just an opinion. In my opinion, there is no straight and gay. All are straight and gay is a deviant behavior like any other deviant behavior. I have no interest in being gay or a pedophile or engaging in incest etc.
All gay people chose to be gay in the exact same way that all straight people chose to be straight. No difference at all. It really is that simple.
This site has seen more than enough articles about gays, trannies, freaks, and all the prayers, curses, and hand wringing done over them.
When did Perrie name you chief editor ?
This site has seen more than enough articles about gays, trannies, freaks, and all the prayers, curses, and hand wringing done over them.
Perhaps.
But OTOH it does seem like a welcome diversion from all the sheer stupidity in the political discussions here. (To say nothing of the blithering idiocy of those with the emotional maturity of 5 year olds who can't think of anything more intelligent to say then childish personal attacks!)
And perhaps worst of all-- their insults are guilty of being what is probably the worst sin of all-- the developmentally retarded fools trade insults that aren't even clever-- sheesh! *
_________________________________________________________
And we wonder why people are leaving this site...Hmmmmm............
I hear Liberal women have bigger cans and Liberal men have smaller can openers.
“It also says I use the term 'homofacism', which I do, and that it threatens liberty, and [I also support] anti-homosexual legislation,” he says. “Now this is all true.
So the guy recognizes that he preaches hatred, and then complains that he is described as a hater. LOL!
And XX posts it! Of course... The first few lines kinda sorta prove that XX didn't bother to read what he posted. No progress on this front, over the last two months...
So leaving the homosexual community and becoming an advocate for traditional families is supposed to be hate speech?
How does
“It also says I use the term 'homofacism', which I do, and that it threatens liberty, and [I also support] anti-homosexual legislation,” he says. “Now this is all true.
"advocate for traditional families"?
Do you think that the existence of homosexuals threatens "traditional families"? How so?
What is a "traditional family"? Polygamy was practiced in Biblical times, along with concubinage and slavery. Are those practices "traditional"?
How does
“It also says I use the term 'homofacism', which I do, and that it threatens liberty, and [I also support] anti-homosexual legislation,” he says. “Now this is all true.
"advocate for traditional families"?
Because in every society, both civilized and savage, from the beginning of recorded history, a family begins with the union of opposite sex partners. In fact, biologically, a family can begin in no other way. Until recently, sodomy was illegal in most states and the sex in a same-sex marriage is based entirely on sodomy. To insist that same sex marriage should be a norm is inherently inconsistent with the concept of a traditional family.
Do you think that the existence of homosexuals threatens "traditional families"? How so?
He didn't say that the mere existence of homosexuality threatens anything.
What is a "traditional family"? Polygamy was practiced in Biblical times, along with concubinage and slavery. Are those practices "traditional"?
Do you seriously think that slaves were actually members of the families who owned them or that anybody other than royalty had a concubine? And polygamy and concubinage were never "traditional" in western society.
Well said.
Because in every society, both civilized and savage, from the beginning of recorded history, a family begins with the union of opposite sex partners.
You choose your words with care... You don't say "a man and a woman" (singular) because you know that polygamous, open associations of men and women were probably prevalent for hundreds of thousands of years. You are cherry-picking a particular time and place in human history, and declaring it to be both "traditional" and "the end of history".
In fact, life-long monogamy is a recent invention, and hardly universal, even today.
And you must justify your contention that marriage must not be allowed to continue to evolve (as it has since forever).
You choose your words with care... You don't say "a man and a woman" (singular) because you know that polygamous, open associations of men and women were probably prevalent for hundreds of thousands of years.
The word "tradition" refers to customs or beliefs passed down from one generation to another in a particular society. There is no "society" on earth that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. The oldest living civilization is probably China at about 3500 years and the civilization itself doesn't go back more than 8,500 years.
You are cherry-picking a particular time and place in human history, and declaring it to be both "traditional" and "the end of history".
I'm not cherry-picking anything but rather talking about our civilization. You're trying to expand the term traditional beyond any sensible meaning to include other civilizations that are not part of western tradition.
In fact, life-long monogamy is a recent invention, and hardly universal, even today.
And if you go back far enough, not being a dinosaur is relatively recent too. But I'm talking about our civilization, not the stone age or China or Zulu culture etc.
And you must justify your contention that marriage must not be allowed to continue to evolve (as it has since forever).
That's easy. Marriage is a ceremony to join a couple to mate. Even animals have figured out that mating is to perpetuate the species and a same-sex couple cannot mate. I'd like to stay ahead of the animal kingdom.
YOU used the wide-open language:
Because in every society, both civilized and savage, from the beginning of recorded history, a family begins with the union of opposite sex partners.
Not true, so...
Now you have retreated to "a particular society" and "our civilization", which are both undefined... so that you can set the limits wherever you need to, to make your argument. Of course, "my" civilization includes gay marriage, so I think we might have a problem with "our". ☺️
You say,
Marriage is a ceremony to join a couple to mate.
That's silly. Every teenager knows that no ceremony is needed for mating. Throughout history, marriage has been primarily concerned with establishing inheritance rights. Marriage has always been about property.
When you have misuse language in order to make your argument, you probably do not really have one.
YOU used the wide-open language:
Because in everysociety, both civilized and savage, from the beginning of recorded history, a family begins with the union of opposite sex partners.
Not true, so...
You rebut by simply saying "not true" because it is true and you have no rebuttal.
Now you have retreated to "a particular society" and "our civilization", which are both undefined... so that you can set the limits wherever you need to, to make your argument. Of course, "my" civilization includes gay marriage, so I think we might have a problem with "our". ☺️
We live in the same civilization and it's traditions are clear, despite your attempts at obfuscation. Our civilization, until recently, did not contemplate AT ALL a same-sex marriage.
You say,
Marriage is a ceremony to join a couple to mate.
That's silly. Every teenager knows that no ceremony is needed for mating. Throughout history, marriage has been primarily concerned with establishing inheritance rights. Marriage has always been about property.
Obviously one can mate without marriage but the purpose of marriage was to recognize by ceremony that the mating was acceptable. And marriage has not always been about property. That is ridiculous and easily rebutted by simply asking your own family members and reading a book.
When you have misuse language in order to make your argument, you probably do not really have one.
I agree so stop doing it.
I'm not interested in chasing your moving goal-posts. If you can't say something without disowning it two sentences later, conversation is impossible.
Have a nice life.
If you think your inability to score is because the goal posts are moving, then by all means sit out the game.
True love waits and ultimately wins. One man, one woman for better or for worse for life. There is no substitute.
I know two guys who have been together for thirty years. (They are now in their fifties.) Why is their fidelity less fine than that of a hetero couple?
I know two guys who have been together for thirty years. (They are now in their fifties.) Why is their fidelity less fine than that of a hetero couple?
Because it doesn't need to be accepted as normal just because it's normal to them. If we allowed it, some people would marry family members, pets, inanimate objects, and some narcissists would probably marry themselves. It's still abnormal no matter how long they engage in it.
Who gave you the right to decide what is normal?
Who gave you the right to decide what is normal?
I got it the same place you did.
I got it the same place you did.
The difference is that I'm not trying to impose my mores on others.
I'm not trying to impose my mores on others.
The difference is that I'm not trying to impose my mores on others.
That's only true if you keep your mouth shut. Once you give an opinion on what's acceptable in society (just like I do), then you necessarily impose your views on those who disagree with you (just like I do).
1ofmany,
just like I do
No!
You would impose on homosexuals a behavior that is not theirs. I would impose nothing on anyone.
You would impose on homosexuals a behavior that is not theirs. I would impose nothing on anyone.
Nowhere have I said that I would impose a behavior on anyone. What I said is that homosexuality is not normal. They are free to seek treatment or not as they see fit. I don't care what they (or anybody else) does in the privacy of their homes. However, when they burst out of their homes and demand to have a homosexual relationship deemed normal by recognizing a same-sex marriage, then I am just as free to oppose it as you are to support it.
Nowhere have I said that I would impose a behavior on anyone.
... as long as they conform to your "normal".
People may marry... as long as they conform to your "normal". But you don't impose your "normal" on anyone?
How does that work?
What I said is that homosexuality is not normal.
Except that it is. Almost all mammals practice some type of homosexual behavior. It is normal and natural for homosexuals. It is just not normal or natural for heterosexuals. It really is that simple. Get over yourself.
Except that it is. Almost all mammals practice some type of homosexual behavior. It is normal and natural for homosexuals. It is just not normal or natural for heterosexuals. It really is that simple. Get over yourself.
When you post an interview with a talking gay animal who says that he was born to be a homosexual, then I'll consider getting over myself. Until that time . . . nah.
They don't have to talk. Scientists (I know, you don't believe in science if you don't accept their conclusions) have observed it over and over and over again. It's been well documented as I have posted to you before and no I'm not going to post it again because you ignored it last time. Homosexual behavior is naturally observed among a percentage of mammals if you like it or not. Homosexuality is natural and normal for homosexuals and heterosexuality is natural and normal for heterosexuals. Deal with it.
They don't have to talk. Scientists (I know, you don't believe in science if you don't accept their conclusions) have observed it over and over and over again . . .
I do believe in science but not the spurious conclusions that some people draw from it. Gays will usually attempt to confuse the discussion by alternating between viewing homosexuality as a behavior and an immutable characteristic like race or gender, relying on whatever makes the case at the time even if one position logically undercuts the other. I have personally seen same-sex animals hump each other which means absolutely nothing. I've seen a dog hump a fire hydrant repeatedly but he obviously wasn't born to love them nor was he born to hump his master's leg but he did it anyway. Natural and normal aren't exactly the same thing. A two-headed snake is natural but not normal. There is no scientific proof that any mammal was born genetically with a normal attraction exclusively to the same sex nor can it ever be proven because behavior, itself, has not been proven to be genetic other than possibly as a defect. If you want to explore the idea that homosexuals are genetically defective, then ok by me.
It's been well documented as I have posted to you before and no I'm not going to post it again because you ignored it last time.
I've read it all before and, no, it would be no more persuasive now than it was then.
Homosexuality is natural and normal for homosexuals and heterosexuality is natural and normal for heterosexuals. Deal with it.
It's a perversion and I deal with it as such. If homosexuals want to live in a delusion and pretend they're normal around each other, then that's fine by me but I object to bending society to accommodate a delusion.
It's a perversion and I deal with it as such.
ONLY in your opinion.
It's a perversion and I deal with it as such.
ONLY in your opinion.
An opinion is all any of have to give.
As long as you don't use it to affect the lives of anyone else's freedom.
One man and one woman? Not in the Bible. More like one man and as many women as he wants.
One man and one woman? Not in the Bible. More like one man and as many women as he wants.
I think his point is that, at the heart of creation, there must be one man and one woman. If God had created Adam and Steve instead of Adam and Eve, humanity would have ended as soon as it began.
No. If you've been paying attention over the last couple years, I've been consistently trying to get Jeffy admit that his constant calls for marriage as defined by god to be between one man and one woman are not at all supported by the Bible. He steadfastly refuses to acknowledge this, because he is the quintessential Buffet Christian, much like yourself.
I've been consistently trying to get Jeffy admit that his constant calls for marriage as defined by god to be between one man and one woman are not at all supported by the Bible. He steadfastly refuses to acknowledge this, because he is the quintessential Buffet Christian, much like yourself.
I suppose a buffet Christian could respond to a hellbound heretic with Corinthians 7:2 (let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband) and Timothy 3:2 (a man should be a husband of one wife). Even if the point were debatable, the Bible is quite clear that the joining of two men is an abomination. You're not going to get a Christian to throw the Bible away and become a heathen by saying that, if you don't adhere to one thing in the Bible then you might as well ignore them all.
You're not going to get a Christian to throw the Bible away and become a heathen by saying that, if you don't adhere to one thing in the Bible then you might as well ignore them all.
As you have just illustrated, it would be impossible to completely adhere to the Bible since it contradicts itself left and right. But hey, this would be one hell of a miserable existence if divorce was not an option for 50% of married folks. At least some good Christians try to follow the biblical rules regarding divorce ... like Anna Duggar. Submit to your husbands, ladies.
Hal,
You're arguing with an Old-Testament-Christian. They are intrinsically cherry-picking clobbertexters, because they call themselves "Christians" while referencing primarily the Old Testament rather than the New.
Jesus's message was clear and simple: "love one another", and then He hammered the nail in with "judge not lest you be judged". But OT"Christians" ignore Christ in favor of Abraham's harsh God, throwing easy judgments: "abomination"!
You will never hear an OT "Christian" quoting Christ. Christ preached tolerance: the Good Samaritan, the Centurion's servant, and other parables all telling us to accept each other's differences. Gandhi was right: Christ was admirable... but most "Christians" are not.
You will never hear an OT "Christian" quoting Christ. Christ preached tolerance: the Good Samaritan, the Centurion's servant, and other parables all telling us to accept each other's differences. Gandhi was right: Christ was admirable... but most "Christians" are not.
What total nonsense. At no point did Christ say that you must accept the sin if you love the sinner.
Wow.
Did Christ say somewhere that tracking others' sins is your job? I thought He said "Judge not".
Wow...
Did Christ say somewhere that tracking others' sins is yourjob? I thought He said "Judge not".
If you read the statement in context, you wouldn't be confused. The passage goes on to state that you will be judged by the same standard you apply. It's about hypocrisy, not judgement. Making judgements as to what is sinful and what is not is necessarily part of avoiding sinful behavior. When men were about to stone a woman for adultery, he said let he who is without sin throw the first stone. That didn't mean he was tolerant of adultery. He told her go forth and sin no more, not go out and bang everybody you want because they do it too.
Are you confirming, then, that tracking others' sins is indeed your job? Christ assigned you this task? Does He speak to you directly?
Are you confirming, then, that tracking others' sins is indeed your job? Christ assigned you this task? Does He speak to you directly?
Neither. I'm not interested in what other people do at all unless it generally affects me by changing societal norms. If I don't like the change (or the status quo) then I say so just like you do. And I don't need to be negatively affected personally in order to oppose it because it's personal affect on me has little to no bearing on my opposition. To be clear, I don't care if two men marrying each other or them marrying chickens affects me personally and I don't care how happy everybody is in a chicken sandwich. I oppose normalizing this behavior through legal marriage. The only marriage that I recognize is between a man and a woman. My belief will form the basis for how I vote (just like it does for you). If that still means to you that I'm imposing my views on others while you are not, then our disagreement is both fundamental and total.
I'm not interested in what other people do at all unless it generally affects me by changing societal norms.
How does this change in societal norms (gay marriage) affect you?
How does this change in societal norms (gay marriage) affect you?
Because I live in the society and have a right to say what the norms should be.
Because I live in the society and have a right to say what the norms should be.
This sentence in no way answers the question "How does this change in societal norms (gay marriage) affect you?"
You seem to be saying that you oppose gay marriage simply because you can. You have that right, of course... but you'd be a pretty despicable person.
This sentence in no way answers the question "How does this change in societal norms (gay marriage) affect you?"
I have explained it repeatedly but it rolls off you like water off a duck's. Every change in the norms of my society affects me because it changes what's acceptable. Ok, I'll flip it for you. Unless you're gay, banning gay marriage doesn't affect you either so you should have nothing to say.
You seem to be saying that you oppose gay marriage simply because you can. You have that right, of course... but you'd be a pretty despicable person.
No more dispicable than you would be for supporting it.
Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word "affect", so I'll reformulate: what impact does gay marriage have on your life? How has your life changed, pragmatically speaking, since gay marriage became the law of the land?
Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word "affect", so I'll reformulate: what impact does gay marriage have on your life? How has your life changed, pragmatically speaking, since gay marriage became the law of the land?
The problem isn't the word "affect" but rather your assumption that I have to be "affected" in order to oppose something. I'm not affected by a man marrying a chicken and neither are you yet I assume that even you wouldn't say that marriage to a chicken should be legally recognized.
The problem isn't the word "affect" but rather your assumption that I have to be "affected" in order to oppose something.
So you agree that gay marriage has no impact on your life... nor, by extension, on anyone's... You oppose it because it displeases you at some visceral level that you cannot explain.
Well...
I usually end with "Have a nice day/life"... but in this case, I really hope you get the kind of unjust mistreatment that you would impose on others.
'Bye.
Seconded.
So you agree that gay marriage has no impact on your life... nor, by extension, on anyone's... You oppose it because it displeases you at some visceral level that you cannot explain.
The explanation has been obvious all over the planet for thousands of years to both civilized men and savages. It's obvious to you as well although you feign confusion.
Well...
I usually end with "Have a nice day/life"... but in this case, I really hope you get the kind of unjust mistreatment that you would impose on others.
'Bye.
Bye and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
What was the rest of that passage? The responsibility of the husband in the relationship and his obligation to treat his wife in the same manner that Jesus treats His church. Why do you leave that part out?
What was the rest of that passage? The responsibility of the husband in the relationship and his obligation to treat his wife in the same manner that Jesus treats His church. Why do you leave that part out?
Because that's not in the "Jesus loves me and my sin" gay handbook to revising the Bible.
And XX posts it! Of course... The first few lines kinda sorta prove that XX didn't bother to read what he posted. No progress on this front, over the last two months...
Well, there are some people who have smaller cans, some who have smaller can-openers, and some who have smaller brains. (It seems it may not be a choice however-- they are just unfortunate enough to be born that way
And why do so many people leave this site after a short while here one might ask?
Hmmmm... 'tis a mystery... a mystery indeed!
Some on the left do get upset when they can't bash ex gays who no longer are due to their choice on the matter. Some on the left can't stand to be where they aren't always singing to their own choir in their private echo chamber. Free Kurdistan
Some on the left can't stand to be where they aren't always singing to their own choir in their private echo chamber.
Some how a phrase containing the words "pot", "kettle" and "black" pops into ones mind.
Actually, I like it here. It doesn't bother me what the lefties seed or post. I'll either respond or move on as I see fit. I'm not going to run away or threaten to because I can't control their content, something I'd have no desire to do, or because I'm offended or take faux offense as our progressives here do to diversity, nor do I seek safe spaces on the site to be shielded from divergent views. Unlike those who inhabit moderate and balanced group, I'm not offended by the sight of an opinion I disagree with. The last thing I want is a place that is all left or all right. I want a place that all opinions are welcome and all are treated in a fair and balanced way and see no reason why this can't be that inclusive place.
I get the last word here on this thread it seems.
I get the last word here on this thread it seems.
Well, that was before I logged on.
When I'm in the mood for a little fun trolling...it usually take a while before I stop.
(Enjoy!)
That reminds me Jefferson. Someone ask me if I was leaving, based on a couple of my comments on the the article "What's Wrong" or whatever it was because I said if you want to see the videos I put up or hear the audios, not the YouTube ones, but the ones I actually upload to this site you'd better do it now because they would be vanishing soon. I do this for Buzz who can't see YouTube.
Perrie and I have an agreement, since these uploaded videos and audios occupy so much more data space than a simple comment, once they've been on here and Buzz has had a chance to see or hear them, either she or I delete them. They originate from my Homepage. The videos make much larger files than an audio and just like on your computer, if you put a lot of videos on it your hard drive will reach its limit at some point. It's either buy more storage capacity or get rid of unnecessary items that have outlived their usefulness.
Now, I don't give a crap who marries who. I respect both sides of this discussion as well. I believe everyone should be able to feel the way they want to feel about marriage between two people of the same sex. If you don't like it and are against it, fine. If it is for you, I don't care.
It's not for me and I don't really think as many people are gay as much as people are sexual beings. I find there are many people just like me in that regard, but what I also find is some people just aren't happy unless you feel the same way they do and accept things you don't agree with just because they expect you to. They feel this need to not only have you accept them for who or what they are, but to rejoice in it as well and I just can't do that.
It's your life, live it the way you want to live it, but don't expect me to scream from the rooftops how happy I am that you are gay. I'm not happy. I'm not sad. I'm not mad. The more I'm pushed against the wall on something, the more I'm going to be inclined to push back. I don't scream from the rooftop how happy I am to be heterosexual and I bet you wouldn't appreciate me demanding you do it with me if I were to do it.
Aye... Such a deep mystery...
So the guy recognizes that he preaches hatred, and then complains that he is described as a hater. LOL!
And XX posts it! Of course... The first few lines kinda sorta prove that XX didn't bother to read what he posted. No progress on this front, over the last two months...
Nothing surprising about that, actually. Its true to form...
A very thoughtful debate on the God Delusion between the author and John Lennox.
Free study guide at
Its FREE!???
My, my-- how generous of them!
Imagine-- you can get a free guide that will enhance the torture of these a$$holes protelyizing-- to make you even more annoyed at their stupidity and persistent efforts to sell you something you neither want or need!
I've always kinda like Dawkins.
But that being said, one thing I find as annoying as religious fanatics preaching the superiority of their beliefs
& trying to convert me is Athiests doing the same.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.
May all these wannabee used car salesmen types roast in Hell for all eternity. (Or even better yet-- annoy other people here that feel that their beliefs are also superior-- and leave the rest of us the F alone!)
I am a fan of Dawkins and as an atheist I must admit that, as a joke, I have felt the urge to knock on other people's doors (like mine gets knocked on) and wave "The God Delusion" in the face of whoever answers and say "Have you heard The Good News that there is no God!!!" Just to see what would happen. LOL!
Could be fun for a while.
Personally I'm starting to lose interest in allthese people trying so hard to convince other people that they are right-- and the otherpeople are wrong? (All the while the other people are trying to convince them of the opposiste).
I mean let's get real here--- is this actually what Al Gore had in mind when he invented the Internet?
I mean let's get real here--- is this actually what Al Gore had in mind when he invented the Internet?
No, he meant it as an easier way to get access to porn.
Krishna,
I don't come here to "convince" anyone other than myself, perhaps, as I am the only person whose opinion I have ever changed... (Good luck at parsing that monster!!)
I come here to (try to) get others to express themselves as clearly as possible; to understand what makes other tick.
Why does someone refuse gay marriage, while recognizing that it has no impact on their life? (That was a fascinating conversation!)
Why does someone oppose abortion, when they cannot explain their own reasoning on the topic?
Why does a person support a President for whom a day is considered successful if he manages not to make a major fuck-up?
Why do people support economic policies that are clearly detrimental to them?
These people are not insane. Only irrational. I am fascinated by irrationality in creatures who consider themselves to be thoughtful.
Cognitive dissonance is... interesting. (In the way of the Chinese traditional saying, "May you have an interesting life." )
In the way of the Chinese traditional saying, "May you have an interesting life."
Which I always took as a blessing and a curse.
Exactly!
This is getting boring. I'm going to go to sleep.
G'nite all.
It's been discussed long enough. The seed about the hate directed at a former gay man due to his choice to change and his advocacy for his new lifestyle has been flogged long enough. The seed is locked.