This is topic Don't Let The Federal Marriage Amendment Die in Commettee in forum End Time Events In The News at Christian Message Board And Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://thechristianbbs.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001589

Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
Congress Set to Kill Federal Marriage Amendment: Fear Homosexual Backlash
Dear Brothers and Sisters In Messiah,

It appears that an attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman is about to die in committee. Most members of Congress simply don’t want to deal with this issue, either because they support homosexual marriage or they fear a backlash from the homosexual community.

Dying in committee accomplishes exactly what those who support homosexual marriage want. They will leave it to an un-elected judge to declare homosexual marriage legal. That will keep Senators and Representatives from having to go on record for or against, which is exactly what they want.

Of course, that will also mean the end of marriage as it has been defined since the beginning of recorded history. And, ultimately, the end of the family as the basic unit in society.

I plead with you to call (202-224-3121) or email your Senators and Congressman today and tell them to support the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Members of Congress are running scared. Even those who support the amendment are quivering. Said one senator: “If we talk about same-sex relationships or homosexuality we look mean spirited. It has been decided that we take the high road and only talk about traditional marriage being the cornerstone of civilization. That is the way we will go.”

It is amazing that they want to talk about a marriage amendment without mentioning the reason for the need of an amendment!!

Without a massive campaign urging members of Congress to vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment, the bill will die in committee. That way, no Senator or Representative will have to go on record as opposing or supporting the FMA.
Call your Senators and Congressman today (202-224-3121) and tell them to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. Do this even if you have done it before! The battle for marriage will be decided within the next six months.

Click here ([url] http://capwiz.com/afanet/alert5572211.html[/url] to send your email. Then please also call them. The House and Senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. It will only cost you about 40 cents.

Those seeking to destroy marriage are calling by the thousands! Their voice is the only one being heard by members of Congress.

Please CALL TODAY! And please forward this message to your friends! It is going to take all of us working together to keep the institution of marriage from being destroyed.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved in the future of your children.
Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
http://www.afa.net/
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
So, why do you fear gay marriage? Other than the obvious fact that it's morally wrong?
 
Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niedziejkore:
So, why do you fear gay marriage? Other than the obvious fact that it's morally wrong?

Who said I fear it at all? I am just Dead Set Against It! It IS Morally wrong and it is an abomination to God. Think about what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. If my voice can make any difference at all to helping to keep one more abomination out of our society, then it is my obligation as a Child of the Most High to Speak Up for what is Right!
 
Posted by Tyme (Member # 3017) on :
 
I don't fear Homosexual Marriage, I wish they would call it something else, or remove the ceremony of marriage from the state all together, and leave marriage for Religions and Civil Unions for state ceremonies.

I do not think that is asking to much, just a little respect for my religion, and it’s traditions.

Tyme.
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
Oh, the issue isn't homosexual "marriage"... the issue the amendment addresses is the legal binding between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Homosexuals could care less wether it's called "marriage" or not. They just want to have a license showing that they are legally bound together as one.

I personally see no problem with this, however some people (the ones who want to pass this amendment) want to take it to the extreme that homosexuals who love each other can not be legally bound. And that causes problems for these people.

Yes, they ARE people too. People with feelings and their own beliefs. These people are not our motal enemies, but fellow americans. They work hard, watch the same television programs, listen to the same music and eat at the same restaraunts as we do.

History has shown that by opressing a group, they only get stronger. But some of you don't get that. To you I say: keep on working. Work harder and harder. Eventually you'll see your work has all been in vein. And someday you'll realize how ignorant you've been of this whole situation.
 
Posted by H2G2 (Member # 2443) on :
 
quote:
Think about what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.
That had nothing to do with homosexuality.

link


quote:
I wish they would call it something else, or remove the ceremony of marriage from the state all together, and leave marriage for Religions and Civil Unions for state ceremonies
As I have stated repeatedly (not that it seems to sink in with some people) marriage has never been in the gift of churches, religions or states for that matter. To 'marry' simply means 'to join together' and has no religious implications in itself. Anything and anyone can be married, man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, you can even marry two bits of metal together.

If you happen to belong to the 'First Church of Keanu Reeves' or whatecver and choose not to recognise a particular type of marriage as being compatible with your churches teachings then that's fine but you don't have the right to stop others doing so.

Just because you don't don't like the idea of gay marriages does not give you the right to co-opt the word to your own narrow set of beliefs or hijack its general use in the Enlish language.
 
Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/christianliving/homosexuality.php

“What the Bible Says About Homosexuality”

With the schism in the Anglican communion, the Constitutional amendment in the United States to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and in light of various ‘human rights’ laws around the world that vilify those who speak against homosexuality, more Christians are asking what the Christian position towards homosexuality should be. While only a tiny percentage of people are homosexual, the gay lifestyle is becoming mainstream – at least in some circles and in the media. Let’s examine what the Bible says about homosexuality, and clear up a few myths in the process.

First, let’s start with some fundamental groundwork. Some people, uneducated in scripture, are under the mistaken impression that all forms of sexuality are sinful according to the Bible. With this misconception, they readily disregard anything the Bible might say with regards to sexuality, choosing instead to side with their sexual desires. What they don’t understand is that they are completely wrong. Sex is a creation of God, who pronounced all His creation “good!” Sexuality is not sinful. It is a wonderful part of God’s plan.

God put a limit on sex, though. Yes, a limit – only one. There is no long dissertation on the do’s and don’ts of sex. The only caveat to the enjoyment of sex is this: sex is meant to be enjoyed in the context of marriage – not outside of it. Unfortunately, these days we must be specific. Sex is to be enjoyed within the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. That’s it! That’s the limit. Genesis 2:24-25 says, “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.” Hebrew 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” All sexual sins (i.e. promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.) are sins because they do not conform to the limit of sex being a marital activity. Now of course some of you will point out the list of sexual activity prohibited by the Mosaic laws, but let’s not address those issues of the law from which Paul said we are now free. Instead, let’s stick to those ancient commands that endure eternal. To that end, the above-mentioned single rule is how we are to judge sexual morality.

The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were the first recorded in the Bible to face punishment for their sexual perversion. In Genesis chapter 19, we find two angels that pay a visit to Lot’s home in Sodom. In verse four, we find that “all the men from every part of Sodom” surrounded Lot’s house, and told Lot to bring out his visitors “so that we can have sex with them.” The pro-homosexual revisionist argues that the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the residents wanted to commit an act of rape. That the rape would have been homosexual is not an issue, according to their argument. However, Jude 7 indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah’s punishment was due to their sexual perversion. Their sin was not simply one of violence (rape) but of sexual immorality (homosexuality). As further evidence of the sinful nature of homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination.”

Contrary to the opinions of some, the Old Testament is not the only place in the Bible that condemns homosexuality. We previously mentioned Hebrews 13:4, where Paul exhorted us to honor the marriage bed and keep it pure. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul wrote, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” The Greek word from which the King James Bible gets the word “effeminate” is malakos, which literally means something soft to the touch, but is used as a negative metaphor to refer to a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man. The “abusers of themselves with mankind” are those men who engage in unnatural sexual relations with other men – homosexuals. That is also how the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV translate that verse. Also in the New Testament is verse 7 from the book of Jude, defining exactly why Sodom and Gomorrah were punished – homosexuality.

Having established that homosexuality is a sin, we must now face that we live in increasingly pro-homosexual societies. The media and the schools have become mouthpieces for the gay subculture, and are working hard to marginalize those of us who take a moral, biblical stance on the issue. School sex education programs based on the curriculum developed by SIECUS champion homosexuality as being normal and healthy, while encouraging teenagers to ignore the values of their parents if their parents feel homosexuality is wrong. “Gay” television shows are popping up on networks like Bravo and on other networks as well.

In many nations, current and existing laws are including slurs against homosexuality in the definition of hate crimes. In fact, some in Canada have found themselves in legal trouble for reading the first chapter of Romans over the airwaves. This is a pattern that is sweeping the Western world, and I predict we’ll see similar legislation in the United States within the next few years. While the Canadian Parliament claims that a religious exemption in their recent hate speech bill will protect speech of a religious nature, in practice Canadians have already been prosecuted by human rights tribunals for things as simple as listing the same Bible verses above in a newspaper advertisement.

Even the church today is not immune to the mainstreaming of immorality. The Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church in the United States is suffering a rift because of the appointment of an openly homosexual bishop. This rift is widened because some of its leaders have deemed it appropriate to perform homosexual marriages. The Methodist Church has allowed openly homosexual ministers to retain their positions. Let me make this clear: I do not oppose allowing homosexuals to attend church. In fact, I think that’s where they should be. However, we must not condone sinful immorality by allowing our clergy to practice it openly. Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexuals are unrepentant of their sin. If they were repentant, they would no longer identify themselves as homosexual. Just as no church would allow their minister to engage in an ongoing adulterous affair and retain his position, so we must not allow homosexual ministers to retain their positions of leadership.

Homosexual advocates will contend that homosexuality is natural, and some will point to homosexual activity within some animal species as evidence. However, it’s not hard to figure out that homosexuality is decidedly unnatural. My wife and I used to have a couple of pendant necklaces. Each of us had half of a pendant on our necklace. When we put our two halves together, the zigzag pattern meshed together flawlessly to create a single, whole pendant (which, by the way, bore the words of Genesis 2:24). God made men and women different, both emotionally and physically. Physically, we were created to fit together anatomically much like our pendant. Our parts just match up! Remember the child’s game of matching the round peg into the round hole, the square peg into the square hole, etc.? The homosexual is trying to force two pegs together, in blatant disregard for God’s natural design! The argument above also falls flat on its face when you consider that some animal species also eat their young. I don’t think we can extrapolate that into an acceptable practice for human beings.

These same homosexual advocates will claim that homosexuality is genetic. NOT TRUE! Nobody is ‘born homosexual.’ In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error. The fact is that after all the attempts to show a genetic cause for homosexuality, no such genetic cause has been found. A British psychologist has had enormous success in providing “reorientation” therapy to homosexuals who want to change. This is not a surgery or a medical treatment, but it is effective. How could it be effective if the cause of homosexuality is physical? Well, it couldn’t be. Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition.

Also untrue is the label applied to those who don’t approve of homosexuality. “Homophobe” has been applied to anyone speaking negatively of homosexuality or of homosexuals. But in 2002, a study by the University of Arkansas was publicized that showed that term to be inaccurate. While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.

God’s laws were handed down for our benefit. HIV and AIDS, while no longer exclusive to homosexuals, are still much more rampant and spreading more quickly among the gay community. Our children are at risk as well. While GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) will tell your seventh-grader during a school assembly that heterosexual men molest more children than homosexual men do, they are not telling the whole story. That statistic is only true because homosexuals make up only 4-10% of the population. Statistically though, a homosexual man is 10 to 20 times more likely than a heterosexual man to sexually abuse a minor.

A few “Christians” have hurt the cause of morality, by acting out violently and/or hatefully against homosexuals. When Matthew Shepherd was killed for being homosexual, a Baptist congregation gathered outside the courthouse during his killers’ trial. They held up banners that stated how many days Shepherd had been in hell, and used some disgusting names to describe him. They seemed to be happy that he had been brutally murdered. Hate is not the answer to anything. Every one of us is sinful, yet every one of us is loved by God. Jesus did not celebrate the death of Matthew Shepherd, and neither should we. “Hate the sin, but love the sinner,” is how the saying goes, and that applies to homosexuals as well.

With that said, we must not be afraid to stand up and champion the cause of morality. Some will call us bigots and homophobes for our belief that homosexuality is a sin, but we cannot let name-calling soften our beliefs in God’s moral code. The pro-homosexual movement can only marginalize us if we allow ourselves to be marginalized. There are two ways we can do that: a) we exhibit hate toward homosexuals rather than love, or b) we remain silent. We must proudly champion God’s love toward the homosexual without condoning his or her behavior. Let His love shine through us, and may we all be examples of the morality God desires.
 
Posted by H2G2 (Member # 2443) on :
 
quote:
Statistically though, a homosexual man is 10 to 20 times more likely than a heterosexual man to sexually abuse a minor
Scource please.

quote:
While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.
Ancient Chinese proverb say... "he who try to argue semantics should look at dictionary first"

Phobia: n. An abnormal or morbid fear of, or aversion to (what is specified).
 
Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
If you really want the source, then you'll have to go to this website and write to them. That's where I got the article from, and I agree with Everything it says [Smile]

http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/christianliving/homosexuality.php
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
Ok... So we've established that homosexuality is frowned upon in our religion, and that is right. I am a christian, I *do* get the point.

But what, may i ask, does our religion have to do with the state? Do you think that this is a theocracy? That whatever laws are put down in the bible should be forced upon all American citizens? Yes, we know homosexuality is morally wrong... even so, how would homosexual unions affect us? Just because Homosexuals can be legally bound under federal or state laws, it is is not going to undermine our religion.

The Bible is OUR law... not the law of a free country.
 
Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niedziejkore:
Ok... So we've established that homosexuality is frowned upon in our religion, and that is right. I am a christian, I *do* get the point.

But what, may i ask, does our religion have to do with the state? Do you think that this is a theocracy? That whatever laws are put down in the bible should be forced upon all American citizens? Yes, we know homosexuality is morally wrong... even so, how would homosexual unions affect us? Just because Homosexuals can be legally bound under federal or state laws, it is is not going to undermine our religion.

The Bible is OUR law... not the law of a free country.

No, I think this is a "Democracy" and that Majority rules. I hope to persuade other Believers to stand up for Their Rights as Citizens here too.

When this country was founded our laws were solidly based on the Bible. As a taxpaying, contributing, and Christian Citizen, it is my Right to promote legislation I agree with, and protest legislation that I don't agree with. That is what I am doing. Also keeping in mind that the Country that turns it's back on God (once having claimed HIM as being over this nation) is a country that will probably cease to exist.

Our Pledge says "One Nation UNDER GOD" - Our money says "In GOD We Trust"... Really? If that's true, then we shouldn't turn our backs on HIM when it comes to "Political Correctness" or whatever you want to call it. What's wrong is wrong and as a Nation, if we condone it, God will turn HIS back on us. I don't want to be here when that happens...
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by H2G2:
quote:
While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.
Ancient Chinese proverb say... "he who try to argue semantics should look at dictionary first"

Phobia: n. An abnormal or morbid fear of, or aversion to (what is specified).

What's important is although the word "homophobia" has an applied common usage and definition, in reality, it isn't a psychiatric disorder like claustrophobia, agoraphobia, or social phobia, etc., which would require some type of therapy. Nonetheless the suffix "phobia" erroneously does imply a form of illness. So "homophobia" is not really a true phobia at all, just a way of saying, "I'm ok, but you're not."

The term is being applied to anyone at all who is not ready to agree with the proposition that homosexual behaviour is a social good, or good for those who are inclined to practice it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The word, in its literal sense, refers to an entrenched fear or dislike of the male sex or, more generally, of human beings. The Oxford English Dictionary refers us to Chambers's Journal ( 5 June 1920 ) . . . . By the early Seventies, however, in part under the influence of the Manhattan psychotherapist, George Weinberg, the word was being used to refer to any aversion in the general population to the persons or practices of the homosexual minority.

This redefinition of the word was part of a deliberate attempt to turn the tables on those who believed that homosexual behaviour was itself related to an unhealthy aversion to so-called normal men or women. Indeed it appears that “homophobia” and “homophobic” were semantically retooled for one crucial purpose: to identify those who regarded homosexuality as a sign of psychological or moral difficulty as witnesses against themselves, that is, against their own mental or moral health. In short, if homosexuality were no longer to be regarded as a form of mental illness – it was struck from the list by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 after a brief but intense form of institutional warfare – another such illness would have to take its place. That illness was homophobia.

Whatever one makes of the arguments about homosexuality, the view that Weinbergian “homophobia” is an illness is highly dubious. No one doubts that that there are people who express their secret fears in the form of social or even physical violence against homosexuals. And such people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, can rightly be said to be ill; in some cases, they might even be said to be evil. But one of the many problems with the current usage of the word homophobia is that it is not being used chiefly to refer to the psychological condition of such people. Rather, it is being applied to anyone at all who is not ready to assent to the proposition that homosexual behaviour is a social good, or at all events good for those who are inclined to practice it.

As a matter of fact, one does not even need to harbour any such skepticism in order to receive a bloody nose from the “homophobia” charge or something very like it. Consider the fate of two of my McGill colleagues, whose only crime was to answer the government's call for an expert opinion on the history and social merits of reserving the category of marriage for stable heterosexual unions. Their email systems were jammed by a risible petition circulated by something called Project Interaction: The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Two-Spirit Initiative of the McGill School of Social Work (a quite unofficial body, I hasten to add, which presumably wishes to see the definition of marriage expanded to include communities of three or more). Neither their academic work nor their personal views would support a charge of homophobia, on any definition, against these scholars. Yet the petition boldly asserts that it is “unacceptable and unethical” for the university even to employ such obvious enemies of the people. So much for civil discourse.

But there are better reasons for a moratorium on the use of this word in good company – heterosexual or otherwise – than the bad company the word itself is in the habit of keeping. The best reason is that the word is designed and deployed to prevent, rather than to promote, reasoned debate about a fundamental aspect of our common humanity, and of the common good.

For entire article, see "Sexual Politics and Language":

http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/pages/sexpol.htm
 
Posted by H2G2 (Member # 2443) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SoftTouch:
If you really want the source, then you'll have to go to this website and write to them. That's where I got the article from, and I agree with Everything it says [Smile]

http://www.contenderministries.org/articles/christianliving/homosexuality.php

Oh, I see. It was on a web-site so it must be true and worthy of a Cut and Paste.

In other words it is an unsubstantiated claim but you are happy to repeat it because it fits in with your prejudices.
 
Posted by H2G2 (Member # 2443) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paula:
What's important is although the word "homophobia" has an applied common usage and definition, in reality, it isn't a psychiatric disorder like claustrophobia, agoraphobia, or social phobia, etc., which would require some type of therapy. Nonetheless the suffix "phobia" erroneously does imply a form of illness. So "homophobia" is not really a true phobia at all, just a way of saying, "I'm ok, but you're not."

Irrelevent.

The original quote from Soft Touch was...

quote:
While a phobia is a fear, researchers found that those termed “homophobic” exhibited no traces of fear. The study subjects’ reactions ranged from disapproval to disgust, but none showed any fear.
As I have shown. A phobia is not just a fear, it is a fear OR an aversion. A definition from the 1920s has no bearing on the matter as we are not livng in the 1920s we are living in the 21st century. Everybody knows what the term 'homophobia' means and to try to pretend otherwise just makes you look either ill-educated, ignorant or just contrary.
 
Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
I not only think Paula's post was Very Revelant, but also Excellent. Thank you Paula! [thumbsup2]
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
You know, evrey time I have this arguement with anyone i'm reminded of this quotation by Jonathan Swift:

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

I'll just say that I am a christian. I do not think it is my place to dictate to others how to live their lives or what to believe. Some of my best friends are atheists, agnostics, and some of them are involved in the occult. I believe in a world where people of all religions can live together peacefully. If I can get along with people involved in witchcraft then others can as well. I believe in a world where thoughts can be exchanged freely. When someone says to me, "I'm homosexual" the first thing that crosses my mind isn't, "oh, how am i going to change this guy into a heterosexual who lives by the word of God?" In fact, that never crosses my mind. Because we live in a DIVERSE country. And when we start to restrict freedoms or give freedoms to one group but not another we bring ourselves closer to a theocratic or fascist state.

quote:
Our Pledge says "One Nation UNDER GOD" - Our money says "In GOD We Trust"... Really? If that's true, then we shouldn't turn our backs on HIM when it comes to "Political Correctness" or whatever you want to call it. What's wrong is wrong and as a Nation, if we condone it, God will turn HIS back on us. I don't want to be here when that happens...
I think your vision of history is a bit twisted. But I can hardly blame you as the majority of people in this country aren't taught history correctly in school. Your "our country was founded on God so we better not turn away from God" arguement does not hold much water here. Our country was founded on freemasonry. Yeah, there's "in God we trust" on the dollar, but that's the only thing on the dollar that links it to christianity. Funny how that's only on our currency... right? And please, if you can show me some AMERICAN currency with the words "In God We Trust" from before 1963, please scan it and show me because that bill must be worth millions considering that the first U.S. currency to bear the "In God We Trust" slogan was not issued until 1963.

Now as for the pledge of allegiance...

The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist, baptist minister who ended up being pressured into leaving the church, and then altogether stopped attending church because he was disgusted with all the racial biggotry he found there. The original pledge, published in a magazine in 1891 read only this:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

That was it. If you want to do some research go find a copy of the September 1891 issue of The Youth's companion. The words "of the United States of America" was added about 1924 from actions by the Daughters of the American Revolution and American Legion. It was not until 1954 that the words "under God" were added to the pledge. I believe as a result of a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. Notice a relationship between our pledge of allegiance and our currency?

Congress required our currency to state the words "in god we trust" in 1955, and later pressed in 1963. Our pledge did not include the words "under god" until 1957. These things happenned only two years apart... and you say:

quote:
Also keeping in mind that the Country that turns it's back on God (once having claimed HIM as being over this nation) is a country that will probably cease to exist.
Well, we didn't claim god to be over this nation until the 50s. And what happenned before the 50s? we went to war with Nazi Germany... and we won. Hitler used the bible in his quest to rid the world of the Jews, and he lost. Wouldn't you say we were under his protection then? Even without his name on our currency or in our pledge? So what has happenned since the 60s that shows you we're under his protection even more so than before the 60s?
 
Posted by SoftTouch (Member # 2316) on :
 
I will not argue the fact that FreeMasonry has been a part of America since the beginning and that most of the founding fathers of this country were Masons (but not all were FREEMasons… there is a difference!). I did a lot of research on this subject and so I know what you are talking about. There were two types of Masons. Washington was not a FreeMason. FreeMasons were the ones who had the secret agenda and it has been discovered that they believe that Satan was/is God. (I have a full binder of information on this but I don’t care to go researching it all over again.) Obviously, history shows that the FreeMasons prevailed (for now). However, what I said (That America was Founded on the Bible and Christianity) is True. Here are some historical quotes:

The Mayflower Compact was a covenant with God made at Cape Cod, Mass., 150 years before the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was written. It states, ``We, whose names are underwritten, ... having undertaken for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith, ... do ... combine ourselves together into a civil body politick. Nov. 1620, Massachusetts.''

Our Declaration of Independence asserts that we are ``endowed by the Creator'' with ``certain unalienable rights.''

"...Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy word...Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land." "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National Morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington

"It is rightly impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible." --George Washington

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians...." Patrick Henry

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government...but upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win great triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." --Theodore Roosevelt


As for having friends who are not Christians, I used to… that is until I started actually living my life for Yeshua (Jesus) and not myself. I belong to HIM, HE died for me (and everyone else who will accept Him). I can not have friendships that do not include HIM, because HE lives in and through me. A very strange thing happened with all my ‘so-called’ friends... These people didn’t want to hear me talk about Jesus and they’ve all wandered out of my life. Their choice, not mine.

Now, I think I’m done with this thread. I wish you peace and understanding of what Jesus asks of us… to Spread HIS Gospel to all who will listen. A small request in light of what HE gave for us! [Wink]
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by H2G2:
As I have shown. A phobia is not just a fear, it is a fear OR an aversion.

Not according to Webster's definition of "phobia": "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." As I have already shown, the psychiatric profession has altered common usage of the word.

quote:
A definition from the 1920s has no bearing on the matter as we are not livng in the 1920s we are living in the 21st century. Everybody knows what the term 'homophobia' means and to try to pretend otherwise just makes you look either ill-educated, ignorant or just contrary.
Hardly; I'm afraid you've missed the point of my post. During the twenties, the word "homophobe" was used to mean a fear of men or human beings, but not homosexuals. However, during the seventies, it was redefined by the psychiatric profession to mean fear of (or aversion to) homosexuality:

"The word, in its literal sense, refers to an entrenched fear or dislike of the male sex or, more generally, of human beings. The Oxford English Dictionary refers us to Chambers's Journal ( 5 June 1920 ): “Her salient characteristic was contempt for the male sex as represented in the human biped... The seeds of homophobia had been sown early.” By the early Seventies, however, in part under the influence of the Manhattan psychotherapist, George Weinberg, the word was being used to refer to any aversion in the general population to the persons or practices of the homosexual minority."
 
Posted by Tyme (Member # 3017) on :
 
H4HS, SoftTouch, Paula, and everyone else.

Great Posts, wonderful points made by all.


Niedziejkore

quote:
I'll just say that I am a christian. I do not think it is my place to dictate to others how to live their lives or what to believe. Some of my best friends are atheists, agnostics, and some of them are involved in the occult. I believe in a world where people of all religions can live together peacefully. If I can get along with people involved in witchcraft then others can as well.
Very noble of you, however, I wonder sadly, how little you must care for these people.

As a Christian, you know what fate awaits them, and what God, Our God has in store for them (Regardless if you believe in eternal torment, or annihilation, both, as dictated in the bible, will be painful, annihilation just has a shorter period of time)

Now, if you have made every chance and effort to enlighten them, and they have made their choice to denounce the Salvation of Christ, rest in peace, as you did your best.

H2G2

quote:
To 'marry' simply means 'to join together' and has no religious implications in itself. Anything and anyone can be married, man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, you can even marry two bits of metal together.
Your kidding right?

Oh yah, and “the union of two metal parts” is called welding, just FYI

Tyme
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
I guess it is noble of me. The reason I let them go on with their ways is simply because they do not try to change my own ways. I do it out of respect... and we have very interesting philosophical arguements, and i think i'd be missing out on something without their friendship. [Smile] More often than I'd like to think, there have been plenty of times when I needed help and an atheist would be there.

Those people, wether or not you believe it, are quite reliable. After all atheists (or wiccans), like us, believe in helping their fellow man as best they can. Being friends with these types of people, I have found that atheists differ greatly from nihilists in that they actually live by a set of morals and guidelines for life. However not all atheists live by the same set of rules wich makes them very interesting people to deal with.

I will not believe for one moment that these people are our enemies. I believe pushing amendments like these give christians a bad rap. And it's no wonder why a majority of people call us biggots, fascists and hipocrites. Half the time we act like we're here to rule the world.

On a side note... I'd like to imagine what a meeting between Ghandi and Jesus would have been like. Would jesus admire him at all? I'd like to think Jesus would admire Ghandi as much as Ghandi would admire jesus. Yeah, I realize it's a silly vision, but this is how I've come to know jesus... through his unconditional love.

On another side note... I think people tend to over exaggerate what is said in the bible... and i've seen some evangelists actually put words into the bible that aren't there. So some people may come out of a sermon believing the bible says one thing just because someone has a twisted interpretation of a bible verse. These people aren't necessarily liars... they just do what I think is expected of evreyone. To read the bible and interpret it themselves. Not how others interpret it. This is why I have found it so hard to stay with one church: Because my beliefs contradict more then they agree with what these churches interpret is said in the bible. That said, I don't believe in one true church.

Does that not make me a christian?
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
quote:
Statistically though, a homosexual man is 10 to 20 times more likely than a heterosexual man to sexually abuse a minor
The statistics are absolutely staggering, as has been borne out by many recent studies. Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls."

In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses!

Source: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D. For more info, see http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
Evrey cross-section of society is prone to do something bad. Tell me, how likely is it for a heterosexual man to beat his wife? How likely is it for a Black man to rob someone of their car stereo? Or, how about a white women committing suicide? The problem in any of these situations isn't a result of their skin color, race or gender. Not even their sexual orientations are at fault.

Sure, a study showed a homosexual man is what, 20 times more likely to molest a child? Heh. Ok, let's just burn them all at the stake now, just because a bunch of "experts" say it's true. You're forgetting that there are HETEROSEXUAL pedophiles. Do you get what that means? That means that SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niedziejkore:
Sure, a study showed a homosexual man is what, 20 times more likely to molest a child? Heh. Ok, let's just burn them all at the stake now, just because a bunch of "experts" say it's true. You're forgetting that there are HETEROSEXUAL pedophiles. Do you get what that means? That means that SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.

Let me preface this by saying I don't believe in "stake-burning" for any reason, but neither should we overlook the very sad facts presented by the study. One cannot help but wonder why:

(1) Homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population, between 1 to 3%, but yet account for a disproportionately high percentage of child sexual offenses; and

(2) The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls.


One of the salient conclusions of this study is that homosexuals are in fact overrepresented in child sex abuse cases: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children!

Therefore, sexual orientation does appear to be a primary causal factor for this type of crime, a compelling fact which homosexual apologists refuse to take seriously, preferring, instead, to sweep it under the carpet.
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
you're skewing the study's results by saying it's the primary causal factor. How many homosexuals do you personally know? I doubt any by your stance on the issue. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things.

If your going to deny them to be lawfully bound, you think that's going to make closet homosexual pedophiles go away? I think part of the problem is the fact that some members of our society still oppress gays by making them feel uncomfortable with their sexuality. That is partly what causes these problems; repressed sexuality, depression, etc. But to say that homosexuality is the root of pedophilia, I see no link... even after reading this article. But then again I have my opinion, you have yours.

So, what do you propose be the final solution to your "homosexual problem"?
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
Three points: First, please don't misquote me. Secondly, let's not smokescreen the issues by turning this thread into a discussion about me; instead, why don't we stick to the facts presented by the study? Third, if you had in fact taken the time to read my post, as well as the link I provided, I said "a causal factor", not "the causal factor".

In summary, as the Dailey study clearly indicates the following:

(1) Both homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide variety of sexual behavior.

(2) Statistically, there is considerable overlap between homosexualiy, pedophilia, and the tragic circle of abuse. Thus, as borne out by the Dailey study, the connections between homosexuality and pedophilia are patently indisputable:

"The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children . . ."

(3) Lesbian columnist P. Martinac, freely admits to the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. As she wrote in the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

[S]ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her 'out.' It's not pedophilia, this thinking goes--pedophilia refers only to little kids. Instead, adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to 'Greek love' of ancient times. This romanticized version of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]

Martinac adds that "When some gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring 'We're not pedophiles,' they send an inconsistent message to society. . . .The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people."[69]
 
Posted by Niedziejkore (Member # 2773) on :
 
even though homosexuals are overrepresented in sexual abuse cases, the fact that a lot of heterosexuls do it as well would suggest that their theory is inadequate. How do you account for the fact that, still, plenty of heterosexuals are also pedophiles?

I think the sexual repression thing explains the whole mess here. Priests are forced to keep their sexual feelings locked up, so they find whatever they can... usually young altar boys or whatever. The same would go for the "family man" who has a wife and kid who represses his sexuality within his conservative neighborhood.

I'm sorry to say, but that article is bull**** propaghanda. It has the stench of bias all over the thing, with stupid logic like, "Pedophiles are invariably males, Significant numbers of victims are males, and Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses... so locically homossexuals must be blamed for pedophilia in our society!" If you want a real article on pedohilia, here's one:

quote:
Explaining Pedophilia

What Is Pedophilia?

By Martin Downs
WebMD Feature Archive


Reviewed By Gary Vogin, MD

Recent revelations about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church have put pedophilia in the national spotlight like never before. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- all the loud headlines and lurid accounts of child molestation, many people still don't understand what this mental illness is all about.

The biggest misunderstanding many people have is that pedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same. But to say that all homosexuals are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are homosexual, is like comparing apples to rat poison. "They certainly are two distinct things," says James Hord, a psychologist in Panama City, Fla., who specializes in treating sexually abused children.

Hord explains that while some pedophiles may prefer boys over girls, or vice versa, it's not so much about gender as it is about age. For homosexuals, Hord says, sexual preference is "simply not linked to the age." If a man, for instance, is attracted to other adult males, he is a homosexual. A man who is sexually attracted to male children is not considered a homosexual: He is a pedophile.

As with all things sexual, however, it's not always so simple. Heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual men and women may become sexually attracted to children even though they're also attracted to adults. When this happens, it's usually because of insecurity or stress in an adult relationship, says Anthony Siracusa, a psychologist in Williamstown, Mass., who specializes in treating abused kids and sexual offenders.

These people, Siracusa says, are called "regressed offenders" because they have literally regressed: They lose the social skills they need to deal with other adults, which makes children more attractive to them. Regressed offenders may "bounce back and forth" between normal sexual relationships and criminal relations with children.

Insecurity, Hord agrees, is at the heart of pedophilia. Typically, pedophiles have trouble relating to people their own age. They need to feel they have power and control in a relationship, which is easy with children. One pedophile, "PwC," attests to this, writing on a pedophilia Web site:

"I'm 21 years old, and a virgin, I've never even kissed a girl. I have no job, and can't keep one. I'm frustrated that I'm a virgin, and it seems very unlikely that I'll ever get the kind of woman I want, and I'm desperate, because I need love. I never have molested a little girl, never! I want to though, I'm truly desperate. I want to hold a little girl in my arms, and tell her I love her, and that I'll keep her safe, and protect her, that appeals to me greatly."

This man is remorseful, but there are plenty of pedophiles who are not. Men and women who molest kids "for sport," as Hord puts it, are the most dangerous. They are also the ones who try to justify their sexual preference, arguing that pedophilia should be "normalized," just like homosexuality has been.

Homosexuality was, in fact, listed as a mental illness in psychiatry's main reference book, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, until the third edition came out in 1980. This edition included a category for homosexuals who were troubled by their sexuality and wanted to change it. All mention of homosexuality, however, was purged from the manual by 1987.

"It was well overdue," Siracusa says.

According to a 1994 statement from the American Psychiatric Association, the change came after decades of research showed that "a significant portion of gay and lesbian people were clearly satisfied with their sexual orientation" and showed no signs of mental illness. "It was also found that homosexuals were able to function effectively in society, and those who sought treatment most often did so for reasons other than their homosexuality."

Mental health professionals agree that pedophilia should never be considered normal, because it is truly a disease. None of the things that make homosexuality a normal variation of human sexuality apply to pedophilia.

Sadly, there is no "cure" for the disease. Therapy combined with drugs like SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) works well for many people with other mental illnesses, but it doesn't work for most pedophiles. The best doctors can really hope for is to help keep pedophiles from acting on their urges.

[Source.]

I'd also like you to cite some studies that were not funded by Christian think tanks to give your arguements a little more legitimacy.
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niedziejkore:
[QB] even though homosexuals are overrepresented in sexual abuse cases, the fact that a lot of heterosexuls do it as well would suggest that their theory is inadequate.

Not so. Dr. Dailey also addresses this in his study, as well as the cycle of sexual abuse. If you would refer to the link I gave above and familiarize yourself with the study, we could both save ourselves unnecessary repetition.

quote:
I'm sorry to say, but that article is bull**** propaghanda.
First, when you have to resort to four-letter words and ad hominem attacks to make a point, you obviously don't have a case.

Second, it is common knowledge that the American Psychiatric Assn. did a complete flip-flop in 1980 over the entire homosexuality issue, so I can't say the article you provided has swayed me in the least. Here are some obvious defects I see:

(1) The fact that gays and lesbians are satisfied with their lifestyle simply doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

(2) The Martin Downs article patently mischaracterizes other studies as saying "all pedophiles are homosexuals" (or vice versa), which clearly they are not. This statement simply was never made by Dr. Dailey, or others who share his opinion.

(3) The article glaringly avoids the issue of why there is a disproportionate number of homosexual pedophiles in comparison to the heterosexual population.

(4) The study only superficially deals with the subject of causality and environmental factors, and doesn't go into as much depth as Dr. Dailey's study did.

(5) The article endorses the questionably weak conclusion that pedophilia is a mental disorder, while in the same breath it claims homosexuality is not. How they arrived at this conclusion remains to be seen. This is junk science at best.

quote:
I'd also like you to cite some studies that were not funded by Christian think tanks to give your arguements a little more legitimacy.
(1) Provide some evidence for your assertion that Dr. Dailey was paid off by some "Christian think tank" for his study.

(2) Had you perused Dr. Dailey's exhaustive Bibliography, you would have known that it is replete with references to secular sources of data, statistics, professional psychiatric journals, etc. In the interest of space and to avoid needless repetition, I'm not going to paste the whole thing here. Refer back to the link if you are so inclined.

(3) There are numerous other studies on the topic, such as the one completed by Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education in suburban Louisville, Ky., and former university research professor. Dr. Reisman recently completed a study entitled, "Crafting Gay Children," in which she cites a 1991 population study by the U.S. Department of Commerce which revealed that 8 million girls were abused by age 18 by heterosexual men, a ratio of 1 victim to 11 adult men. However, 6-8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1-2 million adult homosexuals, a ratio of 3-5 victims for every gay adult.

In a database assembled by psychologist Dr. Gene Able, Director of the Behavioral Sciences Institute in Atlanta, it was shown that 150 boys are abused by one male homosexual offender, compared to 19.8 girls by heterosexual offenders.

According to Dr. Reisman, the rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering. She was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. "Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls."

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/articles.htm

(4) "Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture," wrote Steve Baldwin in, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF
 
Posted by Paula (Member # 551) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SoftTouch:

I plead with you to call (202-224-3121) or email your Senators and Congressman today and tell them to support the Federal Marriage Amendment. . .
Do this even if you have done it before! The battle for marriage will be decided within the next six months. www.afa.net

It's important that our leaders speak for us in Congress.
 
Posted by TEXASGRANDMA (Member # 847) on :
 
I believe that there is a close link between homosexuals and people who prey on children. Many people who are homosexual were preyed on by adults while they were young. Ellen Dengeeres says her first female relationship was with an adult female while she was still in school. I know a female homosexual that I grew up with that was a victim of sexual abuse by an female adult. This adult used her authority to take advantage of my friend.
 
Posted by BrennaB (Member # 3361) on :
 
And this is why most people Americans think Christianity is a joke. A true follower of Christ is not a bigoted, "gay-bashing" hick nor is he someone who says, "Let's all live in peace and harmony, regardless of your religion." You must take a stand for what you believe in and not give into the lie that says we all have the same destination, just different paths. Jesus said, "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one can come to the Father but through Me." That's not being narrow-minded, that's just setting a standard. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals; I have compassion for them. And I also have friends who aren't believers, but they know my beliefs and convictions. I don't preach to them, but I don't compromise either.

God's wish is that no man would perish, but He has set the rules for salvation, not us.
 
Posted by Tyme (Member # 3017) on :
 
Well said.

AMEN


Tyme.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0