|
Author
|
Topic: Christians Aren't Supposed to Hurt Children
|
Tyme
Advanced Member
Member # 3017
|
posted
quote:
I am not a Christian, to be sure, but I am not ignorant about Christianity
after reading your post, I have to tell you.
yes, yes you are Ignorant.
Tyme.
--------------------
I dream of a world.......
Posts: 527 | From: United States | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Excellent, Endoxos ![[Prayer]](graemlins/prayer.gif) ![[Cross]](graemlins/cross.gif) ![[Bible]](graemlins/bible.gif)
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Endoxos
Advanced Member
Member # 2929
|
posted
Danny,
The LGBT lifestyle are trying to change what has existed in one form, and ONLY one form, for thousands of years, and now saying "Look at me! We've changed the meaning of something *you* hold sacred! I raise my fleshly desires above the tenets and laws of your God..." as if to say 'I shall place myself above the Most High, and embrace the unnatural desires of my sin, instead of the natural purpose of the opposite sex'.
Marriage has ALWAYS been one man and one woman, just as in all societies it has ALWAYS wrong to commit adultery, and fornication has always been wrong. But like the Hollywood liberal left, who say "adultery is not wrong, but a lifestyle choice", and our children are now saying "fornication/pre-marital sex is not wrong, and I do not have to save myself for marriage, because it is my choice", we now have the LGBT subculture saying "The institution known as marriage will be broken down to allow what has never been allowed before, we redefine something you hold sacred".
It is almost as if a society were to say "Remembering the Last Supper is no longer for Christians alone, but we, the secular, will defile it by associating its event with thievery". Or "Wearing the headscarf of Islam or the yarmulke of Judaism isn't for Muslims or Jews any more, they're 'all the rage' for mass murderers". Or maybe "Let's make a blow-up-doll in the image of Buddha".
Every society holds marriage as sacred and belonging to one man and one woman, just as God has instituted it. Marriage was implemented to ensure that mankind would not bow to our fleshly desires, and that we would burn *only* for our spouse, and can have biological children. Lesbians and gays can't have biological children, and transgendered can no longer have children, because they have rejected their God-given fertile body parts in preference of man-made infertile parts... Man+man=no child, woman+woman=no child. And bi's, though capable of having children, are twice as prone to burn with the lust of adultery and fornication (after all they have both genders to choose from).
You say "don't hurt the children". There would be no children hurt if LGBT didn't adopt children. It requires both a man *and* a woman to raise a child. A man cannot fully understand a girl's development, nor can a woman fully understand a boy's. A man cannot be the soft comforter that a mother is, nor can a woman be the strong protector that a father is, yet EVERY child needs both the comforter and the protector. See how many children from single-parent families grow up saying "I wish I had my mom/dad there to support me when I needed it most". Lesbians, gays, and transexuals offer twice as much of one support, and absolutely none of the other. It is akin to a single parent whose answer to every problem is "you need a hug" or "you need to approach your problems head-on", and never understanding that life is a delicate balance between the two... LG&T offer only either "you need a hug" or "approach it head on" because woman's physiology and thought patterns are hard-coded to be soft and tender, and the man is hard-coded to be protective and strong. For a lesbian or a gay to pretend to do the opposite sex's role for the sake of the child is to deny who they are, and reject what their purpose is, and do a mere mockery of the quality that the opposite gender is capable of accomplishing.
One last thing, if you support LGBT marriage (for the record, being lesbian, bi, or gay, is a choice, just as all sin is, for there are many MANY once-homosexual people who are happily married living straight lives), then what stops you from supporting polygamous marriage (another choice), pedophilic marriage (according to scientists, pedophilia is in genes just as homosexuality is), and bestial marriage (a disorder, just as homosexuality was once classified as a disorder)?
You put homosexuality along the lines of skin color. I cannot make one hair on my head black or white, I may dye it and pretend it's blonde, though in a month it will turn brown again. I may put contacts in and pretend my eyes are green when they are really blue. A man may bleach his skin white and have plastic surgery, though that does not change the fact he is of African decent. A person may have plastic surgery to change his Oriental almond-shaped eyes to Western round eyes, though Oriental blood still pulses within him. These are God-given facts that cannot change. Homosexuality is not like this. A homosexual has God-given "equipment" designed for one purpose, to match up with the opposite "equipment". If homosexuality was hard-coded as skin color is, then there would be no bisexual people, and there would be "equipment" suited for such activity that would allow reproduction.
You say you are not Christian... and this is the reason you do not understand our stance. Man is more than just our flesh. We have souls as well. The non-Christian says "My desires say 'this', and since I am only human, I must obey my desires, and it's not my fault". Christians say "My desires say 'this', but I know that with God, all things are possible, and so I do not bow to the whims of my flesh, but God helps me to master my fleshly desires". The Christian is slave to God alone, and chooses to serve none other, not even his own flesh. The non-Christian is slave to his flesh, his desires, then when he does wrong, runs and says "It's not my fault, I'm only human".
And this is why the LGBT say it is impossible to change from being homosexual to heterosexual, and this is why there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians who were once gay and are not any longer, for they have either repented and became heterosexual, or they have repented but yet burn in their desire, so choose to remain celibate willingly, for that is that person's personal calling, to master it in that fashion.
--------------------
My signature is apisdn umop.
Posts: 362 | From: HELP! I'm stuck in a DOS window! | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
??? quote:
homosexual families
???
there is no such known by Yahweh.
you talk of children in danger, a child living with a homosexual, are in great danger.
you can not legislate morality, but you can have laws that show a nations commitment to a moral standard. America in years gone by had such laws, the Scriptures were the standard for laws and the standard to interpret laws,
but just as the "Church" has turned its back on the Commandments/Laws of Yahweh, so has this once great Nation.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Danny46818
First Post
Member # 3610
|
posted
As those among you who are Christians attend church this weekend, many of you will doubtless be urged to support the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, now more than ever. Friday, July 10, the Senate began debate on the issue. A Senate vote is expected as early as next week.
What people have got to start understanding is that LGBT Americans are not demanding any rights, special or otherwise, just as blacks during the Civil Rights Movement did not demand any rights they did not already have. Blacks always had the rights they sought, as conferred to them by the United States Constitution; however, because of a de facto policy of segregation perpetrated by whites, which existed as never-lawfully-codified, always-unofficially-practiced policies of whites-only places and places in which blacks and whites were to remain segregated, such as restaurants, modes of public transport, etc., blacks were prevented from enjoying rights already conferred upon them by the Constitution. It was the declaring of those de facto policies as unconstitutional which upheld the rights that blacks already had. Likewise, it is because LGBT Americans are currently in the midst of their own civil rights movement and are seeking to have similar de facto policies, as well as the body of discriminatory laws already on the books, declared unconstitutional because we are being denied rights which we already have.
During the Black Civil Rights Era, racist states were specifically careful not to codify segregation into law because they knew that such laws were patently unconstitutional and would be challenged and overturned on the federal level. With the exception of the few “Jim Crow” laws, most laws which would have mandated segregation were never actually codified. Such laws could have been challenged and declared unconstitutional at the federal level had they come to the attention of the Supreme Court in due course. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only overturned the few de jure laws of segregation but made all de facto practices of segregation illegal by outlawing discrimination based upon race, religion, color, national origin, creed, etc. Today, there are significantly more de jure laws, or formally codified laws, which explicitly discriminate against LGBT Americans than there ever were de jure laws codifying segregation. LGBT Americans have enjoyed some measure of success in having these laws overturned by having them declared unconstitutional.
Indeed, this is the very reason that the Federal Marriage Amendment has been proposed. Drafters of the amendment know that defining marriage in terms of being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. That is the very reason they seek to amend or change the existing Constitution, so that they can be free to lawfully codify discrimination and not have it declared unconstitutional. LGBT Americans are not demanding any rights they do not already have. They are definitely not demanding “special” rights. They are demanding that the rights already prescribed to them by the U.S. Constitution be upheld rather than denied through discriminatory laws and de facto policy.
As blacks already had the rights they sought during their civil rights movement, LGBT Americans already have the rights which they are demanding. The problem is that a de facto practice of discrimination against LGBT Americans underpins the body of de jure laws which actually codify LGBT discrimination. LGBT Americans are already conferred the right to marry whom they choose. It is the widespread de facto practice of LGBT discrimination and the body of state-level discriminatory de jure laws, coupled with the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevent LGBT Americans from realizing the basic civil rights they already have. That is why the Religious Right is attempting to amend the Constitution—because they know that LGBT Americans are already constitutionally conferred the right to marry whom they choose. This is not about LGBT Americans demanding special rights. This is not even about LGBT Americans demanding equal rights. This is about the Religious Right attempting to take away rights already conferred by the U.S. Constitution, but they only want to take the constitutional rights of equal protection under the law and privacy away from LGBT Americans while not taking those same rights away from non-LGBT Americans.
The right for a woman to marry a woman or a man to marry a man is an LGBT American’s stock in currency of human civil liberty. We already possess that currency. We are not attempting to demand a handout of currency. The problem is that, through de facto policy and discriminatory laws, others are allowed to refuse that currency as legal tender. Just as surely as if a store clerk were refusing to accept the rare, but no less valid, $2 bill as legal tender, the currency of human civil liberty already possessed by LGBT Americans, as conferred by the U.S. Constitution, is being refused as legal tender. The de facto policy of a particular store may state that $2 bills are not to be accepted, that they are not legal tender. In such a situation, it is easy to imagination how this de facto policy would be struck down since $2 bills are indeed legal tender. In the same way, LGBT Americans are seeking to have de facto policies and de jure laws denying rights they already possess declared unconstitutional because those rights are their stock in currency of human civil liberty but are not being accepted as legal tender. LGBT Americans have no other stock in currency of human civil liberty. To deny LGBT Americans the use of the civil rights which they already possess is to savagely curtail life, liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness. They have no other stock in currency because of who they are.
You may believe that homosexuality is wrong. You may believe that it is a choice and a condition which can be “cured.” But what if you’re wrong? By supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment, you are making personal decisions for LGBT Americans for them. Are you willing to take that chance? Are you so proud and steadfast in a know-it-all attitude that you are willing to ignore your own Bible’s admonitions and warnings against judgment by passing judgment upon LGBT Americans and deciding for them what is best for them? Do you feel that your God needs a little help and wish to set yourself up over others in order to facilitate that help?
By injecting discrimination into the Constitution for the first time, whether or not you might agree that it is discrimination, what you cannot argue with is the fact that no other amendment restricts personal freedom. The Federal Marriage Amendment would be the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ever deign to restrict individual freedom. It would be the first ever amendment to say, “No,” to some Americans while saying, “Yes,” to other Americans, based only upon sexual orientation, when the same question is being asked: “May we celebrate our love and life together with the peace and harmony rung in by the bestowment of our share in the equal protection under the law of this great nation?” The proposed amendment would force the United States Government to choose sides on a moral issue when precedent has long since determined that what various people believe regarding moral issues have no bearing on the personal and private decisions that an American citizen makes as regards her or his rights and equal protection under the law. The Federal Marriage Amendment thrusts the United States Government into American homes and forces the Government to make a moral judgment as to which families are legally recognized and which families are not. You will never stop gay families from forming. All the proposed amendment will do is place gay families at risk.
The Federal Marriage Amendment condemns many children to a life lacking in thousands upon thousands of basic legal protections which the children of heterosexual families enjoy. The Federal Marriage Amendment literally places lives at risk. Frankly, any person who supports the Federal Marriage Amendment is condemning certain families, which exist whether they like it or not, to a life lacking in equal protection under the law. That person is condemning children to live at risk because certain Americans don’t like the kind of Americans these children’s parents happen to be, similar to the degradation which many Jewish children endure because certain Americans don’t like the kind of Americans these Jewish children’s parents are. The proponent of the Federal Marriage Amendment is condemning these children to live without equal protection under the law—hundreds of state protections and thousands of federal protections which heterosexual families enjoy. Children in homosexual families, which exist whether you like it or not, will lack these protections if the Constitution is allowed to be amended. Are you so sure that my being allowed to marry whom I wish will destroy your marriage and your family? How sure are you? How far would you go to fight me? If you are willing to go as far as putting my children at risk, by denying my family thousands of protections which your family enjoys, would you be willing to support legislation which would prevent my children from attending public schools with your children, in order to fight me? Would you be willing to support legislation that prevents me from providing food and shelter for my children in order to fight me? How far are you willing to hurt my children to get back at me for being who I am? Christians aren’t supposed to hurt children, even if they’re hurt or scared by what they see in the world around them. Christians would do better to just trust in their God.
If you want to fight me, that’s your right, but don’t do it by hurting children. You can and should continue to fight for your beliefs, but are you so sure of yourself and this complex issue that you are willing to put children’s lives at risk by changing the very document at the heart of a nation whose inner workings the average American barely understands? Are you so sure this is the right course? What if you’re wrong? If you and I were engaged in a gunfight and if children were found to be caught in the crossfire, I would beg you for a ceasefire long enough so that we could take the fight to a more appropriate battlefield. If you want to fight to educate people about how you believe homosexuality is wrong, be my guest; you are welcome to do so, but don’t condemn children in the process! This is not the way! Lives are at stake. The Federal Marriage Amendment puts families at risk. While it does little to put heterosexual families at risk, it deals a devastating blow to homosexual families, which exist whether you like it or not.
I am not a Christian, to be sure, but I am not ignorant about Christianity. I am familiar with Christian tenets and beliefs, and I have to ask, in all honesty and with all enmity left aside, what Christian could support the Federal Marriage Amendment when it puts children’s lives at risk? The truth of the matter is this: Christians who support the Federal Marriage Amendment are no better than Christians who convince themselves that God needs a little help and decide to go out and beat up a gay person, or Christians who decide that God needs a little help and go out and kill an abortion clinic doctor. Whether or not other Christians want to avow the validity of these rogue Christians’ true Christianity, you cannot argue with the fact that these people are self-described Christians and have been shaped by the same Christian tenets and beliefs which you hold dear. Now we have Christians who have decided that God needs a little help and who support the Federal Marriage Amendment by putting children’s very lives at risk. Beating up a gay person or murdering that person is not the way you “fight for what’s right.” Killing an abortion clinic doctor is not the way you “fight for what’s right.” Supporting a constitutional amendment which puts the children of gay families at risk is not the way to “fight for what’s right”! If you feel you must fight, then fight, but don’t put children at risk to do it!
Please, consider carefully what you are about to do. Do not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. By all means, continue to fight for what you believe is right, but don’t do this. The stakes are just too high, for all of us.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
