Preacher makes a good case against homosexuality

Werbung:

Well as usual I did not watch the video but I doubt the preacher made a good case against homosexuality that belonged as part of the testimony for a law. Could he make a good case from the pulpit? Sure. But that is totally different.
 
Well your penis isnt for sticking it into another mans ass. Its for taking a piss and for sex for female partners.

I would have hoped what you say would be less crude.

Is it only for elimination and procreation? Are those the ONLY two purposes? If those are not the ONLY two purposes then you may be hard pressed to make the claim that any particular third purpose is out of bounds.
 
How can i say then? You tell me? I made my point,,Yes Gays are punished by GOD. Theres even proof in medical dept that homosexualty causes AIDS
 
How can i say then? You tell me? I made my point,,Yes Gays are punished by GOD. Theres even proof in medical dept that homosexualty causes AIDS
Viruses cause AIDS.
and, if you didn't view the video in the OP, then you have no idea what the thread is about.
 
A thread like this wouldn't be out of place on a radical Islamist board

But christian fundamentalist bigotry is better than Islamic fundamentalist bigotry isn't it?

This thread is conceptually no different to posting a thread stating ''preacher makes a good case against racial equality'' and the mods should take it down

That is if they have recruited any who aren't to the right of the Tea party
 
A thread like this wouldn't be out of place on a radical Islamist board

But christian fundamentalist bigotry is better than Islamic fundamentalist bigotry isn't it?

This thread is conceptually no different to posting a thread stating ''preacher makes a good case against racial equality'' and the mods should take it down

That is if they have recruited any who aren't to the right of the Tea party

It would appear that you cannot support your case so you attempt to limit free speech.

Here is a definition of bigot:

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group [] with hatred and intolerance"

It would also appear that repeatedly bringing poor comparisons of Christianity to Islam across various threads and attempting to shut down the speech from Christians just might be an example itself of bigotry.

Maybe its time I watched that video.
 
Ha! I bet I am the only one to watch that and the OP has been biting his tongue waiting for someone to watch.

The video is of a man who claims to be a reverend ( I would assume he is actually one since it might be a crime to go before the council and make false claims about ones identity).

He starts making arguments ostensibly against special rights for gays but we later learn that he is quoting people from the past who were making these arguments against rights for blacks.

It is of course, a comparison and we are suppose to conclude that if someone made an argument that sounded like this and it was wrong before then it must also be wrong to make similar arguments now. That is of course a clever point to make in a speech but it is not sound logic. There may very well be sound arguments to make against the ordinances that are being proposed to establish what are called gay rights. As I mentioned above I think these arguments are best made as secular arguments at council meetings.

So lets get this thread going! Were civil rights for blacks "special rights" or were civil rights for blacks examples of rights that should be extended to all being finally extended to blacks? Presently, are the rights that are being proposed for gays special rights or are they just rights that all should have protected? Are these ordinances even protecting rights? For example, is marriage a right or a restriction of rights?
 
Werbung:
That is of course a clever point to make in a speech but it is not sound logic.
I probably differ with many of my Republican and Conservative friends with respect to my support of Gay marriage. Here's my logic on the issue:

The only legitimate use of force is done in retaliation to stop the individual(s) who initiated the use of force - the Individual Right of Self Defense. Government's only legitimate role is to protect the individual rights of it's citizens. It is the Individual Right of Self Defense that authorizes government to act as the agent of our protector in cases where rights are being violated, to defend the individual and stop (or punish) the offender(s).

As Jefferson once said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." So long as the beliefs, or actions, of another individual do not violate the rights of others, then there is no justification for using the force of government to stop his actions (bans on gay marriage) or otherwise punish him for his beliefs. To do so would be immoral.

What consenting adults choose to do with their lives is none of my business, and by extension, it is also none of government's business. While most "gay" rights activists would likely agree with that statement, even the most ardent supporter of "gay" rights would - through some feet of mental gymnastics - suddenly claim it IS government's business with regards to polygamy (which I also support, as it does not violate anyone's rights).

If you can admit that two gays marrying one another does not violate your rights but still believe you have a right, and by extension government has a right, to ban social behavior simply because you find it repugnant, then anything you do that someone else finds repugnant (such as keeping the fruits of your labor or, worse yet, accumulating wealth) is also fair game. By supporting a system that places demands or bans on people whose actions are not violating the rights of anyone, you have no standing to oppose whatever demands they feel necessary to place on you.
 
Back
Top