John Adams Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Not if I, my wife, my church and my God have anything to do with it. My dad can't even talk about gays without clamming up embarassed. My schools were anti-gay Catholic. My Catholic upbringing was anti-gay (via the mouths of gay priests and also pedophile preists who love fiddling boys). Didn't work to make me anti-gay marriage.
EC-Bills Posted May 11, 2010 Author Posted May 11, 2010 No, but you can be sure that if gay marraige reaches the Supreme Court, she'll render a decision in line with her kind. Or maybe she would render a decision based off the constitution and not off religious belief. You're obviously entitled to your view, but imposing religious beliefs on to others is not in the constitution.
John Adams Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Not a problem, it's a heated topic. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, it happens. And just to be clear: I'm not for the government banning homosexuality. That's just irrational and won't happen. What I am opposed to is government interfering in the God-ordained institution of marraige. If gays want to be legally joined, let the secular authorities do it under some other term. Marraiges should be handled by the church, not the state, whether or not it's heterosecual or homosexual. Marriage is not god-ordained except in your church. In the real world, the secular institution of marriage and rights that flow from it has nothing to do with god. I can't believe you're one of those loons who hides behind a fight about using a word: "marriage" vs. "civil-union." At least before I thought you were a zealot and that made more sense to me.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 My dad can't even talk about gays without clamming up embarassed. My schools were anti-gay Catholic. My Catholic upbringing was anti-gay (via the mouths of gay priests and also pedophile preists who love fiddling boys). Didn't work to make me anti-gay marriage. Well, congratulations. Do you expect some sort of award?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Marriage is not god-ordained except in your church. In the real world, the secular institution of marriage and rights that flow from it has nothing to do with god. I can't believe you're one of those loons who hides behind a fight about using a word: "marriage" vs. "civil-union." At least before I thought you were a zealot and that made more sense to me. A zealot. That's nice. Again, someone who has a belief different from yours is wrong. And I'm the zealot? Sorry, you have more zeal for "protecting" gays' "rights" than most people have in anything!
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Or maybe she would render a decision based off the constitution and not off religious belief. You're obviously entitled to your view, but imposing religious beliefs on to others is not in the constitution. Nor is imposing secular pro-gay beliefs on those who disagree. Just sayin.
EC-Bills Posted May 11, 2010 Author Posted May 11, 2010 Nor is imposing secular pro-gay beliefs on those who disagree. Just sayin. Actually it is about ensuring equal rights to all people not imposing pro-gay beliefs. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Items that the constitution was constructed to ensure. Your beliefs would deny people of those rights.
John Adams Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 A zealot. That's nice. Again, someone who has a belief different from yours is wrong. And I'm the zealot? Sorry, you have more zeal for "protecting" gays' "rights" than most people have in anything! It's because I can't believe people like you operate in any way but under white hoods. To me, there's only the finest of lines between your controlling gays rights and other forms of racism and sexism. (Oh wait, you're the guy who doesn't like Kagan because she's a woman...makes some sense now.)
Booster4324 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Incorrect. We're not to tolerate sin, we're to preach against it. We're to love the sinner. I have no problem personally with John Adams. I think he's mistaken, misguided and ultimately will be damned for it, but that judgement's not mine to make. Sure seems like you made a judgment. Matthew 7:1 & 2
keepthefaith Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Thankfully your unfortunate type will be dead soon. I see no evidence of a pro-lesbian anti-abortion agenda. At best, I see evidence of an opinion on one of the issues (The stupid DADT policy) as it related to Harvard Law School. Alito and Roberts (not to mention Scalia and Thomas) are probably pro-choice. Guess what: I don't care. If they were zealots on the issue, I would care. If they just have a personal opinion, I don't. Obama appointed her. What more evidence do you need that she's pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-amnesty and pro-wealth redistribution? No way he appoints anyone who isn't completely on-board with his agenda. No fukking way.
John Adams Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Incorrect. We're not to tolerate sin, we're to preach against it. We're to love the sinner. I have no problem personally with John Adams. I think he's mistaken, misguided and ultimately will be damned for it, but that judgement's not mine to make. I'm going to hell because I think gays should have the secular right to marry...but you cause them pain by aggressively denying their right to secular marriage and that's heavenly? No wonder I'm not in your god-club.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 I'm going to hell because I think gays should have the secular right to marry...but you cause them pain by aggressively denying their right to secular marriage and that's heavenly? No wonder I'm not in your god-club. Let's get one thing straight: *I* am not causing any gay person any pain. I have an opinion on their behavior and it being legitimatized by the governent. Nothing more. I'm not out there with a whip, keeping them from humping each other.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Actually it is about ensuring equal rights to all people not imposing pro-gay beliefs. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Items that the constitution was constructed to ensure. Your beliefs would deny people of those rights. Oh really? Then what of "diversity" education that states that is taught in schools. There's nothing "diverse" about it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Sure seems like you made a judgment. Matthew 7:1 & 2 John says he doesn't believe Jesus is Lord. John 14:6: "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. No man can see the father BUT BY ME." God resides in Heaven. Ergo, no one goes to heaven without believing in Jesus Christ. If you're not going to Heaven, you're damned. The good news is that anyone can go to Heaven, regardless of their sin (yes, even gays and John Adams). All they have to do is repent and ask the Lord for salvation.
Booster4324 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Let's get one thing straight: *I* am not causing any gay person any pain. I have an opinion on their behavior and it being legitimatized by the governent. Nothing more. I'm not out there with a whip, keeping them from humping each other. Interesting.
DC Tom Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Let's get one thing straight: *I* am not causing any gay person any pain. I have an opinion on their behavior and it being legitimatized by the governent. Nothing more. I'm not out there with a whip, Some of them might like that, of course...
Booster4324 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 John says he doesn't believe Jesus is Lord. John 14:6: "I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. No man can see the father BUT BY ME." God resides in Heaven. Ergo, no one goes to heaven without believing in Jesus Christ. If you're not going to Heaven, you're damned. The good news is that anyone can go to Heaven, regardless of their sin (yes, even gays and John Adams). All they have to do is repent and ask the Lord for salvation. So John (Adams) could accept Jesus into his heart on his deathbed, or tomorrow. I see no exception in Matthew for non-believers. Matthew's instructions were to the one passing judgment, not about who you can and cannot pass judgment on.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 So John (Adams) could accept Jesus into his heart on his deathbed, or tomorrow. I see no exception in Matthew for non-believers. Matthew's instructions were to the one passing judgment, not about who you can and cannot pass judgment on. Also to be clear, I did say that it's not my place to judge his destination. Only God can do that. What I can do is infer that that's where he's headed based upon his own words.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Some of them might like that, of course... Of course. This is my whole point. If one's opinion and worldview don't agree with the "anything goes" morality of today, it simply isn't accepted. If that's the case, this new morality shouldn't be called tolerance. It should be called what for what it is.
Booster4324 Posted May 11, 2010 Posted May 11, 2010 Also to be clear, I did say that it's not my place to judge his destination. Only God can do that. What I can do is infer that that's where he's headed based upon his own words. I am not going to bust your hump over it, just food for thought perhaps. Your wording seemed to imply otherwise.
Recommended Posts