Posted on 12/05/2002 12:41:29 PM PST by Polycarp
I've gathered that by their posts.
Your entire comment, not just the part I quote, was appreciated. It has become common for reverse discrimination to try and deny those who would say that any PC cause is wrong should be denied a place at the table. If this country is ever to be as "progressive" as the enlightened liberals would believe they are, they, too, must learn to allow the dialog to include those who disagree with them, whether on moral grounds or otherwise.
If I were part of a group that totalled 2% of the population, I'd try NOT to piss off the other 98%.
No homosexual chooses to stick a male phallus in his mouth or have the posterior opening of his alimentary canal penetrated by a penis?
What utter PC garbage you're spouting. And homosexuals don't choose to rub feces over themselves or put gerbils up their rectums either, eh?
Yes, everyday people choose how to behave sexually. Who they will have sex with, how often, where, when, etc. Sex among humans is all about choice. But, we've been around on this issue before, madg. Can I help it if you are a single-issue type? Or that God has already spoken on this matter? Your problem is with Him.
Just look at history, and the hundreds of millions murdered by anti-religionists in the last century.
The Crusades and Inquisitions pale in comparison to the brutality and sheer volume of sufferings inflicted by the "Freethinking" atheist regimes of the last century.
I'll take my chances with the Christians, thanks.
As this debate rages in this thread, you will see people resort to the Bible or the Catholic Catechism as support for the idea that homosexuality is a sin and should be suppressed.
How about resorting to simple medical data?
Published by Centre Daily Times, Friday, June 2, 2000
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDSby Brian J. Kopp, DPM Parental warning: The following "My View" contains graphic medical terminology about sexual activities that may not be suitable for younger readers. AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992). To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary. These diseases are acquired directly through the sexual behavior homosexual activists are asking Americans to legally endorse and protect. Yet, as professor Jerome Lejeune of Descartes University, Paris, says of AIDS: "Only God can truly pardon the one who violates His laws; man pardons at times; Nature never pardons at all: She is not a person." The brutal consequences of attempting to break the natural law are not bigoted or hateful, nor are those, like Dr. Laura, Cal Thomas or Gary Morella, who try to point out the dangers and simple truths. We are seeing the natural consequences of violating nature's laws now. They are also a warning to prevent the ultimate eternal consequences. How many will ignore that warning and continue to call the messenger a bigot and continue to shake their fist at God? How many will heed that warning of a loving Father, ready to forgive and reconcile His prodigal children? |
In their minds "persecution" = simple Christian charity in sharing the Gospel Truth, no matter how benign the messenger or gentle the message.
WITBL replied:
Propagandist lie that will help you get your two minute hate on.
LOL!!! You just posted to me as your definition of "persecution":
If someone denied Christians jobs, reviled them for their 'sick' beliefs, knocked on their doors and asked them to renounce their scandalous lifestyles--that would be persecution.
I agree to a point that people should be allowed to express their opinion. However, as a Christian myself I'm only going to listen to the 'stumping' by certain groups before I recognize that what they are promoting is immoral or a violation of fundamental freedoms important to the well-being of our country. Is it really in our best interest as a moral country to allow immoral behavior to be 'represented'? What do we then do with the paedophile, the beastophile or the necrophile? In our efforts to be more tolerant do we start listening to their 'needs' and 'demands' to exist as a 'divergent' view?
While I certainly could do without the extremes that are promoted by certain individuals on these forums there it is still reasonable to draw a line based on a moral stance and to say that we're not going to tolerate such behavior.
I can't speak for all the Christians on this forum but I can tell you that I too will point to the Bible (if necessary) to make my point but based on the simple rules of logic I don't necessarily have to do so to make the point that homosexuality is not a lifestyle we need to validate or justify in a moral society. It is a stepping stone to further perversion.
Personally I'd say there are definitely two ways we can go. We can choose the path of morality and avoid the destruction that comes from choosing immorality or we can choose immorality and reap what we sow. I think the posted article above demonstrates that choosing homosexuality does not make one socially more responsible. And I'm referring to not just to the murderer - I'm referring to the many horrible comments stated by 'liberals' as exhibited in the post. All they've done is add a deeper level of degenerate behavior to an already immoral lifestyel.
I'm glad you're willing to listen to a reasonable Christian view - I just hope reasonable doesn't imply that they must agree with you.
Saying the owner of that site represents even a small perecentage of the views of Christians is like saying Neo-Nazi's represent the average gun owner.
If any person tells you "God Hates Fags", that person is no Christian or has a very poor misunderstanding of the New Testement.
They say that on the internet no one knows you're a dog. You wouldn't, perhaps, be misrepresenting who you are, just a teeny weeny little bit, would you?
It is their duty to clearly state that they do not condone the violent behavior of fringe members of their group (if indeed they are fringe) just as mainstream pro-life groups must, and have, condemned any and all violence against abortionists.
What is wrong with asking mainstream homosexual groups to condemn this murder by one of their own of a poor Catholic woman merely practicing her faith?
Yep. Sorry; I'm just a tad trigger happy these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.