Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Well, you're on this site, engaging with all of us evil types, so have at it - answer the question Faith. Do you draw any lines, when it comes to your desire to require people to adhere to biblical requirements ?It's a really relevant question - asked really politely - indulge us.

Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

I'm not asking whether God is deriding me. I'm asking you, Faith, what your views are - where it is you draw your lines (if any).Do your convictions lack such courage, that they hide from scrutiny ?

It was intended that all beliefs would have equal standing. No favoritism for any sect or belief. In fact it is written in the Constitution that there shall be no religious test for office -- and that indeed is one of the original founding principles that is in need of revitalizing. No. They thought of this as a nation where Christians and people of any other faith or belief were equally treated. Nope, this is pure bollhockey-puck shinola. Many are on record as deploring Christianity as bad for people and society -- for many of the same reasons it is bad for people and society today. Learn real history Faith, not the Christianized wannabe history. WHO most persecuted the Native People to change their beliefs?Do you know WHY Rhode Island became a separate colony from Massachusetts?Do you know WHERE the oldest Synagogue Temple is in the United States?Do you know HOW old it is?[abe] Curiously this was on facebook this morning: nuff said. [/abe] Edited by RAZD, : added image

1. amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.1. COMMANDMENTTHOU SHAL NOT HAVE ANY GODS BEFORE ME!!!so the very first amendemant was the beginning of the downfall of america as worship of other gods was allowed ?

How is treating people equally evil?Ordering genocide is evil (unless your god does it, I guess). If having to treat all people the same is evil then a reasonable conclusion would be that your views about what is evil is certainly not normal.All the best.

I know. Treating Christians the same as Muslims and atheists is pure evil. Christians should be treated much better than those immoral degenerates. Because they are superior to those animals, right?Well let's take a look at what nations Faith wants America to emulate, those nations that have not succumbed to the evil propaganda that we should treat each other decently and those that don't should be penalized (countries that don't have Anti-discrimination laws with regards to homosexuals):Algeria
Egypt
Libya
Morocco
South Sudan
Sudan
Tunisia
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cte d'Ivoire
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Liberia
Mali
Mauritania
Niger
Nigeria
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Togo
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
Republic of the Congo
So Tom and Prncipe
Burundi
Djibouti
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Kenya
Rwanda
Somalia
Uganda
Tanzania
Comoros
Madagascar
Angola
Lesotho
Malawi
Namibia
Swaziland
Zambia
Belize
Honduras
Panama
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Cuba
Curaao
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Haiti
Jamaica
Montserrat
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sint Maarten
Trinidad and Tobago
Turks and Caicos Islands
Argentina
Guyana
Paraguay
Suriname
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Bahrain
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Oman
Palestinian territories
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Iran
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
China
Japan
Macau
Mongolia
North Korea
South Korea
Brunei
Burma
Cambodia
East Timor
Indonesia
Laos
Malaysia
Singapore
Liechtenstein (hey look - Western Europe!)
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Russia
Macedonia
San Marino
Turkey
Monaco
East Timor
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Kiribati
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Palau
Cook Islands
Samoa
Tokelau
Tonga
TuvaluWell I can see how that list is primarily composed of nations with completely fair and impartial education systems free of 'evil propaganda', so maybe you have a point.So which nations have succumbed to evil propaganda?Mayotte
Runion
South Africa
Canada
Mexico
Saint Pierre et Miquelon
Guadeloupe
Martinique
Puerto Rico
Saint Barthlemy
Saint Martin
United States Virgin Islands
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
French Guiana
Peru
Uruguay
Nepal
Thailand
Croatia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
Albania
Andorra
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Greece
Malta
Montenegro
Portugal
Serbia
Spain
Vatican City
Belgium
France
Ireland
Isle of Man
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Kosovo
Northern Cyprus
Australia (et al)
New Zealand
New Caledonia
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
American Samoa
Easter Island
French Polynesia
Pitcairn Islands
Wallis and FutunaThose evil nazis! It's strange how the nations that Faith proposes have succumbed to EVIL propaganda are predominantly nations with a long history of Christianity (or territories thereof) while the nations that RIGHTLY allow discrimination against homosexual people often seem to have a history of Islam. I'm not sure what lesson Faith proposes I take from this, but I get the distinct impression that Faith has more in common with Islamists than Christians when it comes to what she thinks of people that make other people's lives hell.So Faith, maybe you should move to Africa as I suggested yesterday in another thread. There are many places there where you'd be free to be a horrible person to homosexuals. Either that or you could become a Communist or Russian. But sometimes it is? I'll take that. I am after all, either generalizing or referring to a specific subset that you happen to agree with that believe they should be able to break any law they like with impunity because Jesus said so. If you can't defeat someone by remaining reasonable and polite - just accuse them of being lying Nazis. We're all very impressed by this original and devastating comeback. Honestly - how can I compete with such a giant of wit and rhetoric as this? Thanks for that. So now we have established that your objection is not one of magnitude, but target.So let me just clarify:If the German Volk refused to serve Jews in their shops.
If the German Volk declined to provide medical assistance to Jews who require it.
If the German Volk randomly attacked Jews on the streets.
If the German Volk fired people who it was discovered were Jews.
If the German legislature criminalised being Jewish.This is not persecution.However, if Paul von Hindenburg made it a criminal offence to treat Jews like this THAT is persecuting the German Volk.Is that the ridiculous position you want to convince me is the correct way of interpreting things?If your beloved bakers had refused to serve someone because they were Black, Hispanic, Jewish, atheist or the wrong type of Christian - you would defend them and would be outraged at the people that think this behaviour should be punished? That 1920s America was the epitome of freedom because white people could get away with everything from making black people feel like second class citizens up to and including murder? This was good in your view?So if I raped you - and I went to prison - am I the victim?If a Muslim is fined for refusing to serve Christians - who is being persecuted?
If an atheist doctor lets a Christian die from an easily rectified medical problem, loses her job and faces criminal charges and a large civil lawsuit - which group is facing oppression?How is treating Christians the same as atheists and Muslims and Hindus, persecution of Christians?Who am I kidding. You're not actually going to answer that, or deal with anything I said substansively. That would be difficult and force you to confront things you would rather not. But it was fun writing it anyway.

It's always good when you let us know what is pure evil. In this case it's saying that discriminating against gay people is discriminating against gay people. So, saying something that is true by definition, that's pure evil. Hmm ... you appear to have gone insane.We just want gay people to have civil rights. No-one gives a fuck about your crazy sect.To repeat a metaphor I've used before. Suppose some guys take a road trip from Los Angeles to San Fransisco. On their way they run over a beetle. Do you think they took the road trip in order to run over the beetle? Do you suppose they give a shit? They want to get where they're going. They are utterly indifferent to the fact that the beetle was in their way. They certainly didn't plan their route so as to crush the beetle. Then let me enlighten you. People who have "said homosexuals could marry" include the governments of Scotland, England, Wales, Brazil, France, New Zealand, Uruguay, Denmark, Argentina, Portugal, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands. That is a matter of historical fact.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So it's OK to be awful to Canadians? Nothing about that is a legitimate natural classification like race or sex.And it's OK to be treat rape victims worse than upstanding Christians? Some of them have 'aberrant sexual conditions' such as frigidity. What about chubby chasers? White people that like black people? Ginger lovers? Foot-fetishists? Celibates like St Paul? Men who like older women? The impotent? Intersex individuals? Dyspareunia sufferers? Frotteurism sufferers? Masochists? Sadists? Women with Vaginismus? Adulterers (including people that married more than once)? Victims of FGM? HSDD? SAD? Psychotic people with intrusive sexual thoughts?Or is it just fags? When did he say that?He married a young boy. And oversaw a wedding between two men. He was hardly unique in the pre-Christian world in this regard.

The subject is gay marriage, the changing of an institution to apply it to people other than it is meant to apply to. It isn't about people at all really, it's about a misapplication of marriage and what ought to be my right to refuse to honor it. All your nasty comparisons have nothing to do with this.

Yes RAZD, you can find all those quotes too. Find the ones where they speak of the necessity of Christian morality for a good society. They're out there too.Madison's view of separation was quite Chtristian, however. He doesn't belong on your list.

Then why didn't you post them?{ABE} Bet any ones yo can come up with are quote mines or outright lies. If you use Barton as a source they are guaranteed to be lies.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

If you were honest you'd find it yourself.

You really are a piece of work. I'm dishonest because I won't do your job for you.You claimed "Find the ones where they speak of the necessity of Christian morality for a good society. They're out there too." It's your job to produce evidence of such (including the source ) when challenged.Will you produce those quotes, or are you admitting you are a dishonest liar? It's one or the other.

Well yes what oyu dont understand there is a Christian meaning of marriage and the meaning the state uses, I think gays are pretty fine without your religious mumbo jumbo priests preforming such a marriage that's your part. What gays want is equal rights, not a condo up in heaven for doing what god wants.you can paint marriage as holy as you want it does not matter the use of marriage in society is what counts, and gays are prevented this use.