a good man

subjective.

CIVIL RIGHTS - Of or relating to a political movement, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, devoted to securing equal opportunity and treatment for members of minority groups.

in response to the OP's argument: i'm sorry, but civil rights do not limit themselves to race.

we always seem to mix up the issue at hand. nobody is saying being gay is the same thing as being black. if that's what you understand, then broaden your mind. it's about having the right to BE gay (whatever that may entail)....and not having the gov't or anyone else tell you what you can or cannot do.

tolerance is not equivalent to approval.

it's the 21st century. wake up.

CIVIL RIGHTS - Of or relating to a political movement, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, devoted to securing equal opportunity and treatment for members of minority groups.

in response to the OP's argument: i'm sorry, but civil rights do not limit themselves to race.

we always seem to mix up the issue at hand. nobody is saying being gay is the same thing as being black. if that's what you understand, then broaden your mind. it's about having the right to BE gay (whatever that may entail)....and not having the gov't or anyone else tell you what you can or cannot do.

tolerance is not equivalent to acceptance.

it's the 21st century. wake up.

I understand Priest's basic idea. But let me ask... Is it then fair to say suggest that to be non-accepting and/or intolerant is an oxymoron of sorts.

I understand Priest's basic idea. But let me ask... Is it then fair to say suggest that to be non-accepting and/or intolerant is an oxymoron of sorts.


sorry hun, i meant APPROVAL, not acceptance. i'll edit it.

only pointed out the fact that you can supercede your physical desire by an act of will and reason.

Our physical desires are our built in operating systems for survival. In any case you care to choose, overcoming your innate feelings, urges and motivations can get you killed. Grabbing a snake, walking through fire, etc.


And as for the love, homosexuality is not permissive to love, or at least, not in its real sense. If homosexuals were to recognize real love in their relationships there would no longer be a need for their relationships to exist.


Real love -- you speak of it as if it is absolute. But as Einstein pointed out, this is a relativistic world. To me one woman is beautiful, while to you, she is ugly. To me one situation is desirable, to you it is not. What makes what we call love significant, is our personal set of values, conditioning, reason etc.


If you wish for traditional Church teaching, it is that both men and women are equal, and share in the life of Christ equally.


There is no traditional Church. There hasn't been one contiguous line of the true church in human history.


The sad part about this all is that you ask who am I to speak. Who is anyone to speak, indeed? It is said that: "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." So would you wish that a good man do nothing?


You call yourself a good man. Who says that you are good? You are judging other human beings and enforcing a flawed standard based on superstition and an organised system of dogma and eschatology designed to control the ignorant masses. The Mayan societies fell apart because of their "priests". Your judgmental character as a matter of fact puts you on the evil side -- let him without sin cast the first stone. Go get stoned man.

It is a strange comparison that I am noticing in some of these threads. The plight of homosexuals is being compared to those ecountered by race.
This is not in the least the same issue of violation. Being judged by the colour of your skin is hardly comparable to making a choice in lifestyle. (Homosexuality itself may not be a choice, but as rational beings, choosing wrong action is.) Those who suffered from racial discrimination did not choose to be black, neither was their colour a willful action nor was it a course against natural processes.
Homosexuals while they should be treated with justice and accorded proper human rights, are not to confuse "because I want" with "what is right." Whether by religious, moralist, naturalist or rationalist means, homosexuality as a lifestyle is contradictory to right action and should not sought to be justified as normalcy, or as the current vernacular states, "Gay is OK."
The rights that homosexuals think they have and "fight" for, are not in the least comparable to those who suffered for their skin.


i understand what you are saying. you are basically saying that homosexuality may not be a choice but choosing to be open with it is, unlike being black you have no choice. you cant hide it and it wasnt your choice to be black.

to a certain extent you do have a point (a point that i do disagree with) however how would you explain the injustices suffered by inter racial couples. at a certain point in history they were discriminated against and so was their off spring. there was a time in history where marrying outside your race was against "the natural process and contridictory to right action".

the people in this situation was persecuted against for choosing to openly love their different raced partner.

also there were also extreme racisit who believed that it was the fualt of the black/jewish person that they were what they were. some used bible verses to justify believing that blacks were inferior

in my opinion the struggle for racial justice and equality has many parrallels to the struggle for GBLT justice and equality

You suffer because people treat you like crap, which is not right. However, I will not grant you that because you are denied what you want is wrong. Children don't get everything that they want, it's because their parents love them and encourage them in their growth. As adults we are to incorporate this into our lives of our own volition. Not everything that we want is right, and because we want it, does not mean that the world should make it so. That's in all things.
Life is hard, and then you die. I'm sure it is quite a struggle and a desspair, but life demands more of us than submitting to our carnal and emotional whims. Man as a race is a great creature and to say that he must submit to wrong action is foolish. TRUTH demands the rational mind to act in accordance with what is right.


so basically you are saying gay people should suck it up and move on. they are not at fualt for being gay but what they want (equals rights) is not what they need or should have so they should just suck it up ie life is hard then you die.

well kiss my leg

Equal rights are provided to homosexuals. However, every life choice has consequences, a certain forfeiture of rights and in most cases also a gain. I am not against a homosexual's right to choose his lifestyle, but equal does not mean the same. There can be equal portions of liquid in a glass, but the liquids don't have to be the same. Being treated as a human being, a right to work and sustain oneself and the norms accorded are of equal rights. However, you cannot expect, for example, marriage. Marriage has no homosexual component, to demand it as a right is ludicrous. Society does not radicalize its thinking to fit the minority, neither can it attack the foundations of its infrastructure nor subtract from its moral code. I support your right to a homosexual lifestyle, I just ask that you realize the consequences of that action and accept them, as all must in their life choices.

Equal rights are provided to homosexuals. However, every life choice has consequences, a certain forfeiture of rights and in most cases also a gain. I am not against a homosexual's right to choose his lifestyle, but equal does not mean the same. There can be equal portions of liquid in a glass, but the liquids don't have to be the same. Being treated as a human being, a right to work and sustain oneself and the norms accorded are of equal rights. However, you cannot expect, for example, marriage. Marriage has no homosexual component, to demand it as a right is ludicrous. Society does not radicalize its thinking to fit the minority, neither can it attack the foundations of its infrastructure nor subtract from its moral code. I support your right to a homosexual lifestyle, I just ask that you realize the consequences of that action and accept them, as all must in their life choices.

and Christians need to realize the consequences of their "so called" Christian Lifestyle. :sailing:

Our physical desires are our built in operating systems for survival. In any case you care to choose, overcoming your innate feelings, urges and motivations can get you killed. Grabbing a snake, walking through fire, etc


So, I'm walking on the sidewalk with my girl, I feel horny, I drop everything and screw her. You lower man to an animal if you say that he must follow his instincts in such a manner. Man is to tame his instinct, use his reason and accord his will in proper fashion. I know not to screw my girl in the middle of the street because I am not a dog who acts on pure instinct, reason tells me its not the place or time and will instructs me to subdue myself and wait.


Real love -- you speak of it as if it is absolute. But as Einstein pointed out, this is a relativistic world. To me one woman is beautiful, while to you, she is ugly. To me one situation is desirable, to you it is not. What makes what we call love significant, is our personal set of values, conditioning, reason etc.


Love is an absolute. It is not defined by what is beautiful to me or the other. We do not love because someone is beautiful, a person is beautiful because we love them. LOVE appropriates proper responses. LOVE also corresponds with will and reason to know its right and proper course. To reduce man to an animal and deny his rationalistic quality, says that we have no control over who we are but are governed by primal urges unaware as to how to reflect inward. Your first point would prove my point, that homosexuals don't love because you consider them to be animals, not only them but yourself.

Truth is not relativistic, if I am in the capitol today, London tomorrow, Rome the week after, and Tokyo a year from now, the sun rises on all and the moon will keep its place. One plus one will always equal two. Man is capable to know greater truth and he achieves this in his morality, ethics and reason, all subject to the will and in co-operation with it.


There is no traditional Church. There hasn't been one contiguous line of the true church in human history.


As for the Church, try Catholic. Its bishops can trace their lineage directly to the Apostles. As for the schisms and seperations within the Church, there is man to blame for that within his own duplicity. But a consistency of a specific Church, Her lineage and authenticity is well documented.


You call yourself a good man. Who says that you are good? You are judging other human beings and enforcing a flawed standard based on superstition and an organised system of dogma and eschatology designed to control the ignorant masses. The Mayan societies fell apart because of their "priests". Your judgmental character as a matter of fact puts you on the evil side -- let him without sin cast the first stone. Go get stoned man.


I am judging yes, but it is in accordance to the dignity of man. If you say man is to be less than he is, I have a problem with that. I don't enforce any standard upon anyone, because my words neither act as order, edict, proclamation nor decree to which anyone is subject. My arguments are not superstitious, to say so is ludicrous and shows that you comprehension of them is rather limited. As for dogma, I have been endoctrinated, however I have also tested these beliefs. I don't believe or follow because I am told, I believe because of an assent of the intellect and a consent of the will. If I did not, you would be correct. As for the eschatological cause of man, I would like to think there is more to humanity than you live, you die, then nothing. Life is hard, and then you die, and maybe God will welcome us into His home.

We're not Mayan. We're also supposed to learn from our history. Christianity is not because I said so. Priests words count for little if they do not speak truth. Man's following is also without merit if he does not adhere to truth. Reason and Will are necessary to recognizing truth, are both applicable to Faith and necessary in order for it to reach its full pontential.

As for my judgemental character, for you to make that assumption, you also have to cast judgement, so I think we're even. I am with sin, lots in fact, but I should not let it hinder me in my achievement of who I am to be in Christ. As for my goodness, I have been judged as so, and I would like to think that I am. Keep in mind that good does not imply the best, as your statement presumes to suppose that is what I think myself to be.

Better arguments next time please. By the way, it was a nice try, and in all fairness this board does not allow for the finest of arguments.

Yes, Christians do need to realize that their choice has certain consequences. It's sad that most people consider freedom to be license. Bahamian Christians are especially terrible, they lack proper knowledge of their faith, they practice it in fundamental ignorance and expect salvation in spite of their unrepented actions. Christian does not mean perfect, and Christianity is at fault for a lot of things. It's not wrong for defending what is right, it is wrong in how it goes about doing it. We're all human however, in the end all things shall be made new and the perfection that we think we have might actually be accorded to us at that time.

It is a strange comparison that I am noticing in some of these threads. The plight of homosexuals is being compared to those ecountered by race.
This is not in the least the same issue of violation. Being judged by the colour of your skin is hardly comparable to making a choice in lifestyle. (Homosexuality itself may not be a choice, but as rational beings, choosing wrong action is.) Those who suffered from racial discrimination did not choose to be black, neither was their colour a willful action nor was it a course against natural processes.
Homosexuals while they should be treated with justice and accorded proper human rights, are not to confuse "because I want" with "what is right." Whether by religious, moralist, naturalist or rationalist means, homosexuality as a lifestyle is contradictory to right action and should not sought to be justified as normalcy, or as the current vernacular states, "Gay is OK."
The rights that homosexuals think they have and "fight" for, are not in the least comparable to those who suffered for their skin.


This is what I been trying to explain a few months back....I don't see the comparison myself.

omg......the simplicity of some people is maddening. not to mention sickening.
riddle me this: when did heterosexuals become the experts on homosexuality?

lol...
There are black experts though right?

lol...
There are black experts though right?


lol. HUSH.
all these "i'm just doing what Christ would have me do" folks....are gonna be the same ones asking for a drink of water on their way down to hell.

Sorry Priest I disagree.. The problem with this world has always been that we as human beings in our ignorance fight against anything that we see as different!!! Persons choose to be gay yes, but does that in turn alienate them from the human race and thereby dictate that they should not have the right to do what they want to do within the confines of their own home as long as they are not breaking any laws!!!

Persecution as it applies to belief (particularly religious ones) have in the the past and even today cause individuals their lives. These individuals had and still have the right to choose their own path of religion to follow. All of them were not born with their religious preference (like the color of your skin), but don't you agree they should have the right to choose withour fear of persecution?

Well I think they should have the right to choose without fear... LEAVE JUDGEMENT TO THE ALMIGHTY:bouncy: !!! Who are we just mere mortals!!!