"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[JesusKnowsYou]

They're both marriages though. That you put a qualifier on it is meaningless to the other married couples. Just as them putting a qualifier on your marriage is probably meaningless to you and your relationship with your partner of choice. Both relationships are still marriages. No qualifiers are required. Theirs doesn't diminish yours, or vice versa. You haven't demonstrated that others' marriages have any affect on yours; you've merely asserted it.

Why do you keep insisting that I cannot disagree with something unless it does someone discernible harm?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Don't put words in my mouth.
Thanks.

I didn't - I was referencing what you had said in Post #663 - when you claimed that the "great damage done" mentioned by @columbus was a reference to the damage done to pedophiles.

You said,

"How does being attracted to children hurt someone? I’m guessing it takes quite a toll on one’s psyche. Imagine having to struggle with that? It also prevents someone from finding an appropriate mate with which to share one’s life and find some kind of companionship and/or fulfillment."

You literally misrepresented what @columbus said.


I put no words in your mouth. All that stupid came from you.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Did you really just say that to someone?

Indeed.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I believe so. I don't know what homosexual privilege is, but I'd like to take advantage of it. It sounds useful. I'm still trying to work out the gay agenda and gay lifestyle.

You have already been taking advantage of it on this thread.

You can say or do anything stupid or irresponsible thing you want - and everyone will defend and praise you for it.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Which he still maintains, always maintained, will maintain, and will never not maintain.

Which is quite an accomplishment considering that he contradicts himself in order to do so.

I will refer you to Post #716 again and you asked me seven more times in Post #738 to justify my beliefs as well.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You believe in the literalness of the Bible, yes?

No - I do not.

All truth can be revealed to the souls of Mankind through the witness of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The difference is who changes their "truth" cases in new evidence and facts,and those who hold steady and won't give up or change thier "truth."

Or - no one presents them with actual new evidence or facts - but only their opinion - which they believe is based on fact - but it isn't.

Those who don't flame tend to be the ones causing most damage, and the absolute worst destructions.

I don't understand this.

I thought those who "flamed" were those who caused damage?

Someone has to. Such as in America, where it took a collective majority of colonies to conform to self evident truths and rights and all that.

A "collective majority" is not an "individual and subjective truth".

A "self-evident truth" is one that does not require demonstration or explanation - it is an observable fact - and therefore not subjective.

The first amendment, it does prohibit a great deal when it comes to the state, but expected to conform to high levels of personal freedom with groups like the ACLU defending it.

Your point being?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Bullying is pretty common from conservative Christian kids when it comes to homosexuality.

Bullying is common from all children and for any reason.

You're not a victim for being homosexual.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Like when people who believe same sex marriage is wrong because of the Bible being "true" and it should be outlawed.

When did I claim that same-sex marriage should be outlawed?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

It's hard to grasp why religionists demanding that society conform to their religious beliefs, like the LDS does, fail to see this.
Tom

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not demand that society conform to our religious beliefs.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That's absurd, because that's a black/white, up/down, left/right argument. You're still equating pedophilia and homosexuality. It's been proven time and again they are in no way comparable. It's your disdain for homosexuality and homosexuals revealing itself over and over.

I feel no disdain for those who have an attraction to children - so how can you claim that my mentioning it showcases disdain for those who have a same-sex attraction?

Could you quote me at any point condemning those who suffer from an attraction to children? Or those who suffer from same-sex attraction?

Something being "natural" does not make it moral or right.

A person being "born a certain way" does not mean that all of their behavior is above reproach.

You're just upset that you have no argument - so you resort to ad hominem attacks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Bullying is common from all children and for any reason.

Yes. But the Bible does provide much fuel for it, all within easy reach.

You're not a victim for being homosexual.

To my knowledge no one has made that claim.

Or - no one presents them with actual new evidence or facts - but only their opinion - which they believe is based on fact - but it isn't.

Where would you like to begin?

I don't understand this. I thought those who "flamed" were those who caused damage?

It should read changed. I'm using my phone more often as my laptop isn't going so well these days.

Your point being?

That it is expected you will conform to that law/ideology of freedom of religion, and it is enforced.

Reminds me of when I was a missionary.

How so/in what ways?

Not only have I never mentioned conversion therapy in this thread - but I have also never supported it at any time in my life.

Conversion therapy is not among my beliefs. Try to stay on topic.

You, personally no. But those who hold your views often do support it.

osition 8 caused no suffering at all to anyone.

It removed rights of an entire group for no other reason than religious beliefs.

Even while the Priesthood Ban was in force - many black or dark-skinned men were given the priesthood.

Many Klansmen can say they have black friends. Policy says otherwise.

I know that you already knew that - but you needed to spin the discussion in order to make your jab at Christianity as a whole.

They all follow the same book and god.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do you keep insisting that I cannot disagree with something unless it does someone discernible harm?

I was responding to an issue I saw in your use of logic and argumentation.
It would be cool if you'd address what I said, rather than getting all defensive about it.

 

[Jainarayan]

You have already been taking advantage of it on this thread.

You can say or do anything stupid or irresponsible thing you want - and everyone will defend and praise you for it.

Stupid or irresponsible by whose standard? I will admit, however, that I am inconceivably witty.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Something tells me you have yet to "sift" through any of this stuff.
If you had - you would have realized your error - amended what you had said - and we would have moved on.

But you never did that - proving that you never "sifted" through anything.

Excuse me?
There’s nothing more fun than debating with a poster who claims to know what’s going on in your mind.

But you know what? I don’t feel like sifting through your long repetitive posts. Especially when much of it is a rehash of things I’ve already addressed.

I’m curious though, what error is it that you are referring to?

How can you openly admit that you did not fully read - or "sift through" my post - but you still feel fully capable of responding to it?

I didn’t say that I didn’t fully read it.

What I actually said was, “Sorry, I don't feel like sifting through this same thing all over again.” Meaning, I don’t feel like sifting through your big long posts where you repeat yourself over and over, tag every person on the thread and admonish other posters for “liking” posts. Why would I want to rehash the same things over and over again?

It’s too tedious.

If you do not want to put in the time and effort required - your "due diligence" - to have a discussion or debate - then why are you here?

I’m not interested in responding to lengthy, repetitive posts that go on about things I’ve already addressed. Sorry.

A couple of things to unpack here:

1.) I have never felt any "heat" on me whatsoever.

The bulk of all of my conversations on this thread have been about clearing up confusion about what I have said.

Confusion that - I believe - was intentionally generated by the spinning of false narratives about my beliefs and what I said by you and others.

I’ve pointed out several times now, why I said what I did to you about that.

Why are we still repeating this?

What remained has been you guys saying, "I don't like what you say" or you mention things I never said or did.

I don’t agree with some of the things you’ve said and implied.

Sorry.

So - no - nothing I have said has been an attempt to "take the heat" off of myself - because I don't believe any "heat" was ever really applied to me.

So that’s why you’re being so defensive here? Because you don’t believe any heat was ever applied to you?

Look at how you’ve completely skirted the issue I took with your post.

You tried to lift yourself above all the other posts here, claiming that you’re offering some kind of hope that the rest of us aren’t for gay people – all they have to do is change who they are! Such hope, there.

2.) How did you interpret me using your own words against you - to prove that you equate "pedophilia" with raping children - as me trying to set myself up as a victim?

How did you do that, exactly?

Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. Some of them rape children, and some of them don’t.

The way you and others ignore reality - even your own words and actions - because it doesn't fit your overarching social narrative is fascinating. Horrifying and fascinating.

And how are we doing this, exactly?
Because from this end, you seem to be the one ignoring reality when you create your own definitions, or even when you deny systemic racism that even the police foundation recognizes.

I mean - I understand that my beliefs about reality are not based on any evidence that you would accept - but here you are - ignoring your own words - because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I haven’t ignored my own words.

Yes, I disagree with your views that are based in ancient texts, that aren't a reflection of reality.

It's just further proof to me that liberalism has neither a ceiling nor a floor.

What this has to do with liberalism, or why you’re dragging politics into this is beyond me.

How do you even claim to know my political leaning in the first place, given that I haven’t said one word about it?

By the way - I am not a victim in any way. I have been victimized before - but I never decided to be a victim then and I never intend to be one.

Your view of victimhood is strange to me. One can be a victim without choosing to be one, in my opinion.

3.) I never "put down" homosexuals.

Mm hmm. Except to say that they have a weakness and a nature that need fixing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I may have "put down" members of this forum who are homosexual - but their sexuality was never a factor in the aforementioned "putting down".

Whenever I want to claim that you or someone else said or did something - I either quote you or reference the post number that contains the things you did.

My last post to you - the one you refused to "sift" through - is an excellent example of me either quoting what others have said or referencing a post number.

Yes I know. You have done this over and over with the same repetitive posts.

Hence the reason I said I wasn’t going to sift through it again. It’s just more of the same thing.

Putting forth time and effort in a discussion and being responsible and consistent may all be foreign concepts to you and others - but they help when you want to claim that someone said or did something.

Dude, I’ve been on this forum since long before you came along. As have the other posts you are conversing with.

We don’t need a lecture on how this all works. But thanks.

Again - a responsible person would either quote where I supposedly said these things or at least reference the post number of where I said them.

I quote the post I’m responding to every single time I respond. Gimme a break.

Sorry for not writing big long repetitive posts that nobody feels like sifting through.

Don't worry - I will be responsible enough for both of us.

Okay, dad.

I did not say that "men are the real victims in society" - what I actually said in Post #540 was,

"White men are the only race and sex in the U.S. who are [systemically] denied certain opportunities and privileges based on their race and sex." (I accidentally said "systematically")

To be clear - it was not me that claimed that African-Americans make irresponsible life-choices - in general - but the facts that I presented.

I claimed that this was due to their culture - not race - and anyone who abandons those aspects of their culture that encourages them to make irresponsible life-choices could come to flourish.

No, it was you. And you didn’t present any facts. You presented your opinions. In fact, you ignored facts that were placed right under your nose.

Why do you think it is that the National Police Foundation disagrees with your assessment?

By the way - considering that I have not been attacking any of these groups (including homosexuals) - you cannot accurately describe any of my posts as "diatribes".

First off - it was you that tried to make my posts about pedophilia and nothing else - not me.

What I did was address an issue that I took with your posts.

I mentioned a couple examples of what I considered to be "weaknesses" and I also mentioned many weaknesses I considered to be "inappropriate sexual attractions"

The only reason I even brought up an attraction to children was to prove how weak @Jainarayan 's argument that if someone is "born that way" or it "feels natural" then their behavior is above reproach.
.

Here we are again. This is the reason I didn’t want to sift through these big long posts of yours. Been there, done that.

You blew it all out of proportion when you claimed that I had only mentioned it to "demonize" homosexuals - which I have repeatedly shown makes no sense.

I don’t think you’ve shown that at all.

What I have had to point out, over and over again, is that what you did in that post was a common tactic used in the past and present, by people wishing to demonize/marginalize/criminalize homosexuality by bringing it up in the same sentence as pedophilia. I’ve seen it a thousand times.

It was @columbus - during his blind anti-Christian rants - like in Post #472 - who tried to claim that Christianity and the Bible were the sources of all of the world's evils - even racism.

I’m not Columbus. But I agree that the Bible is the source of a lot of immorality and perhaps even racism, given the history of some religious sects.

Then it was @ImmortalFlame who came in and claimed that the United States systemically oppresses African-Americans today - that started in Post #559.

I’m not Immortal Flame. But I agree with his argument, and the facts seem to bear it out.

So - if you take issue with the fact that large portions of my posts were focused on these issues - you can only blame yourself and those mentioned above.

I stand by what I have said.

There is nothing wrong with mentioning other "inappropriate sexual attractions" in a discussion about "inappropriate sexual attractions".

I’m well aware that this is your opinion on the subject.

Just because you do not believe that same-sex attraction is inappropriate does not mean I am wrong in claiming that it is.

What I’m waiting for, is for you to demonstrate your position.

I disagree with all my soul.

I know you think that. You have yet to demonstrate that hope is what you are actually offering. Because it sure doesn’t look like hope from my end.

My sharing that people can overcome all of their weaknesses and sins - and achieve eventual perfection - through the Lord Jesus Christ - is the greatest message of hope.

I don’t see any reason to think that being gay is either a sin or a weakness. And I certainly don’t think gay people need to overcome their homosexuality. Where is the hope in telling someone they were born with something wrong with them that God doesn’t like and needs to be changed?

That’s the big difference between our points of view.

Telling African-Americans the truth about how they possess the power to rise above all adversity - even the ravages of poverty and crime - by making responsible life-choices is an amazing message of hope.

It’s not based in reality though.

You telling people that they are "born a certain way" and they can never change their nature - no matter what - is a message devoid of hope.

Gay people are born that way, just like “straight” people are. And no, I don’t think they need to change anything about their nature. Why would they??? You’re the one telling people there is something wrong with them. Not me.

You don’t realize that telling people that they are weak and need to change isn’t a hopeful outlook?

You telling African-Americans that they are destined to fail because there is an invisible enemy dedicated to destroying them - is a message devoid of hope.

These and other liberal selling points lead only to victimhood and misery.

Weren’t you the guy going on about putting words in peoples’ mouths?
I would suggest some introspection on that.

This isn’t a political discussion so why you keep bringing liberals and democrats into it is beyond me.

 

[Jainarayan]

No - I do not.

All truth can be revealed to the souls of Mankind through the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Right, as the rishis passed on to us in the Upanishads and Vedas. Revelations and perceptions of the Divine. There's one major difference between your truth and mine... Your "truth" says we're born sinners, body and soul. My truth says no such thing. Rather, we are, always have been, and always will be divine, body and soul. There's no logic in believing we're "sinners", or weak, or need salvation or redemption. We need only to break free, or wash ourselves of the muck of the world.

“The greatest sin is to call yourself a sinner. You are a child of God. Though gold be covered with mud for centuries, it remains gold. So the pure 'gold' of the soul can be covered over with the mud of delusion for aeons, but in its true nature it remains forever undefiled.” - Paramahansa Yogananda

 

[Jainarayan]

When did I claim that same-sex marriage should be outlawed?

Your comments and attitude towards homosexuality speaks volumes about it.

But in the interest of fairness and open-mindedness... do you think it should be legal or illegal? And why or why not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not only have I never mentioned conversion therapy in this thread - but I have also never supported it at any time in my life.

Conversion therapy is not among my beliefs. Try to stay on topic.

Proposition 8 caused no suffering at all to anyone.

You asked for examples of how your beliefs have caused suffering to people.

One of your beliefs is that gay people are weak and sinful and need to change their nature. That is literally what conversion therapy proposes and tries to do.

You are obviously against gay marriage. Prop 8 was about gay marriage. And yes, it caused suffering to people who wanted to marry the person they loved, but could not.

So that’s how.

No - in the earliest days of the Church - during the life of Joseph Smith the Prophet - black and dark-skinned men were given the priesthood.

Even while the Priesthood Ban was in force - many black or dark-skinned men were given the priesthood.

It was only certain men - who descended from a particular lineage - who were denied the priesthood.

Any and all comments I make about "the Church" are about my Church - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I know that you already knew that - but you needed to spin the discussion in order to make your jab at Christianity as a whole.

Well done.

 

[SkepticThinker]

View attachment 37320
Tom

My husband is constantly getting upset with me for this.