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

[SkepticThinker]

I do not believe that we can legislate morality.

That being said - I also do not believe that marriage should ever be redefined.

I believe that same-sex couples have every right to be together and to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a couple - but they cannot be considered married - by definition - because they do not meet the prerequisites of what a marriage is.

Just like how a boy - no matter how much he wants to be or believes he is a girl - cannot be considered a girl - because he does not meet the prerequisite of being a girl.

That boy has the right to live his life as a girl - if that is his desire - but society or science should not redefine what a “girl” is to satisfy his desire.

Same-sex couples have the right to live as a married couple - but society should not redefine marriage to satisfy their desires.

No - I am not. That is absurd. Do you not know what the word “equating” means?

You just claimed that I said that pedophilia and homosexuality are the same. What am I supposed to do in this situation?

When I mention both pedophilia and homosexuality to argue against your claim - you accuse me of “equating” them again.

You are trying to set up a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation on me and it is absurd.

This is an example of one of those stupid and irresponsible things you like to say.

Don’t worry - no one else is going to call you out for it - because of your homosexual privilege.

Also - if I never expressed any disdain for those who suffer with an attraction to children - you cannot claim that my mentioning them in a discussion about same-sex attraction shows disdain for homosexuals.

That makes no sense.

Just another stupid and irresponsible thing you said that you will never be held accountable for. Check your privilege.

Thank you so much for saying this.

The word “pedophilia” means “sexual feelings directed towards children” not “raping children”.

For quite some time now I have been pointing out how you and others have been “equating” pedophilia with raping children.

Those who made these claims were @9-10ths_Penguin , @SkepticThinker and @columbus - but you and others gave their comments a “Like” or “Winner” vote - proving that you agreed with them.

I posted a summary of this in Post # 678 - where I proved - without doubt - that you and the others in this thread have been making this mistake while ironically criticizing me for separating the attraction from the action.

A person having an attraction to children does not make them a rapist or child abuser. They would need to act on that attraction to be considered such.

A person having an attraction to the same-sex does not make them a homosexual. They would need to act on that attraction to be considered such - at least by me and God.

In my initial post to you I mentioned an attraction to children as an example to dismantle your “it’s okay if I’m born this way or if it feels natural” argument.

I only mentioned an attraction to children and a same-sex attraction together when I claimed that they both belonged in my list of “inappropriate sexual attraction”.

I never compared or “equated” pedophilia to homosexuality.

And I never claimed that all pedophiles were rapists and child abusers - like you and others in this thread.

You saying this gives my argument further validation. Thank you again for saying it.

I have claimed multiple times in this thread that any sexual activity between an adult and a child is rape.

I have no issue whatsoever seeing the difference.

You - on the other hand - are having a hard time separating attraction from action.

Nice. More evidence of you being unable to separate attraction from action.

No - I will not condemn anyone for having an attraction that they had no choice in having.

If their attraction leads them to commit crimes - then I will condemn them.

I do not believe that people are predestined to perform certain actions because they were “born a certain way” - as you and others have been advocating.

A person who is born with an attraction to children is not destined to rape children - as you believe.

A person who is born with an attraction to the same-sex is not destined to engage in homosexual behavior - as you believe.

No one is born a sinner.

You really don’t understand that a single word can have multiple meanings - do you?

You remember that whole “practice” debacle - where you thought that that word meant only to “perform an activity or exercise a skill repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency”?

That was funny.

And now you seem to believe that the word “suffer” can only refer to the “state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”.

That is also funny.

When I said, “Or those who suffer from same-sex attraction?” - I used the word “suffer” to mean “experience”, “be affected by” or even “allow” - such as - allow something to happen or someone to do something.

When John the Baptist balked at the Lord’s request to baptize him - Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now.”

He did not mean “Let’s undergo some pain, distress or hardship”. He meant, “Allow this to happen.” or “Experience this.”

What I said could be read to say, “Or those who experience same-sex attraction?”

Also - if you wanted to be “left alone” - you wouldn’t have started this whole mess by asking me to share my beliefs about sin and homosexuality with you.

That doesn’t matter.

Whatever anyone decides on that matter - nature is a lousy moral compass - and no one’s behavior is above reproach.

No - thank you.

I am an adult and as such I believe in dealing with my own problems.

I am 100% serious.

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

The “same-sex marriages” that you claim were “harmed” were performed illegally.

That the law was changed after the fact does not change that they were performed illegally.

I never claimed that you were liberal.

I claimed that you believed yourself to be a perpetual victim and then I made a joke about homosexual privilege that involved me claiming that all “liberal homosexuals” believe themselves to be perpetual victims.

I never claimed that only liberal homosexuals believed that they were perpetual victims.

I also obviously do not believe that all homosexual are liberals because I said “liberal homosexuals” as opposed to “non-liberal homosexuals”. I did not say "all homosexuals are liberals."

This is another example of something stupid and irresponsible you say - but you got the homosexual-card - so you are given a pass.

No - I just have a good memory when it comes to remembering what my opponents in discussions say.

I do like this side of you though. It’s silly and fun.

Um no.
What I said was that pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children.
Some pedophiles rape children. Some do not.
YOU were the one who wanted to have your own definition for it.

Please stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You're still on about this?

I hope you realize that tagging me as you continue to spout anti-LGBTQ nonsense is doing nothing to improve my opinion of you.

Your opinion of me has never been my concern - but I am concerned that I may be doing something in appropriate.

Should I not be "tagging" you when I reference something you said earlier in this thread?

I have been using the "@YourName" function because I thought that was what I was supposed to do on this site to properly reference or quote someone.

If I was not supposed to do this - I apologize - and I will tag not tag you anymore.

That being said - I contend that I have not said anything anti-LGBTQ in this thread.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

And getting old, you've been repeating yourself... over and over and over and over and... To the point of stalking, and certainly not advancing your cause or winning. I mean, Kṛṣṇaḥ, Yaśodā, Nandaḥ ca (my version of "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!" ), let it go already. You lost the arguments.

I am willing to end our discussions here - but I will continue to point out when you spread falsehoods.

So - once you stop doing that and take responsibility for what you say - then it will end.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Of course they do. And did.

Your views on "liberal homosexuals" are baffling and offensive. In my opinion.

So you admit that the mission of advocates of same-sex marriage was to redefine marriage and they completed their mission once they legally redefined it.

Their mission was not about finding acceptance or happiness - but to redefine marriage.

Thank you for admitting that.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

On the one hand you claim that humans aren't born as sinners.
Then on the other hand you claim that humans are, "imperfect, ignorant and weak."

How is that a contradiction?

It is not sin that makes us "imperfect, ignorant and weak".

It is our innate imperfection, ignorance and weakness - which we are all born with - that causes us to commit sin.

Not the other way around.

That was why I was so adamant in my explanation about weakness and sin.

We are born weak - not sinful - but we allow our weakness to lead us to sin.

This is why I believe we need Christ.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Something we know is false.
Science of Sexuality – we were born this way (but there’s much more to it than that) - Australia's Science Channel

When I said "homosexual" I was not referring to an attraction to the same-sex - but the act of engaging in homosexual behavior.

You knew that already.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Um no.
What I said was that pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children.
Some pedophiles rape children. Some do not.
YOU were the one who wanted to have your own definition for it.

Please stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to dig yourself out of your hole.

Go reread Post #678.

In that post I pointed out when you agreed with or voted for comments that claimed that pedophilia meant raping children.

Everything is saved in this thread. You can't run or hide from it.

I properly separated the attraction from the action - while you and others equated them.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Where have you been? Why haven't you responded to our discussion on systemic oppression and African-Americans?

Then perhaps you need to look up the definition of murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. Even if we agree that unborn children are living, the fact that abortion is legal means that it is NOT murder, and you are the one attempting to redefine the term.

You believe that something being legal makes it right or moral?

There once was a time in the United States when killing your property - a slave - was also not legally considered murder.

They would also forcibly sterilize the mentally ill.

You believe that the fact that these things were legal at the time made them morally right?

I disagree with the law in regards to abortion. Is that concept foreign to you? Someone disputing what the law says?

And boy does THAT sound like a doomsday scenario. How ever will you cope?

Marriage - as defined by God - is integral to the core doctrines of salvation and exaltation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I consider the redefinition of marriage to be - quite literally - a sign of the times that herald the end of our world and the Second Coming of the Messiah.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You probably believe this.
It's why I don't find your posts worth responding to anymore.

You keep believing that, and I'll keep believing that LDS is an enemy of mine.
A rich and ruthless enemy of mine.

But I also believe that LDS will change, sooner than most large denominations. More Christian, less enemy.

I'm not holding my breath or anything.
Tom

I am only trying to make you accountable for what you yourself said.

The policies of the Church have changed as the world has changed - but not the doctrine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an enemy to no one. It is - however - an enemy to false teachings.

No one is born a sinner. No one is born homosexual.

These are examples of false teachings that the Church is an enemy of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your opinion of me has never been my concern - but I am concerned that I may be doing something in appropriate.

Should I not be "tagging" you when I reference something you said earlier in this thread?

I have been using the "@YourName" function because I thought that was what I was supposed to do on this site to properly reference or quote someone.

Tagging someone means that they'll get a notification. It's a way to call that person's attention to your post.

If I was not supposed to do this - I apologize - and I will tag not tag you anymore.

Oh, it doesn't matter. I find it funny.

That being said - I contend that I have not said anything anti-LGBTQ in this thread.

That's not true at all.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That's not true at all.

Would you be willing to mention what I have said that you consider "anti-LGBTQ"?

We may disagree on what should be considered "anti-LGBTQ".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you be willing to mention what I have said that you consider "anti-LGBTQ"?

One example would be this gem of trans erasure:

Just like how a boy - no matter how much he wants to be or believes he is a girl - cannot be considered a girl - because he does not meet the prerequisite of being a girl.

That boy has the right to live his life as a girl - if that is his desire - but society or science should not redefine what a “girl” is to satisfy his desire.

We may disagree on what should be considered "anti-LGBTQ".

Apparently. For instance, I consider it to be anti-LGBTQ to argue against the basic existence of LGBTQ people.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

One example would be this gem of trans erasure:




Apparently. For instance, I consider it to be anti-LGBTQ to argue against the basic existence of LGBTQ people.

When did I "argue against the basic existence" of anyone?

I clearly stated that, "That boy has the right to live his life as a girl - if that is his desire" - so I don't understand how my unwillingness to redefine what it means to be a "girl" is arguing against his "basic existence".

Are you claiming that I need to agree with everyone's beliefs and behaviors - or I'm guilty of "arguing against their basic existence"?

How would that argument pan out in light of my many beliefs about reality? Do people need to accept them or be guilty of "arguing against my basic existence"?

Or does this logic only apply to the LGBTQ community? Or can this argument work only against Christians or other religionists?

I am truly confused - and disturbed - by your comment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When did I "argue against the basic existence" of anyone?

In the passage I quoted. You argued that being trans isn't a real thing. You denied that people can be actually trans; IOW, you denied that actual trans people exist.

I clearly stated that, "That boy has the right to live his life as a girl - if that is his desire" - so I don't understand how my unwillingness to redefine what it means to be a "girl" is arguing against his "basic existence".

I know you don't understand.

Are you claiming that I need to agree with everyone's beliefs and behaviors - or I'm guilty of "arguing against their basic existence"?

No, I'm not.

How would that argument pan out in light of my many beliefs about reality? Do people need to accept them or be guilty of "arguing against my basic existence"?

Or does this logic only apply to the LGBTQ community? Or can this argument work only against Christians or other religionists?

The best analogy I can think of before coffee: if someone said that they didn't consider sealing in the temple to be a "real" marriage, I would consider that person anti-LDS.

Or there was an Evangelical guy I worked with who would say that Catholics "aren't real Christians." He was anti-Catholic.

Understand that both of these are different from someone just saying that they have some disagreements with LDS or Catholic doctrines.

I am truly confused - and disturbed - by your comment.

You seem to have been confused before I got here; I just told you how you come across.

Edit: do you actually see yourself as some sort of friend to LGBTQ people?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

In the passage I quoted. You argued that being trans isn't a real thing. You denied that people can be actually trans; IOW, you denied that actual trans people exist.

That makes no sense to me.

Transgenderism does not involve a claim that a person is biologically the opposite sex - but that they identify as such.

My belief that biological terms should not be redefined to satisfy someone's subjective perspective of themselves is not anti-LGBTQ - but pro-science.

I know you don't understand.

Because you know what you said makes no sense.

No, I'm not.

Agree to disagree.

The best analogy I can think of before coffee: if someone said that they didn't consider sealing in the temple to be a "real" marriage, I would consider that person anti-LDS.

Or there was an Evangelical guy I worked with who would say that Catholics "aren't real Christians." He was anti-Catholic.

Understand that both of these are different from someone just saying that they have some disagreements with LDS or Catholic doctrines.

First off - coffee is bad for people. It makes them dependent. I don't need coffee in order to be coherent.

Next - I would not consider a person who believes that a temple sealing is not a "real" marriage to be anti-LDS.

That would be asinine.

If that person were picketing outside of General Conference and claiming that all members of the LDS Church were going to Hell simply for being LDS - then I may believe that they are anti-LDS.

No one is anti-LDS for disagreeing with LDS doctrine.

I believe that to label someone as "anti-anything" would require some sort of negative action on their part.

For this reason I don't believe that someone telling a joke at the expense of African-Americans would make them racist.

I don't believe that someone who is unwilling to date a transgender person is anti-trans.

I don't believe that someone who believes that homosexuality is a sin is anti-homosexual.

You should quit coffee entirely if the lack of it causes you to share such ridiculous examples.

You seem to have been confused before I got here; I just told you how you come across.

Aw - I see.

"How I come across" is rather subjective - don't you think?

Sort of a "within the eye of the beholder" thing to say.

Edit: do you actually see yourself as some sort of friend to LGBTQ people?

Absolutely.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you admit that the mission of advocates of same-sex marriage was to redefine marriage and they completed their mission once they legally redefined it.

Their mission was not about finding acceptance or happiness - but to redefine marriage.

Thank you for admitting that.

Uh, no.

What I "admitted" was that marriage can and has been defined however people want to define it. Historically, marriage has included many different types of arrangements for many different reasons. You apparently want to define it in the manner that you think is appropriate, as well.

I don't know how you've taken this and leaped off to your other conclusions. Isn't everybody's mission in life to find acceptance and/or happiness?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How is that a contradiction?

It is not sin that makes us "imperfect, ignorant and weak".

It is our innate imperfection, ignorance and weakness - which we are all born with - that causes us to commit sin.

Not the other way around.

That was why I was so adamant in my explanation about weakness and sin.

We are born weak - not sinful - but we allow our weakness to lead us to sin.

This is why I believe we need Christ.

If weakness, ignorance and imperfection "cause us to commit sin" then, if we are born weak, ignorant and imperfect - as you say - then we are born sinful.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When I said "homosexual" I was not referring to an attraction to the same-sex - but the act of engaging in homosexual behavior.

You knew that already.

Speaking of redefining things ... that is your own personal definition of the word "homosexual."

You knew that already.

 

[columbus]

If weakness, ignorance and imperfection "cause us to commit sin" then, if we are born weak, ignorant and imperfect - as you say - then we are born sinful.

And God, if He is the Almighty, made us that way.
Weak, ignorant, and rife with the same instinctive behaviors as our primate ancestors.
Tom

 

[SkepticThinker]

Go reread Post #678.

In that post I pointed out when you agreed with or voted for comments that claimed that pedophilia meant raping children.

Everything is saved in this thread. You can't run or hide from it.

I properly separated the attraction from the action - while you and others equated them.

I don't understand what you're not getting here. And I think it's because you are creating your own definitions.

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction to a person of the same gender as oneself. Homosexual people may or may not engage in what you consider "homosexual behaviors."
Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. Pedophiles may or may not engage in "pedophilic behavior" such as molesting children. Not all pedophiles rape children, but all pedophiles are attracted to children.


I've pointed this out several times. As I've also pointed out before, I've studied this stuff in an academic setting and I can tell you that these are the accepted definitions of the terms we are using.
Your definitions are your own creations.