It always hurts to expose the non-believers, but......

CT wants the precious baby Jesus to lose.

After all, Satan commands him.

So, you're simply raising awareness to an issue you feel is important. But to what end? As in, people usually raise awareness in order to reach some sort of goal. Cancer awareness isn't merely to remind people that cancer exists, but to encourage people to donate money to fund research for treatments or aid with medical bills for those who are afflicted, for example.

For the sake of discussion, lets say you did convince all of us that gay people were launching a war on Christianity. Now what? What would be a satisfactory end goal for you? A cease fire of sorts, where gay people stopped asking for marriage rights and just kept their homosexuality out of the public eye? I seem to recall you're not a fan of what you claim are homosexuals 'recruiting' children through school programs or something. Would that, too, be something that they would need to stop in order for you to feel you've accomplished an end to this Christian persecution?

Basically, what would gay people have to do in order for you feel that everything is okay? What demands of yours should they meet? Or have you not really thought that far and are just at the 'raising awareness' stage?

BTW, enjoy the new avatar.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

I certainly cannot speak for the good Christian Captain, but will offer the following:

Such education will lead to a return of a strong social stigma against homosexuality. In the good old days, homosexuals remained in the closet, away from our children, for fear of many possible repercussions including:

1. Social ostrification, condemnation, ridicule, and isolation
2. Loss of employment
3. Removal from family orientated neighborhoods
3. Refusal of services
4. Monetary fines
5. Incarceration
6. Fear of potential physical harm

Once the homosexuals are crammed back into the closet, normal folks will be able to raise children with a clear definition of the sinfullness of homosexuality, free of any conflicting outside influences. It is the conflicting outside influences, contradicting True Christian (tm) teachings, that are the source of the attacks on a True Christian (tm) lifestyle, the War on Christianity if you will.

It is therefore plainly clear that the homosexual agenda "prohibits (or interfers with) the free exercise of religion" as garanteed in the first amendment. My free excercise requires the teaching of homosexual sinfullness, the agenda interfers with this. (Not allowing me to enter you home to proselytize and convert also interfers, but one battle at a time.)

A "cease fire" would be nice. If they want rights, they have every right to ask for rights. There's no reason to call such different things the same thing though. Different doesn't mean "oppressed" or "not equal," it just means different. The demand for the word is simply motivated by hatred. Hatred which they accuse others of as part of their strategy of war.


Yes, they would definitely need to stop pushing their sexual proclivities on children. There is simply no good argument for teaching young kids about homosexuality. There is simply no good argument for teaching young kids that homosexuality is normal and healthy. Homosexuality is a sexual practice that adults engage in. Oral sex is a sexual practice that adults engage in. S&M is a sexual practice that adults engage in. We don't have people teaching oral sex and S&M sexual practices as normal and healthy to young kids, why homosexuality ?



Much better avatar. If "gay" people can just leave me and the rest of America alone and stop with their nasty little war of hatred on Christians and the natural order of family I'd be happy.


What ? - you ask

What is this "natural family" you speak of ?



Redeeming The Rainbow - Scott Lively

free download here:

MassResistance!

pgs. 86 - 96

...the belief in the natural family, marriage and family values is not inherently religious. Indeed, the “father” of pro-family argumentation is the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, an entirely secular figure in world history.


The essence of the pro-family perspective is a belief in empirical observation and logical deduction. Aristotle gave the name “teleology” to this approach to understanding the world. Teleology assumes that all things have a purpose and that the purpose of each thing can be discerned from its design and function.


For example, we can determine that the purpose of the eye is to see, since it is obviously designed to do so and that is how it functions.


Another name for Aristotle’s philosophy is natural law, although his definition of this term is different from that of some later philosophers. One group of natural law thinkers of whom Aristotle would likely have approved is America’s founding fathers. Their Declaration of Independence from British rule claims its authority from “inalienable rights” deduced from “self-evident truths” emanating from “Nature and Nature’s God.”


Another important natural law document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations 1948. Its reaffirmation of “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” is the legal and moral inspiration for nearly every human rights treaty provision in international law.


The common denominator in these examples of natural law thinking is an adherence to the belief that observations about what is can guide us as to what ought to be.


In like manner, activists in today’s pro-family movement believe that the optimal approach to dealing with social problems, particularly those associated with sexual behavior, can be deduced from observations of and respect for the self-evident nature of things. Simply, we choose to assume that following the design of things will produce good results while ignoring the design will produce bad results.


Surprisingly, the other American interest group most closely associated with this way of thinking is the environmentalist movement. Environmentalist concepts such as bio-diversity, interdependence of species, and the science of eco-systems are essentially expressions of Aristotelian natural law philosophy. Environmentalists draw conclusions about what is best for wildlife and natural systems based upon empirical observations about existing designs.


Environmentalists bemoan mankind’s failure to preserve wildlife habitats in the face of continually expanding human settlement. Pro-family advocates criticize the increasing dehumanization of reproductive practices, such as the popularization of artificial insemination and the creation of embryos for scientific research. The interests of both environmentalists and pro-family advocates merge in their general opposition to genetic manipulation of living things.


Importantly, the human eco-system is no less fragile than that of the rain forest or tide pool. If you cut down half the trees in the rain forest, bad things will happen. Wildlife will suffer and the entire eco-system will be adversely affected. Similarly, breaking apart the natural family, as when a father or mother abandons spouse and children, has predictable negative effects on the survivors and on the surrounding “ecology” (the society they live in).


Pouring toxins into a tide pool can seriously upset its ecological balance. Poisoning the family environment through the influence of such things as drug use or pornography produces similarly destructive results.


Central to this lesson is the process of logical deduction that leads from observation about the design of our human eco-system to conclusions about how we should act and what policies are best for ourselves and society (i.e. deciding what ought to be based on what is). The most important observations in this process are simple enough for virtually anyone to
interpret, beginning with the self-evident reality that all humans are either male or female and designed to be complementary to the opposite sex. (The only exceptions to this rule are hermaphrodites, whose dual genitalia results from genetic aberrations or problems during gestation, rather than from the standard genetic design).


Starting from this observation, pro-family people conclude that human beings are heterosexual by nature, and that same-gender sexual conduct is dysfunctional. In other words, to quote Dr. C.D. King, they believe that normality is “that which functions according to its design.”


The natural family is nearly as obvious an example of design as that of the heterosexual physiology of the human body.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

This has probably been said, but I didn't bother to read 13 pages about how christians like the OP are bigots:

There certainly is a war between christians and homosexuals. The christians keep attacking the homosexuals who just want to go about their daily lives like everyone else. One side is endangering the security of the other, and its not the homosexuals who are endangering anyone.

What would you like Gay people to do?

Forget about marrying their life partners/ boyfriends?

Marry women instead? Suppress their desires?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

I dunno, I'm getting the impression that he's not against civil unions, he just doesn't want it to be called 'marriage'. It appears he interprets the attempt for homosexuals to have it called 'marriage' is some sort of orchestrated attack on Christianity, if I understand correctly.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

And a quick side note: Although not required, it would certainly be cool if people would snip down Captain Trips' posts when they quote them. A page full of enormous Captain Trips posts followed by enormous posts quoting him make for quite a lot of scrolling.

Just a suggestion, I know I'm guilty of doing the same.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

Stop tempting him into sin.

Dude, he's pretty much living a daily abomination. He's gay, after all.

No "attacks." Just shedding light on what this is really about.

To some, that makes me a "bigot," an idiot, a this or a that. You're incorrect about who is "endangering the security" of the other. As are many folks who have bought their lies and deceptions. They want me to shut up and stop exposing what they're trying to do. I refuse to fall in line.

That's all.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Of course you fall in line. You are spreading the gay lifestyle and agenda like a paid agent.

Why do you hate America?

I don't remember telling you to shut up. Actually, I find your antics quite amusing.

I wish you nothing but good, and hope that you can come to terms with your own sexual identity and, as Jesus told Paul, stop kicking against the pricks.

No pun intended.

I wonder if his "solution" would be "final."

__________________

This is the republican example for how to properly deal with homosexual urges ... except for the getting-caught part:

Larry Craig - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Get married and try to fuck men in the bathroom.