Obama to tell Supreme Court to allow homosexual marriage today.

[AgeofKnowledge]

First you have to understand what's occurring, the epistemology driving it, what the ultimate goal is, and the true costs involved to all Christians in the replacement of ethical theism with modernism/postmodernism. The very assertion the homosexual lobby and the left is wielding against Christians is the very goal they intend to accomplish against Christians as per their epistemology. But few even understand what's happening and why it is, in fact, NOT fair nor desirable to them and their progeny and what seems "fair" actually is a real step toward repression for them and their progeny. One time through the New Tolerance by Josh McDowell and what I'm saying will make sense. You'll have a proper understanding.

I think there's a fine line between being assertive in your belief in what's right and shoving your ideas down someone else's throat. I don't think the intension of either side of the argument is ultimately to force people to do anything, but rather to try and change people's minds about a particular subject. The problem there of course being that once a person has made up their mind about a particular subject it is very difficult to make that person see things from a different perspective, or to admit to flaws in their argument, hence all of the anger and frustration.

 

[Nautilus]

or i value human rights one of the two...instead of stressing over the gays why dont you feed some homeless or something? Because Im sure when God comes back his words will be well done my good and faithful servant for wasting all that time on the homosexuals.

 

[RoboOp]

I have absolutely no issue with this...funny how allwing other people to live their lives in a way that isnt harmful to them or others has no effect on me...

It's very simple.

It DOES harm others. It harms innocent children.

You see, giving homosexuals "equal rights" to marry gives them "equal rights" to adopt children. They WILL adopt children, and they already are -- because they can't biologically do it since their "marriage" goes totally against nature and God's design -- so they have to take innocent children to artificially complete their perverted "family".

Giving innocent babies and children to homosexuals and lesbians is harming these innocent children. It's the ultimate homosexual indoctrination -- to make a child or baby grow up with "mommy and mommy" or "daddy and daddy" as a normal "family".

You see, that's the problem:

THEY WANT OUR KIDS.

And it actually goes deeper than that most obvious example. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, then it becomes part of the curriculum in the public schools. In fact it's already happening now: stocking elementary school libraries with books about having "two moms" or "two dads" (and that's just the beginning). So, not satisfied with literally taking children to be grown up in their "family", they also want to indoctrinate your kids and everyone's kids in every way they can (e.g., as a public school agenda and curriculum) with this "progress". So, in yet another sense, again:

THEY WANT OUR KIDS.

They'll say it's Christians trying to push our beliefs on them, but it's actually very much the other way around and they want to do it on a massive scale, and that's what Obama is trying to kickstart right now.

 

[Nautilus]

Because they all turn out so horribly when they have parents of the same sex?

[video=youtube;FSQQK2Vuf9Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q[/video]

 

[RoboOp]

Nautilus it boils down to one question:

Is homosexuality good?

If it's good, then awesome! Give all the babies and kids you can to gay "families" so that they can learn this wonderful way of life by being immersed in it firsthand.

If it's bad, then it's REALLY BAD to put innocent children in it and make them grow up immersed in that perversion, as a normal "family".

Obama thinks it's good.

We think it's bad.

Oh,........ if it matters, God thinks it's bad. Really bad, actually.

So who's right?

 

[Elizabeth619]

I have absolutely no issue with this...funny how allwing other people to live their lives in a way that isnt harmful to them or others has no effect on me...

Actually, this has little to do with gay marriage and more to do with the fact the president does not have this type of authority over the Supreme Court. He appoints justices, and can influence decisions but that is about it. The president actually has no authority over the Supreme Court or their decisions. He can't tell them to do anything, and they are not required to do what he says. The Supreme Court is the final judge. Not the president.

He is overstepping his boundries yet again.

 

[Elizabeth619]

or i value human rights one of the two...instead of stressing over the gays why dont you feed some homeless or something? Because Im sure when God comes back his words will be well done my good and faithful servant for wasting all that time on the homosexuals.

What makes you think he doesn't feed or help the homeless? Or is this just your assumption that people who oppose things like gay rights, abortion and so on do nothing but sit around and point fingers?

 

[Nautilus]

You realize they have nothing forcing them to acknowledge him right? He can tell them anything just like I can tell you soemthing. What you do with it from there is simply up to you.

 

[RoboOp]

Now for some peeks inside that last one "Daddy's New Roommate":






If gay marriage is legalized, then gays get to take innocent children, and then the federal government injects it all into the school curriculum beginning with elementary school.

 

[Elizabeth619]

You realize they have nothing forcing them to acknowledge him right? He can tell them anything just like I can tell you soemthing. What you do with it from there is simply up to you.

I believe that is exactly what I said when I stated "He can't tell them to do anything."

Also, getting back to the article... Gay marriage is actually not covered in the constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How can a gay couple form a "perfect union" when they cannot even procreate on their own?

How can a gay couple "insure domestic Tranquility" which protects family life when they cannot even MAKE their own family?

How can a gay couple "promote the general welfare" when same-sex marriage is a dead end and a demise of society? What general welfare is possible absent the society that unprocreative same-sex couples are unable to enlarge and promote?

How can a gay couple"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" when same-sex marriage simply can never produce the posterity that is expected to enjoy "the blessings of liberty"?

The Constitution covers NATURAL rights. People can argue all day long but homosexuality is NOT NATURAL. If it was then they could procreate without the interference of a 3rd party.

 

[jack4022]

no the christian right is literally trying to ban a group of people from ever being allowed to consensually marry the people they love. Most other people ignoring conspiracy theorists are just let these people live their lives they arent hurting anyone. Marriage stopped being solely the province of Christianity once the government got involved anyways.

First you have to understand what's occurring, the epistemology driving it, what the ultimate goal is, and the true costs involved to all Christians in the replacement of ethical theism with modernism/postmodernism. The very assertion the homosexual lobby and the left is wielding against Christians is the very goal they intend to accomplish against Christians as per their epistemology. But few even understand what's happening and why it is, in fact, NOT fair nor desirable to them and their progeny and what seems "fair" actually is a real step toward repression for them and their progeny. One time through the New Tolerance by Josh McDowell and what I'm saying will make sense. You'll have a proper understanding.

Thank you, both of you have proved my point brilliantly

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

They have stated that they intent to go much farther than that RoboOp.

The agenda of the postmodernists isn't simple acceptance of persons who are different or believe or behave differently in line with classical tolerance but rather they require your approval and participation in their attitudes and activities and have stated that they intend to use government force to accomplish that end.

"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you." 1 Peter 4:4.

The "religion" of postmodern political correctness is defined as conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend postmodern political sensibilities [as in matters of sex or race] should be eliminated.

Eliminated. Pay attention to that word as that is their ultimate goal. They seek to eliminate your epistemology (1) and replace it with their own epistemology.

Since your epistemology is irreparably in opposition to their epistemology, how will they "eliminate" yours?

Initially, it will be through the rule of law and bullying (e.g. persecution). When that fails to force you to abandon your religion for their "religion," their only remaining option is to eliminate you.

The democide that resulted from this just in the 20th century is well documented. Behold, the "new tolerance."

(1) Epistemology is the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity.

If gay marriage is legalized, then gays get to take innocent children, and then the federal government injects it all into the school curriculum beginning with elementary school.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. Either God's Word is true or the devil's lies are true on whether or not God's marriage covenant should encompass homosexuality. This is a no-brainer. God's Word is true and the devil's lies are not.

God thinks it's bad. Really bad, actually.

 

[Nautilus]

I believe that is exactly what I said when I stated "He can't tell them to do anything."

Also, getting back to the article... Gay marriage is actually not covered in the constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How can a gay couple form a "perfect union" when they cannot even procreate on their own?

How can a gay couple "insure domestic Tranquility" which protects family life when they cannot even MAKE their own family?

How can a gay couple "promote the general welfare" when same-sex marriage is a dead end and a demise of society? What general welfare is possible absent the society that unprocreative same-sex couples are unable to enlarge and promote?

How can a gay couple"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" when same-sex marriage simply can never produce the posterity that is expected to enjoy "the blessings of liberty"?

The Constitution covers NATURAL rights. People can argue all day long but homosexuality is NOT NATURAL. If it was then they could procreate without the interference of a 3rd party.

Everything you said could equally apply to a straight couple who for whatever reason is incapable of having kids, thus nullifying your whole argument because they are straight but fit none of your requirements you just listed....

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

RoboOp, The first step they take to undermine your children's faith in our living God and His Word is to project their own epistemology upon your children. This occurs today in the culture and the modern liberal public education system. A side effect of this is that your children are bullied because of their faith. The purpose of this is to introduce doubt into and apply pressure to erode your child's faith in God and what His Word actually says.

Once they have doubt and demoralization, then they move onto attacking the true standard of right and wrong which originates in God's own nature and character and is expressed in His Word. The goal here is to impede their turning to God and a proper understanding of His Word (e.g. comparing their actions and attitudes to God and his revelation) and rather turn inward looking to themselves and the world for their desires of what morality should be. It's a story as old as Eve (and Adam) and the serpent.

As Ravi Zacharias points out, "Eve questioned the reality of God's voice and supplanted it with her own authority making herself the measure of all things." Of course, the serpent helped her out with that just like the serpent is seeking to help out your children with that... only now the serpent has a whole lot more help in doing that.

In enticing your children to decide what is right and wrong in their own eyes, the serpent has led them into idolatry and soon sin. For it is only natural that once a person replaces God's revelation of right and wrong with their own custom-made personalized right and wrong, they put it into practice.

The cycle is then complete. The feelings of alienation from God that result from a sinful "lifestyle" are one of the various byproducts as is the new tolerance of intolerance toward those that refuse to approve of and, in fact, engage in speaking out against the "lifestyle."

It is for this reason we increasingly find instances of gross intolerance toward those who firmly adhere to an orthodox true understanding of God's true standard of right and wrong expressed in His Word.

 

[zone]

I believe that is exactly what I said when I stated "He can't tell them to do anything."

Also, getting back to the article... Gay marriage is actually not covered in the constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How can a gay couple form a "perfect union" when they cannot even procreate on their own?

How can a gay couple "insure domestic Tranquility" which protects family life when they cannot even MAKE their own family?

How can a gay couple "promote the general welfare" when same-sex marriage is a dead end and a demise of society? What general welfare is possible absent the society that unprocreative same-sex couples are unable to enlarge and promote?

How can a gay couple"secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" when same-sex marriage simply can never produce the posterity that is expected to enjoy "the blessings of liberty"?

The Constitution covers NATURAL rights. People can argue all day long but homosexuality is NOT NATURAL. If it was then they could procreate without the interference of a 3rd party.

wow Beth....outstanding post.
bookmarking

 

[zone]

Hate Laws: Supporting the victim against the victimizer

In the William Whatcott case, Canada’s Supreme Court decision has reinforced protection against hatred for minorities.

Published on Thu Feb 28 2013

Bernie M. Farber

The Supreme Court of Canada stood tall on Wednesday. It rightly decided that the original decision by a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal against homophobic William Whatcott was in fact constitutional.

This decision has more than just an impact on Whatcott. Despite rumblings that this latest iteration of our highest court may use the Whatcott case to strike down our hate laws entirely, in fact the exact opposite occurred. In upholding Section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has reinforced our country’s commitment in law to ensuring that the fence of protection for minorities in this country remains solid against the winds of hatred.

Whatcott, formerly a gay prostitute turned homophobic crusader against gays and lesbians, was brought before a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal in 2002 for a series of hate-filled pamphlets attacking the gay community. He was found to be in violation of the act and was fined $17,500 for disregarding the tribunal order to cease and desist. The Supreme Court trimmed back the fine from $17,500 to $7,500.

Hate Laws: Supporting the victim against the victimizer | Toronto Star <click

"Whatcott, formerly a gay prostitute turned homophobic crusader."

being a gay prostitute is okay, repenting and speaking out is criminal.

homophobic means fear of:
like....not only do we not have a right to be repulsed by our own behavior (Whatcott's), we don't have a right be be afraid of anything!
as if there's fear involved.

"protection against hatred for minorities"

??

they say opposition to something is fear of it...then they make it hatred.
we don't have a right to our own emotions or thoughts!

sickening.

but this has nothing at all to do with individual homosexuals - the courts are using this army to shut us up about everything!

 

[zone]

Hate Laws: Supporting the victim against the victimizer

In the William Whatcott case, Canada’s Supreme Court decision has reinforced protection against hatred for minorities.

Published on Thu Feb 28 2013

Bernie M. Farber

The Supreme Court of Canada stood tall on Wednesday. It rightly decided that the original decision by a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal against homophobic William Whatcott was in fact constitutional.

This decision has more than just an impact on Whatcott. Despite rumblings that this latest iteration of our highest court may use the Whatcott case to strike down our hate laws entirely, in fact the exact opposite occurred. In upholding Section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act, the Supreme Court has reinforced our country’s commitment in law to ensuring that the fence of protection for minorities in this country remains solid against the winds of hatred.

Whatcott, formerly a gay prostitute turned homophobic crusader against gays and lesbians, was brought before a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal in 2002 for a series of hate-filled pamphlets attacking the gay community. He was found to be in violation of the act and was fined $17,500 for disregarding the tribunal order to cease and desist. The Supreme Court trimmed back the fine from $17,500 to $7,500.

Hate Laws: Supporting the victim against the victimizer | Toronto Star <click

Andrew Coyne: Supreme Court twists the Charter of Rights in its haste to limit free speech

Andrew Coyne | 13/02/27 | Last Updated: 13/02/27 9:29 PM ET

The very first line in the Supreme Court’s calamitous decision in the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott gives a clue to where it is going. “All rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” it declares, “are subject to reasonable limitations.”

This is a legal truism, but as always it is as important what the Court did not say. It did not choose to begin a ruling on an important freedom of speech case with a ringing affirmation of the importance of free speech, or what an extraordinary thing it is to place restrictions upon it.

It is not enough, the Court writes, that material such as the flyers distributed by William Whatcott, a Saskatoon Christian activist, in contravention of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, is offensive or repugnant. Rather, it must involve some harm to others. But look at how loosely the Court defines “harm.”

The code itself outlaws material that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or group, on the usual list of prohibited grounds. It is not necessary, that is, to show the material in question actually exposes anyone to hatred — only that it might.

Supreme Court Whatcott ruling twists Charter of Rights in haste to limit free speech | Full Comment | National Post < click

 

[zone]

“I’m certainly weighing this, because it’s going to be at great personal cost to me,” Mr. Whatcott said Wednesday, after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the hate speech law under which he was charged, and found he violated it in two of four original cases, pamphlets that described homosexuals as a threat to children.

“I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same,” he said.

William Whatcott plans to continue anti-gay activism despite court ruling | Canada | News | National Post < click

sorry for any derailment...didn't want to start another gay thread.

like wouldn't a guy who came out of it by the grace of God be able to say this in truth?

"homosexuals as a threat to children."

that's what he's supposed to shut up about, Robo...you are right.
it's the kids they want.

just like the Frankfurt School said.

one perversion leads to the next.

 

[Elizabeth619]

Everything you said could equally apply to a straight couple who for whatever reason is incapable of having kids, thus nullifying your whole argument because they are straight but fit none of your requirements you just listed....

Being straight and unable to procreate is beyond that persons control. They cannot help that. Being gay and intentionally refusing to procreate is another story.