cavil -- you did not use the "quote" feature, so it was very difficult for me to figure out what you were saying, when you were quoting me and when you were stating your own views and/or responses. In the future, if you use the "quote" feature, so the reader can tell your own opinion from what you are quoting, that would be most helpful. Thanks!
I had said:
Actually, though it's not in the Bill of Rights, there are laws on our books, mostly at the state level, but a few at the national level, that grant certain rights based on marital status, and currently those rights are afforded ONLY to those in heterosexual marriages. So your statement is incorrect.
Your response to this included:
{DOMA} is the only federal law addressing a definition of marriage.
It seems as though we are in agreement, then, at least on this point. Very good.
I had said:
And I don't need you to confess to me, or anyone on this board, where you fit. You only need to confess your sins to God. If you want to confess them publicly, you're certainly welcome to, and this is one of many forums where, I'd like to think, we would be loving and forgiving and gracious, as our Father is gracious. But judgment is not ours.
Your response:
How magnanimous of you to not only judge me as a sinner but allow me your forgiveness!
Now it is your turn to need to re-read what was written. I very clearly stated I was NOT judging, and it is NOT for me to judge at all. God alone can judge. I said that initially, and I stand by it.
You continue:
Or, do you automatically label any who would rather follow the bible than mans ~wisdom~ as a sinner?
Quite the contrary. I don't "label" anyone a sinner. I label "sin" anything that separates me from God. Where I have sinned, according to the Word of God, I repent and ask for forgiveness. As far as what other people do, that is not for me to decide, label, or judge. See above.
Btw, I'm not sure if you realize you got that backwards up there: sin would be following man's wisdom as opposed to God, not the other way around. I couldn't quite tell if you were being snarky or if you made a typo. I do not follow man's wisdom, or woman's wisdom, or any human wisdom. I follow God's rule of love. If you don't like the rules I follow, you can take it up with God. I make no apologies for that.
You said:
Did i say either extreme was right?
No, to my knowledge you did not. It appears, then, that in at least one more thing, again, we agree. This is good.
How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity! {Psalm 133}
You said:
In the 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972 one of the demands put forth was the elimination of age restrictions on children for consensual sex. This, is also on NAMBLA's agenda.
How horrible!
As soon as I read this sentence of yours, I went online immediately to find out more about this "National Coalition of Gay Organizations," to see who the member groups were, to make sure none of the groups that I supported had anything to do with it, to find out if they had since retracted that platform, etc. Ick!
Imagine my surprise at what I found out. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, on this group. No such group exists or ever existed, according to federal records. There was no such convention in Chicago or in any other city in 1972 or any other time with anything remotely like what you are stating here.
I did, however, see references to this by various anti-gay hate groups who continually refused to provide sources for this information. I find it interesting that the only people who seem to know about this "National Coalition of Gay Organizations" are conservative Christians, and none of the gay activists who normally rally for gay rights have ever heard of it.
You may want to check out snopes or another myth-busting site.
You say:
What the constitution actually says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Under Sharia law, if you are a christian, you would be dead, period. "Allah is an enemy to unbelievers." - Sura 2:98 "Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter." - Sura 2:191
Once again, we are in agreement. That is THREE items! Shall we try for four, my brother?
According to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since its inception in 1871 the National Rifle Association (NRA) is America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights.
And there it is. I disagree with some of what NRA does, but I do support its primary purpose - to defend the 2nd Amendment.
Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy. What is fascinating here is that a law abiding, constitutionally supported group (the NRA) is placed in the same catagory as the KKK, a admitedly violent organization, by you.
I did not match up the NRA and the KKK. You did. You referred to four groups / ethics, asking if they should all be "tolerated." The groups you listed were, in order, NAMBLA, Shaira law, NRA, and KKK. I don't know why you chose those 4 groups. I don't know why you would chose to put NRA and KKK side by side like that. Perhaps you can tell me what significance those 4 items have, and then we'll both know.
God bless you.
