The politics of Gay rights.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
toinena said:
Well. In Norway lesbians get governmental financed fertilisation treatment and therefore procreate. And male gay couples go to India to get a surrogate mum carrying their child. Gay abortion clinic is thus right around the corner. Soon opening close to you!
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying.
It's all getting very odd, and I completely agree with you.

But we'll still never see a gay abortion clinic.
Why?
In order for a gay couple to have a child, they have to go to extraordinary lengths of both INTENTION and FINANCE.
Since their pregnancies are RARE, HIGHLY INTENTIONAL, and EXPENSIVE...
(the exact opposite of heterosexual pregnancies)
we aren't going to see any explosion in gay abortions.


Now, before someone says, "see, gay people are superior, they'd NEVER have an abortion", let me point something out.
1. Refraining from murdering a child is hardly a great moral achievement.
2. Most gay couples, even the ones who produce a child, probably STILL believe abortion is perfectly fine... they've just chosen NOT TO ABORT THIS ONE.
3. Having to violate all the laws of nature to produce a child should be sign enough you're doing something wrong.
* I see no moral high ground here.


Goodness... it's tough to chat in a thread where you can't make a joke without needing a fully formed defense.





 
Last edited:
Would it be gay, if I entered into a sham marriage with another guy, for tax benefits?
 
maxwel said:
I get what you're saying.
It's all getting very odd, and I completely agree with you.

But we'll still never see a gay abortion clinic.
Why?
In order for a gay couple to have a child, they have to go to extraordinary lengths of both INTENTION and FINANCE.
Since their pregnancies are RARE, HIGHLY INTENTIONAL, and EXPENSIVE...
(the exact opposite of heterosexual pregnancies)
we aren't going to see any explosion in gay abortions.


Now, before someone says, "see, gay people are superior, they'd NEVER have an abortion", let me point something out.
1. Refraining from murdering a child is hardly a great moral achievement.
2. Most gay couples, even the ones who produce a child, probably STILL believe abortion is perfectly fine... they've just chosen NOT TO ABORT THIS ONE.
3. Having to violate all the laws of nature to produce a child should be sign enough you're doing something wrong.
* I see no moral high ground here.


Goodness... it's tough to chat in a thread where you can't make a joke without needing a fully formed defense.
Click to expand...
Jokes are fine. And I did this word twisting on purpose to show how ridiculous this world has become. Abortion and gay parenthood are both so evil they are mocking God's creation.
 
maxwel said:
I get what you're saying.
It's all getting very odd, and I completely agree with you.

But we'll still never see a gay abortion clinic.
Why?
In order for a gay couple to have a child, they have to go to extraordinary lengths of both INTENTION and FINANCE.
Since their pregnancies are RARE, HIGHLY INTENTIONAL, and EXPENSIVE...
(the exact opposite of heterosexual pregnancies)
we aren't going to see any explosion in gay abortions.


Now, before someone says, "see, gay people are superior, they'd NEVER have an abortion", let me point something out.
1. Refraining from murdering a child is hardly a great moral achievement.
2. Most gay couples, even the ones who produce a child, probably STILL believe abortion is perfectly fine... they've just chosen NOT TO ABORT THIS ONE.
3. Having to violate all the laws of nature to produce a child should be sign enough you're doing something wrong.
* I see no moral high ground here.


Goodness... it's tough to chat in a thread where you can't make a joke without needing a fully formed defense.
Click to expand...



I think you misunderstood me Max. I understood the joke,but things are so crazy today that anything is a possibility. Im about to post a thread to prove just how crazy its getting. I didn't think you were serious at all.
 
prove-all said:
When I grew-up, then gays where called queers.
now my view is called queer and A hate crime,
and people call this progress and freedom.

...
Click to expand...

Back in "the day" you could also call another group of people another word without facing consequences from society. Do you miss that also?

The second someone calls another out group nasty names I immediately know where they are really coming from, and it ain't "morality".
 
toinena said:
Jokes are fine. And I did this word twisting on purpose to show how ridiculous this world has become. Abortion and gay parenthood are both so evil they are mocking God's creation.
Click to expand...

kaylagrl said:
I think you misunderstood me Max. I understood the joke,but things are so crazy today that anything is a possibility. Im about to post a thread to prove just how crazy its getting. I didn't think you were serious at all.
Click to expand...


I understood what both of you meant.
: )

But there are people on the other side of the debate,
and they'll take it all differently...
that's why I parsed everything out.
 
Society said:
Back in "the day" you could also call another group of people another word without facing consequences from society. Do you miss that also?

The second someone calls another out group nasty names I immediately know where they are really coming from, and it ain't "morality".
Click to expand...
Careful when you go outside in the rain. Your nose is so high up in the air you are likely to drown.

There was a lot less politics of division when different ethnic groups could address one another without all the hate we see today. Political and educational elitists have made division a tool for the advancement of their personal causes.

Jews hated Gentiles. Jesus saves Gentiles and Jews making them saints of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Society said:
Back in "the day" you could also call another group of people another word without facing consequences from society. Do you miss that also?

The second someone calls another out group nasty names I immediately know where they are really coming from, and it ain't "morality".
Click to expand...

" back in the day we could be bigots without repercussions"
 
Angela_s said:
I think "Queer"
Click to expand...
It's ok for them to say it and call each other such but don't you do it. Same with some of the names blacks call each other. Ethnic divisions cause nothing but strife. All are equally guilty before God and all must be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
When someone claims another is a bigot, that means they have lost the argument.
 
notuptome said:
It's ok for them to say it and call each other such but don't you do it. Same with some of the names blacks call each other. Ethnic divisions cause nothing but strife. All are equally guilty before God and all must be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Click to expand...

I wrote "Queer" with quotation marks, for implying it is a definition and because someone asked. Not for mocking or for taking the definition in a ironic way. If that's what you meant.
If it resulted like that, than I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.
 
Angela_s said:
I wrote "Queer" with quotation marks, for implying it is a definition and because someone asked. Not for mocking or for taking the definition in a ironic way. If that's what you meant.
If it resulted like that, than I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.
Click to expand...

Apologize for nothing.
 
Angela_s said:
I wrote "Queer" with quotation marks, for implying it is a definition and because someone asked. Not for mocking or for taking the definition in a ironic way. If that's what you meant.
If it resulted like that, than I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.
Click to expand...
The word is perfectly legitimate. The connotation folks impose upon it is where the trouble arises. I prefer the word Sodomite because it has a biblical meaning. The word gay is also perfectly legitimate yet it's modern application has been skewed to mean something less than virtuous.

I do not think the Lord is offended by anything you have done.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
notuptome said:
The word is perfectly legitimate. The connotation folks impose upon it is where the trouble arises. I prefer the word Sodomite because it has a biblical meaning. The word gay is also perfectly legitimate yet it's modern application has been skewed to mean something less than virtuous.

I do not think the Lord is offended by anything you have done.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Click to expand...

Ok then :) . Thanks for explaining .
 
notuptome said:
Careful when you go outside in the rain. Your nose is so high up in the air you are likely to drown.

There was a lot less politics of division when different ethnic groups could address one another without all the hate we see today. Political and educational elitists have made division a tool for the advancement of their personal causes.

Jews hated Gentiles. Jesus saves Gentiles and Jews making them saints of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Click to expand...

Yes, back in the old days before these politics of division when everyone could talk to each other and we all got along.

history-283-elizabeth-eckford-little-rock_corbis.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back