Writing in the right-wing [I]Charisma[/I] magazine’s “Prophetic Insights” feature, David Aaron Richey of the Gulf Coast Christian Center suggests that the prospect of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples terrifies him more than wars, natural disasters, and potential nuclear accidents. While comparing homosexuality to bestiality, Richey says that religious leaders need to be more active in stopping legislators from “legalizing perversion,” [URL="http://charismamag.com/index.php/prophetic-insight/31502-why-i-have-to-speak-out"]just like Jesus would[/URL]:
[quote] I'm not afraid of the many disasters that are happening simultaneously in our world. I'm not afraid of all the wars that are currently raging on almost every continent on the globe. The potential for nuclear accidents globally doesn't frighten me.
What terrifies me are good men and women saying and doing nothing when politicians we voted into office are making moral laws that contradict everything a Holy God stands for.
If someone wants to commit a perverted act such as having sex with a person of the same sex, then he or she is a free moral agent, and we cannot stop it. Conversely, when the governments of our land create laws that state perversion is legal, I am legally placed in a position to defend or explain perversion—or break the law (to pervert is to use a thing for some purpose other than what it was created for; God created male for female and female for male). As an ordained minister, will I now have to go against the law and subject myself to punishment for refusing to marry two people of the same sex?
Civil liberties—which is how proponents of legalizing perversion are categorizing same-sex marriage—ought not to infringe on the civil liberties of other citizens. I have a right to live in a community that does not force me to agree with and defend perverted sexual acts between two people.
If someone desires to indulge in bestiality, anal sex, homosexuality or any other perverted sexual act, why does it have to be made a law? More important, why have more than 50 percent of Americans bought into the lie that it has to be legalized?
…
I can imagine what Jesus would do if He were walking the corridors of our cities and states of our nation today. I can see Him going into the Sunday morning worship services of some of our churches and knocking the pulpit down and commanding the leaders to get out!
I have to speak out against sin! What about you?
[/quote]
This guy must suck tons of cock.
Wow, if I read another sentence of this guys ignorance, I'm going to have a conniption.
Such is life for the man bound by ethics/morality/idealology.
I don't even care that there are ignorant people out there who don't approve of equality, that can't be helped, it's just it seems like they're all in my politics screwing shit up for normal, innocent people.
[quote]Civil liberties... ought not to infringe on the civil liberties of other citizens. I have a right to live in a community that does not force me to agree with and defend perverted sexual acts between two people.[/quote]
you have it the wrong way around there brah
This argument seriously pisses me off. "It's my civil liberty to restrict other people from harmless consensual acts! If I can't restrict other people according to my personal religious beliefs, you're taking away my civil liberty to be in charge of everything!"
I honestly have no idea how I would react if I ran into someone like that in real life.
Also, this fits surprisingly well, even though it's about Amnesia.
[url]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/006/1/1/anything_but_that_by_humon-d36kju5.jpg[/url]
"Blood and guts and innocent deaths and torture and disease and seeing your friends blown apart? That's NOTHING compared to a dick in a butt! NOOOTHIIING!"
I'm glad I read the OP because I would have raged at the wrong person otherwise
I can't think of a single instance in which Jesus lashed out at the public for sexual sins.
And he lived in the friggin' ROMAN EMPIRE for crying out loud.
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;31192552]I can't think of a single instance in which Jesus lashed out at the public for sexual sins.
And he lived in the friggin' ROMAN EMPIRE for crying out loud.[/QUOTE]
He did ' touch' that blind man.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31192262]Such is life for the man bound by [b]stupid or incorrect[/b] ethics/morality/idealology.[/QUOTE]
There. Fixed that for you.
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;31192552]I can't think of a single instance in which Jesus lashed out at the public for sexual sins.
And he lived in the friggin' ROMAN EMPIRE for crying out loud.[/QUOTE]
"Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone."
- Jesus H Christ
Where are these people getting the impression that they are going to be forced to perform same sex marriages against their will.
I think there are very few, if any people out there who are seriously advocating for the government to start setting standards for the beliefs of religions.
I find the fact some people believe[B] these[/B] ideals scarier than nuclear disasters.
What a fucking intolerant asshole
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZugaP4cf0A[/MEDIA]
[B]This is how I feel when these people say things like this[/B]
Just let them have equal rights and be done with it, they aren't forcing their rights on you so just leave it alone.
[quote]Civil liberties—which is how proponents of legalizing perversion are categorizing same-sex marriage—ought not to infringe on the civil liberties of other citizens. I have a right to live in a community that does not force me to agree with and defend perverted sexual acts between two people.[/quote]"Civil liberties means I should be able to control what other people do, but not the other way around because they're fags." is what I'm reading here.
Lets show him a world with gay marriage, then a world in nuclear war.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;31192727]"Whoever is without sin, cast the first stone."
- Jesus H Christ[/QUOTE]
Even though I'm not really a religious person, that has always been one of my favorite quotes.
Now what's the point of marriage in the 21'st century anyway??
[quote]Civil liberties... ought not to infringe on the civil liberties of other citizens.[/quote]
Let's ban guns entirely, they infringe on people's right to live.
Holy hell what a prick.
Oh man, somebody sen this guy to get machete-raped in Sudan.
Wow, that guy needs to suck one of someone's manboobs.
I find the prioritization this guy is similar to how most people think. This may seem to be quite the statement to make, but this form of thinking is very accepted and well practiced. Many people adhere to the belief that ideas can be far more dangerous than bombs and large disasters. Sounds a bit weird that this is accepted, but ideas are typically seen to be of far greater importance than anything else. I believe there are numerous quotes about this.
Within context of this guy's mind, he's rational. If a person believes that heterosexual marriage keeps the fabric of society together, then it's logical for him to assume that something that goes against that belief would do harm to the fabric of society. All other evidence is the result of confirmation bias.
There is also a large "I know what's best for you" thing going on. This is very common, both on the left and the right. I wish this form of reasoning would just die because it asserts that the majority has a right to involve itself with choices of your own free will.
I think it is important to understand how people you disagree with think and what leads them to certain conclusions. People are inclined to think their argument is rational, and I think it very interesting to investigate why certain people take certain positions and look into assertions that are never said.
In no way do I agree with him, nor do I agree with straight marriage and gay marriage. The government has no right to define what kind of contracts private individuals can make. The courts must uphold private contracts. Why should the government have authority over a private contract called "marriage"? This isn't a public issue, it is a private issue, an issue the government should stay out of.
But wait, no public definition would mean polygamy would also be allowed since private individuals could make such contract? Many people oppose this. Is it any of our business to get involved in this? No.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/00DtT.gif[/img]
Any argument against any governmental idea on the grounds that it violates a rule, ideal, etc of a religious institution should never be considered a "con" of a piece of legislation and should be thrown out.
Separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the government highlighted many times throughout the Constitution, namely the First Amendment. If we start denying rights of states' citizens on the grounds of religious "moral grounds", then that is on the level of censoring critics of the government.
Of course, this argument probably fits the constitutions of most European nations and governments as well.
im going to gently rest my dick on the guy in the op's forehead
whywhywhy.
because he's grossed out by what gay people do behind closed doors?
THE DOORS ARE CLOSED, GET THE FUCK OVER YOUR BAD SELF.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;31202417]Any argument against any governmental idea on the grounds that it violates a rule, ideal, etc of a religious institution should never be considered a "con" of a piece of legislation and should be thrown out.
Separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the government highlighted many times throughout the Constitution, namely the First Amendment. If we start denying rights of states' citizens on the grounds of religious "moral grounds", then that is on the level of censoring critics of the government.
Of course, this argument probably fits the constitutions of most European nations and governments as well.[/QUOTE]
This issue with this response is that it presents an argument in which if a secular argument can be made it is valid, it is only religious arguments that are invalid. Also, the first amendment restricts government from making law regarding religion, it does not ban religious rational from being used to justify other laws that do not deal with what is off limits. Many people think of it as means of not allowing religious motive to be used to support bills, but this isn't true. There is reason to argue for secular reasoning in politics, but it doesn't come from the first amendment. You can point to a few essays written by the founders at the time to make a case, but it's clear that the first amendment does not force secular reasoning in the Federal Government.
To ramble on, another issue with much of the gay rights argument is that many people hinge their argument on it not being a choice. This lead to the assumption that if it is a choice, then such negative thoughts about them are acceptable, they are only unacceptable if there is no choice in the matter. I don't at all think the argument should hinge on the lack of choice but rather that you have no right to tell an individual how to live. Whether there is or isn't a choice in the matter shouldn't affect the argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
