Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:12:05 pm ET

Opinion|Fri, Jun. 19 2009 09:45 AM EDT

Gay Activists and Religious Freedom

By Chuck Colson|Christian Post Guest Columnist

eHarmony is a popular online dating service designed by Neil Clark Warren, an evangelical Christian psychologist. The site claims that, on average, 236 eHarmony members marry every day. That’s good news.

The bad news is that, in 2005, a man claimed the company violated his rights by not offering a matchmaking service to homosexuals. He lodged a complaint with the New Jersey attorney general, who found probable cause that eHarmony had violated state anti-discrimination laws. eHarmony vigorously disagreed.

Nevertheless, last year, eHarmony agreed to develop a matchmaking service for same-sex couples-and pay $55,000 in fines.

As I said Sunday, we’ve seen this scenario over and over again. Christians or Orthodox Jews open up a business, ministry, or school, and sooner or later, a same-sex couple shows up demanding services that conflict with the sincerely held religious convictions of those they confront. When the same-sex couple is turned down, they promptly sue-even if others offer to accommodate them for the same services. And too often, they are winning their cases.

It’s as if the First Amendment no longer exists. I can’t help but suspect that radical gays deliberately target outfits run by religious believers in order to force them to accommodate their political agenda-or go out of business.

So what can we do about this? How can we protect our First Amendment rights-and marriage itself?

First, if you are victimized by a gay activist group or same-sex couple demanding that you throw out your religious beliefs, contact the Alliance Defense Fund. They have spent many years defending the First Amendment right of religious believers-rights now under brutal attack.

Second, we’ve all got to work together to protect the integrity of marriage. Learn how by contacting the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. You’ll also learn why we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. I know you’re getting fatigued, but it’s time to stiffen our spines.

College students who want to learn how to defend traditional marriage should go to the Ruth Institute website and sign up for a summer conference. The Ruth Institute also offers a list of people who will speak to your group about marriage. Or, you can purchase a same-sex “marriage” home party kit, which includes DVDs, bumper stickers, and wrist bands. Have your friends over, and use the kit to teach them how same-sex “marriage” will harm everybody.

The issue is critical. We all must learn how to answer the charge of “bigotry,” and winsomely explain why marriage cannot exist between same-sex couples; and how same-sex “marriage” will not broaden marriage, but radically and dangerously change its nature.

We must learn, as the apostle Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 10:5, to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.”

If we don’t make the case for natural marriage-or fight attempts to shut us up or shut us down-sooner or later, we will all find our most sacred liberties sacrificed on the altar of the gay agenda.

_______________________________________________________

From BreakPoint, May 13, 2009, Copyright 2009, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
  • Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    oldstudent Ã

  • Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show oldstudent »Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:46 pm gg,Since my brother chooses to be gay then it is a choice. He is openly gay so your little rant is just be shown to be wrong.There are many who have chosen to leave the lifestyle of being gay. This also shows your assertion to be false. There is no proof that being gay is anything less than choice. We have many things that correlate but have not found any evidence for causing someone to be gay. -------------------------------------------------------- In response:here is a site to read about the FACTS of homosexuality being wired and not a choice. http://www.socyberty.com/Gay-&-Lesbians/The-Supposed-Abnormality-of-Homosexuals.760989 It will give you a starting point to begin with to show that being gay is not a choice. What you may be thinking of is "effeminate" and the outward conduct of someone who is male and acting more like a girl or woman. Some clarification is needed as to what you are inferring since it isn't clear what you are speaking to on this subject. For those who hold to someone who suddenly was changed from gay to straight is just like the converted satanists who admitted to killing babies on videos and then the police investigated and found nothing. Had these folks actually done it, then the churches were responsible to have them turned over to the authorities for criminal prosecution and conviction if they really had any proof. the problem was this was all hype and the people were simply lying to get the point across. http://alockslee.blogspot.com/ Truth and Reality TFR hide

  • Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:38 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Daniel Paul »Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:29 pm"2) How does anyone's religious beliefs entitle them to deprive other people of their civil rights?" How does anyone's sexual
    orientation entitle them to deprive otehr people of their civil rights to religious beliefs? If you don't believe that has happened I can direct you to a doctor and photographer who had to pay fines because some gay people denied them their civil rights to freedom of
    religion....
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    In response:The stories you offer as proof of violation of religious beliefs are not the reason they were cited and paid fines or were found liable, it was due to those people violating DISCRIMINATION LAWS!!!!

    The fact they held beliefs that may or may not have caused them to act in the proscribed manner is not an excuse to violate the law!

    Their beliefs are still in existence and no one took them away from them, nor did any of the violators have change their beliefs. So your argument these folks rights were violated is not true. What is true is those violators attempted to force others to conform to
    their beliefs and thereby violated the victim's beliefs as well, funny how you don't seem to grasp that concept or just forget to mention it during your post.

    So how about the pattern of the violators and others just like them who continue to violate the 1st Amendment Rights of individuals while making claims that unless the violators are allowed to continue they are being made victims?? The violations by fundamentalists/evangelicals are rampant and has to stop as the 1st Amendment allows a person to be free from religion as well as free to practice it. Practicing religion does not include pushing it on others nor forcing them via observance to comply with those violating the rights of others.

    So when you talk about violation of rights remember that you don't get to force another to comply with your beliefs and get away with it, nothing in any of the Constitution says you can convert people to your beliefs at will period.

    http://alockslee.blogspot.com/ The full story is here

    TFR

  • Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show danpat1_2000 »Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:59 am "wry, the reason I believe Mr. Colson believes we need a federal marriage amendment is because if same-sex marriage does become the law of the land even more of our religious freedoms will be eroded as we have seen in Canada, several European countries, and in several of our own states." Absolutely and they are trying to control "thought," making it a crime so that not even the Bible may be read from in the pulpit or anywhere. See Canada, Sweden, England where Ministers have been put in jail for expressing age-old doctrine. And in this country where our taxes pay for Muslim footbaths (with the ACLU's permission but our Christian crosses are being covered up with plywood or like at Georgetown our Savior's name is being blocked out. --------------------------------------------------------- In response: Could you provide some actual valid proof of these claims? You as well as others here love to post all these things happening to you and those like you but not once has the full account or an unbiased source been given to support, let alone prove any of this. So instead of posting fabrications and half a story to sound like you found something that had happened when it hasn't, put up the full story and then everyone can see the claims you make are not true and only fabrications by a paranoid group who wants only to force their ideology on everyone else. The whole story is found at the following link where the whole truth is reported, not just fundie fabrications. http://alockslee.blogspot.com/ TFR hide

  • Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer: Maybe I am using the wrong terms, but to me, private means it does not necessarily serve the general public but perhaps a specific group. A church is a private entity pr a parochial school. Whereas, a public business (entity), would be a local library or a restaurant or a public school, a place that serves the general public.

  • Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ggirl, please define what you see as the difference between a private business as opposed to a public business, thanks?

  • Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hman, marriage was designed and instituted by God at the beginning of Creation when He created Adam and Eve it is not a civil event it is a spiritual event . As for contradictions, if you would study Jewish culture you would see there is absolutely no contradiction in Joseph being named as the son of his father and the son of his father-in-law and in fact when my wife's dad was alive he would often times introduce me as his son even though I was his son-in-law. And as I noted to garage guy none of the supposed contradictions he noted which were no more than him putting down only a portion of the passages in other words taking them out of their original context were contradictions at all.

  • Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Kim, Thank you... and you are right, I do prescribe to the belief of treat others as you would be treated. :) or maybe even better -- I believe in doing by best to be a good Samaritan. :)

  • Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer, I do understand where you are coming from. And should you own a private business or have private property, I believe you do not have to worry. It is when a public business... like say a huge hotel chain, or a local restaurant... discriminate - then there is an issue. There is a line between public and private. Sooo a church does not have to marry say two people who are not of their denomination or religion (Jewish person marrying a Christian) since it might go against their rules. It is allowed for them to be discriminatory - they are a private organization. :)

  • Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show I'd rather bide my time with no rights and fight for equality than to give marriage away to these hateful and uneducated people, since it already belongs to us. :-) hide

  • Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Euphor, I love you man, and my disagreement with you on this point does not change that fact. So far I agree with you on everything else! :-) But marriage belongs to civil society. These false "Christians" have no more right or power to take it away than to take away my driver's license. hide

  • Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Why support Gender Neutral Domestic Partnerships when you believe that only Marriage is equal? 1. Easier to get done - the surveys show that the bigger opposition is based on the word. Get the rights NOW and go to court to get the title eventually. 2. Bide your time, it is inevitable. Support for gay rights is age and education effected, as is belief in importance and relevance of Marriage in general. For people over 60 they were raised in a time when 90% of children were born of married parents. Today 40% of births are out of wedlock in USA. Those over 60 and with those little education are most likely to be anti-gay rights. They will just die off. The under-educated are also the least likely to vote and participate in civil affairs. hide

  • Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show klm68: For that he calls me an "intolerant, bigoted, hetero-phobic, hate-filled person who wants the worst for everyone you disagree with." C'mon now. The heterophobic one was good. Such a term must have been invented by someone with homophobe envy, whatever that might be. I've known people who are homophobic, but I haven't even heard about heterophobia until tonight. So at least someone learned something from what he wrote. I think that this board would be better if moderate mainstream Christians were welcomed and encouraged to participate, but I haven't heard much welcoming here. hide

  • Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Oldstudent, i do not believe for a single second that your brother chooses to be gay. Please explain how you arrived at this conclusion.

  • Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:02 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    I merely pointed out that "oldstudent" Jim is doing what he accuses others of, that is, expecting other people to live by his standards. For that he calls me an "intolerant, bigoted, hetero-phobic, hate-filled person who wants the worst for everyone you disagree with."

    I make it a point not to say what another person *is*, and to limit my comments to what a person *does* or, in this situation, *says* (writes). I've tried to give specific examples of the harm done to people when their rights are limited because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Jim, I don't think I deserve those insults. You don't know me at all, and you know nothing about what I do with my life and how I interact with others. You apparently even assume you know my sexual orientation, though I've said nothing about it.

    Honestly, I'm shocked. I would not have expected to be treated like that here. This is not an environment in which I feel like I can have a constructive conversation. I don't find any "peace" or "grace" in your words at all.

  • Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg,

    Sorry, I meant to label the last post for KLM not you. I apologize, it was inadvertent.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg,

    Since my brother chooses to be gay then it is a choice. He is openly gay so your little rant is just be shown to be wrong.

    There are many who have chosen to leave the lifestyle of being gay. This also shows your assertion to be false.

    There is no proof that being gay is anything less than choice. We have many things that correlate but have not found any evidence for causing someone to be gay.

    Since I am willing to let you have sex with who you wish but am not willing to call it normal I am mean? That is a statement from someone in grade school usually. With your logic you must acknowledge that I am completely normal and you aren't willing to do so. In my case I am being tolerant (look up the word) but you are intolerant.

    Those that require others to codify their actions as normal and good know what they do is wrong; that is why they must force others to endorse their actions! True tolerance would be not caring what others thought but asking for respect.

    Your immature charges (veiled and not so veiled) against those that disagree with you show that you are an intolerant, bigoted, hetero-phobic, hate-filled person who wants the worst for everyone you disagree with. These are the same charges (except you charge others as homo-phobic) you level at others and are unfortunately the one who is the one throwing rocks at the mirror.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show believer wrote: "gg, there is not one contradiction in any of those verses you cited, the only thing you did was take them out of there original context to try and make them contradictions." believer, you *always* have an excuse. You claim that by definition there can be no contradiction, so in the many places where there are contradictions, you just say the words don't mean what they say. Son means son-in-law, yes means no, and effeminate means so-called "Christians" should put more time into taking legal rights away from their fellow citizens than everything else combined. You are older than me, and that is considerable. It's time to grow up and stop declaring that the Bible says whatever you want it to say. hide

  • Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show believer wrote: "let's pass stronger domestic partnership laws and then see what happens." Go for it dude! :-) My effort is going only into full legal equality, including marriage, because the states that have tried civil unions have found they don't work. Keep in mind too: all but one of the things that Colson is complaining about (some of which he blatantly lied about) happened in states that did *not* have same-sex marriage, and most didn't even have civil unions. So yes, it's great that you are taking a step forward. Thanks and best wishes! :-) hide

  • Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm, being in the ministry I doubt I'll ever own rental property, but if I did chances are the people who want to rent the property would not be telling me what their sexual orientation is and don't forget you asked the question in the first place, so it would be a matter of them acting out in a way that would allow me to know they are acting inappropriately according to God's Word. As for the other issue how will we know until we try it, let's pass stronger domestic partnership laws and then see what happens.

  • Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Happy Birthday Daniel! And many happy returns of the day. :-) hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Hope you can deal with reality cause I just gave you a large does of it, wipe your mouth after swallowing and be careful not to choke."

    Sorry I didn't get back to you before now. My birthday was Tuesday and I had board work to do.

    Now, you sure do have difficulty with the concept that I simply read what is written in the Bible and accept it. Why is that? The answer is found on your own blog site:

    "Remember you can't expect mind controlled fundies to act responsibly since they only follow th e lemming approach of what the pulpit puppet in their local fascist gathering is telling them to do."

    Since our pastor, our church of 7000 along with myself subscribe to the concept that you should question anything that doesn't line up with the Bible...then the things I post don't fit into you bigoted opinion of Christianity. Our pastor says to study everything he preaches to make sure it's in line with the word of God. Don't ever take a man's word for what the Bible says. Read it yourself. See what it says for ourselves and be responsible for our own Christian lives. The Bible says:

    2Ti 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

    The word diligent is translated study in the KJV. It is the word spoudazo which means:

    1) to hasten, make haste
    2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence

    Far from being a bunch of lemmings. That would be to easy to dismiss. Jesus condemned the group that followed the teaching of the pharasees like a bunch of lemmings. He constantly encouraged His disciples to beware of the leven of the pharasees.

    As for your blog site... all I would have to do is change some words and all the gay people would be calling you a bigot! You without sin cast the first stones there buddy....

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The people who are most guilty of picking and choosing are those of you who are so stuck on calling for murder of gay people "

    Wow...you really do pigeonhole don't you. I will assume you are not speaking of me as even the gay folks here would have to confess I don't subscribe to that. One normally doesn't call for the murder of someone who has babysat for them. Yep, that's right. I've allowed a lesbian to babysit my children. Let's see...that would make you a bigot for even suggesting such a thing.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer - you'll be happy to know (as I've said before) that it's still legal to discriminate on lots of arbitrary grounds. You could evict a tenant because you don't like to see people wearing red shirts. That would just be silly. But when you discriminate against someone because you don't approve of their choice of whom to love, that's just petty and mean.

    If I were a prospective tenant and the lease had a clause restricting sexual behavior, I'd figure that the people who run the place are perverts for even mentioning it, and if I had any reasonable alternative I wouldn't go near the place. But sometimes there aren't reasonable alternatives.

    believer, neither you nor anyone else has dealt in any substantial way with the many examples I've given of discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. All you've said is that you think the problem could be solved by stronger domestic partner laws (which most of your colleagues here oppose, anyway). Well, just because you think that would fix the problem doesn't mean that it would.

    For example, Janice Langbehn had the legal documents with her, including the kids' birth certificates, but she wasn't allowed to visit her partner, Lisa Pond. Pond's children weren't even allowed to visit until she was almost dead. Why? Because Ms Langbehn couldn't say the magic word, "married." People know what that word means - it opens doors and eliminates barriers.

    Charlene Strong and Kate Fleming lived in a state with good domestic partner laws and legal prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation. None of that mattered. In a crucial moment, all it takes is one or two people who are ignorant, thoughtless, or bigoted - or doing God's Work here on Earth - and what "should" happen under the law doesn't happen.

    The whole problem is based on what you and others assume that other people are doing in bed. I think it's truly twisted that you give it any thought, but you know, you could be wrong.

    And no one has commented on the verse cited elsewhere on this website, Romans 14:10-20, "Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another."

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg, there is not one contradiction in any of those verses you cited, the only thing you did was take them out of there original context to try and make them contradictions.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg, as far a chronic liar, there could come a point that I would have to ask him to vacate the premises because his lying is endangering the lives and reputations of other people, but I really could care less if he chooses not to floss, read a book, or exercise so there would be no reason for him to lie to me in the first place since I wouldn't ask him nor make any of those things rules or standards with regards to renting the property. But the bottomline is that it's my property and I should be allowed to determine those behaviors that could cause a person to be asked to vacate the premises.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg, so if a recovering alcoholic encourages another alcoholic to develop a clean and sober lifestyle they are just lashing out at other alcoholics and in fact should return to consuming alcohol because they're simply fooling themselves into believing they can have consistent victory over alcohol?

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg, the jury is still out on whether a person chooses to be homosexual, but what's perfectly clear is that they choose to have sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex the same way a heterosexual person chooses to have sexual intimacy with someone of the opposite sex. We choose to participate in a sexual lifestyle regardless of our sexual orientation.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm, plus, once again I'm saying you share those standards with all prospective renters prior to agreeing to rent to them and in fact have them sign a document saying they agree to abide by those standards and allow them to know if they choose to violate those standards it is grounds for you to ask them to vacate the rental property. And once again no one is talking about using cameras or any other snooping equipment, but if somehow it's proven they violated the standards then they will be asked to vacate the premises. The owner takes the word of the renters that they will abide by the standards.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klm, nothing like picking a worthless example, but why shouldn't a person who owns the property be allowed to say what behaviors they permit to take place on their property? Restaurants are allowed not to serve people who don't meet certain dress standards why shouldn't a property owner be able to do the same thing when it comes to behaviorial standards or for that matter dress standards as well?

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Jim "oldstudent" wrote "It is oxymoronic to think that my freedom is secured by forcing another to accept and endorse my lifestyle choices. In fact the thought is sophomoric and lacks depth."

    And yet, Jim, that's exactly what you're doing.

    Jim "oldstudent" wrote "If the situation is reversed then you are forced to endorse my lifestyle I am pretty sure that you wouldn't consider yourself free."

    But that's precise what you're doing, and you just explained why some of us object.

    believer wrote "I'm not talking about evicting someone because of who or what they are but rather their behaviors"

    Let's imagine, just for discussion, that I think chitlins are disgusting, and I don't want anyone preparing and eating them in the (imaginary) apartments that I own. Would it be fair to throw out any tenants that I discovered were eating chitlins? And - rhetorical question - would that result in de facto discrimination against people based on their identity?

    Really, if you somehow became aware of some tenants private sexual behavior, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    And I suggest that some of you might consider cutting out the "beloved" and "grace and peace" talk -- it sounds terribly insincere, and it's rather disgusting to observe someone massaging their.... ego in public.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Jim, would you mind not calling homosexuality a "lifestyle choice"? It isn't waterskiing, you know. Is heterosexuality also a lifestyle choice to you? It's not as if people wake up one day and say to themselves, "Gee, I think it would be fun to be gay instead of straight!" From an openly gay person's perspective, the very notion is astoundingly obtuse. In my experience I've culled two things about people who insist gay people chose it: 1)Believing that lets them absolve themselves of the guilt they should rightly feel for being so mean to gay folks. 2)Many who insist on believing it are gay themselves. The only "choice" involved for gay people is whether to live openly and honestly with it or to lie and sweep it under the rug and deny it to self and the world. People who insist it's a choice, despite logic and testimony to the contrary, often turn out to be closeted gays who long ago chose to live the lie of pretending they're straight, and now they lash out at other gays in a combination of self hatred and jealousy. I don't know what your motivation is to deliberately use the phrase "lifestyle choice" twice in your post, but as an actual openly gay person I can tell you that is both inaccurate and silly. Unless of course by "lifestyle choice" you mean to actually say that gay people should choose to live a pretend life, lying to themselves and the world by pretending they are not gay? I hope that's not what you mean. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Gnosticgirl,

    Unfortunately your posting doesn't persuade due to the inability to make a case for others to endorse and support others lifestyle choices. Your argument lacks any cohesiveness because there is no overarching and encompassing reason to think that anyone should be forced to do so.

    There are no inalienable rights without God. At best rights would be man-made and alterable at any time because there is no reason for them outside of subjective choice.

    It is oxymoronic to think that my freedom is secured by forcing another to accept and endorse my lifestyle choices. In fact the thought is sophomoric and lacks depth. If the situation is reversed then you are forced to endorse my lifestyle I am pretty sure that you wouldn't consider yourself free. In the end, my rights end at your property line and vice-versa.

    Since the laws are not properly enforced now, expecting them to be enforced properly just because we granted someone or some group "rights" doesn't make the situation better, it multiplies the problem and thus makes for more issues of fairness and rights than it solves.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Blacksho89 - and yes, what you "recognize" is irrelevant. No gay person cares if you personally think their relationship is right, wrong, or anywhere in between. Why would they? You're not the boss of gay people you don't even know. It's not about what you think. It's about what the law thinks. You are not the law. What part of that is confusing to you? I'll try to break it down further if I can. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "And the subject of this piece is that religious people will be forced to compromise ther (sic) beliefs..." No person has the unfettered right to have their beliefs supported by secular law. That obviously could never work because people hold contradictory beliefs. There are times for all of us when our beliefs, dear as they may be to us, are not supported in secular law and we must live with that. In such cases we should be thankful that our right to hold the beliefs is protected! If I believe all christians should be put in mental institutions, do I have a right to have that carried out in law? Of course not. But I can believe it if I want to. You can believe whatever you want. I've always said that. I'm going to quote myself from earlier today, because here we are AGAIN on this subject of being "forced to compromise your beliefs": That is a huge fallacy that gets flung around over and over and over ad nauseum. That would only be true IF you were being forced to be gay (impossible), have gay sex, or lead a gay life. Why is it so hard to grasp that? No one is forcing you to do anything except stop denying others what you have. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show JC, do you even believe what you write? I ask questions on this site all the time. Good questions, question I think are borne from facts, logic, and reason. What do I get from christians on this site? Mostly: You don't know what you're saying. You're a sinner. Keep it up and you'll burn in hell. God doesn't agree with you. God doesn't like what you are. God doesn't like how you think. We are right and you are wrong. And so on and so on. Are you trying to tell me that's your way of helping people? PLease answer, because if it is then you make me run farther from you than ever. Which I guess means you are failing miserably at what you claim to be doing. You flat-out misrepresent what my last post said. Please stop twisting my words to suit your agenda. I said I can't cite much of the bible in general (thought #1) and that I believe it to be full of contradictions (thought #2). I did not say I am unable to cite contradictions. Here are just a small handful: --For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever. (Jeremiah 3:12) --Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. (Jeremiah 17:4) --If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31) --Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid. (John 8:14) --And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world. (John 9:39) --I came not to judge the world. (John 12:47) --Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16) --Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 6:1) So when any one of these is used as weapon as folks here do toward gays, there is at minimum a 50% chance they are misconstruing something. In the end, I'm pretty sure a person could make a case for anything they chose to from the bible. And they do. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    And your entire paragraph containing "I cannot be forced to recognize that which is incorrect and absurd" is ridiculous.
    GG: Wenesday at 2:43

    And your entire paragraph containing "I cannot be forced to recognize that which is incorrect and absurd" is ridiculous.

    "First, it is merely your opinion that labels it 'incorrect or absurd.'

    Second, what you do or don't recognize as an individual citizen is irrelevant. This is about what the law recognizes, and you are not the law."

    What I recognize is irrelevant?

    And the subject of this piece is that religious people will be forced to compromise ther beliefs...

  • JC »
    Fri Jun 26, 2009 5:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    To Garageguy:

    You said: "I don't subscribe to the bible. Therefore I don't can't cite much of anything in it for you. I just know it's chock full of contradictions and passages..."

    Beloved, why do you not think for yourself? You said yourself you do not subscribe to the Bible, and that you cannot cite the contradictions yourself, but yet you "know" it is full of contradictions. It sounds as if you are only taking what other people are telling you and calling it fact. This can lead to a very dangerous position if one is not careful.

    You said: "Wouldn't that be improving your own faith that's so dear to you? And isn't improving your faith something your god would want?"

    Beloved, if you would read you would know that there is nothing that we offer in the sight of God. Nothing. This is not about what we can or cannot do, it is about what He can do, for apart from Him, we can do absolutely nothing. Whether you choose to believe in Him or not is your choice, but whether you realize it now or later, you are more dependent on Him than you know.

    Beloved, you have obviously been asking the right questions, it is who has been answering you that is in question. Stop taking what other say about God and search for yourself. For those that seek Him, they are never turned away.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show I don't subscribe to the bible. Therefore I don't can't cite much of anything in it for you. I just know it's chock full of contradictions and passages that many people take to mean many different things, each one thinking they are right and all others are wrong. And I know leviticus used against gay folks is a prime example of religious hypocrisy. As for that 'saying' I've never heard it, and suspect it's primarily used by a smallish number of people who will never entertain the notion that they might be off track. I wonder: if you knew there was a way to hold all of your beliefs intact AND be in harmony with my beliefs, all at the same time, would you pursue it? Wouldn't that be improving your own faith that's so dear to you? And isn't improving your faith something your god would want? Just curious. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "if I have sufficient reason to believe they are doing things on my property that violate God's Word on those matters then I believe I should have the right to say they can not rent an apartment or house I own." Curious - if you thought a tenant was a chronic liar would you attempt to evict them? I'm talking about 'little white lies' like how late they stayed up or whether they floss regularly or have read a certain book or whether they stuck to their diet, that kind of thing. After all, lying is a sin and therefore 'against god' right? I'm wondering where you draw the line. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg, DP's point was to those who do indeed pick and choose to ignore God's Word with regards to God's original and only design for marriage and sexual intimacy along with other teachings and truths of God that show that the sexual practices of homosexuality are sin in the sight of God. And I do not deny that there are some Christians who do the same with other truths taught in God's Word and they are just as wrong, but I challenge you to show me any that I am advocating that people ignore other than those related to the Old as opposed to the New Covenant.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    gg, as far as Christians picking and choosing, you cited laws that are no longer applicable to the New Covenant and as far as my beliefs, they are not my beliefs they are God's truths in these matters. As the saying goes, "God said it and that settles it and if we're smart we'll choose to believe it!"

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ggirl, I'm not talking about evicting someone because of who or what they are but rather their behaviors, if I have sufficient reason to believe they are doing things on my property that violate God's Word on those matters then I believe I should have the right to say they can not rent an apartment or house I own. I would spell out my concerns prior to renting to them and let them know in advance my views on those practices that violate the Word of God and for that matter civil laws in some cases. And no I would not put cameras in their bedroom or anywhere else and I would initially take their word in these matters.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show believer, nice try but you can't dodge that by just saying, "That argument is weak" (with no support of why it is allegedly weak) and then distraction from the topic by once again repeating the same old chant about what you believe. I think I have a very valid point. DP made the comment about pick and choose biblical beliefs, which I still maintain is (hypocritically) exactly what most christians do. Many, many of them wield leviticus specifically as their weapon, while at the very same time breaking other parts of levitcus themselves on a daily basis. Really folks, if that is not hypocrisy then what is? I mean, is leviticus the bottom line or not in your supernatural belief system? You can't have it both ways to suit your mood. And you really really can't have it both ways AND get huffy about other people doing the same thing. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Gnosticgirl - It's reassuring that you and a couple of others here are sincerely concerned about treating others as you would like to be treated, and you're thinking about real people's real lives. I share your sense of fairness.

    Just a clarification, concerning "If a business or organization serves the general public, then it cannot deny services based on any number of things (race, creed, sex, language, disabilities, orientation...etc.)"

    Actually, in thirty states it's still completely legal to discriminate against people for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and in thirty-seven states it's completely legal to discriminate against transgender people.

    "Discriminate" in this context means: not rent housing to them, deny them mortgages and car loans, not sell to them in your store, refuse to cut their hair or fix their cars, not serve them food in a restaurant, fire them from their jobs, etc.

    I'm appalled that so many people are committed to keeping all those forms of discrimination legal.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:56 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "As a Christian who believes the bible, this statement is basically saying to me "let them live and die in their sins" and keep silent about it. We're talking about someones eternal soul. Doing your own thing will have a terrible price to pay someday." I know that wasn't directed to me but I'd like to comment. I understand, John, and I appreciate the concern. That said, I don't subscribe to any of the basis for your concern (except basic human compassion that we should all have for each other because it's the right thing to do). So once you hav eexpressed your concern, and I've aknowledged it and said "thanks but no thanks" then why oh why can't you leave me be? To insist on continuing to force it on me to the point of altering how the law treats me, to me that seems outrageously self-centered and arrogant. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Let me add this though - If a person was causing harm or directly putting my children at risk with their criminal behavior, you can bet I would seek out the authorities asap.

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Believer, I understand your stance and even why you would seek to evict and if you have a private property then I believe it is your right to do so, however, if you are a public entity, then it could be a case of discrimination. If a business or organization serves the general public, then it cannot deny services based on any number of things (race, creed, sex, language, disabilities, orientation...etc.)

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show "If homosexuals won't want to hear people calling their sin what the Bible calls it, why do the come to a Christian, Bible-based blog and start screaming?" Perhaps because christians are largely unable to stop themselves from inflicting that opinion onto the civil liberties of other people, which is wrong. "I know plenty of gay people in the community where I live and I get along great with them. Why? Because they're not prancing around and boasting about their lifestyle and demanding equal rights." I don't prance, and I don't boast. Nothing to prance or boast about merely by being gay. But as to "demanding equal right", in my opinion anyone who is willing to take 2nd class citizenship in the USA merely for who they are, all the more so when the reason is to appease other people, well that is their shortcoming not their virtue. hide

  • Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ggirl, that post wasn't for you but for garageguy, but I would still choose to evict a known pedophile from my property as well as report them to the authorities if I in any way suspected they were taking advantage of children.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links