First Gay Bishop? Give Me a Break

Feb 24, 2012 | Posted by: Joe DeCaro | Full story: www.religiondispatches.org

Love Free or Die a documentary about Gene Robinson, whose ordination as an openly gay, partnered bishop, triggered responses still reverberating within the Episcopal Church and the global Anglican Communion won the Special Jury Award for documentary at the Sundance Film Festival in January ...

Comments (Page 47)

Showing posts 921 - 940 of963
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#967
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>many thanks for your post.
I'm not the legal beagle Fitz is but I do want to point out that a lot of his legal gymnastics about marriage were tossed around until the Loving decision.
The only difference is Loving was about race and marriage and this is about sexual orientation and marriage.
DNF

Concerning your Loving Anti-miscegenationist argument.

I would draw your attention to the argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision

Hernadez v Robles.

"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."

Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 37981, 381 n.3, 382

Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.

Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#968
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU need a course in the Teachings of Christ Jesus and how they are applied.
Yes, you are a contortionist with reason, attempting to employ both legal and theological "precedents" to establish a basis for preventing a few people from acquiring legitimacy for their own consensual union.
This is the last bit of hand holding that I will do for YOU.
You have some idea that all of your list of cultural and social problems are a result of a plethora of variations of atheistic and secular communism, mixed with unbridled human sexuality.
But, you don't attribute any of these unspecified and nebulous difficulties to actual hypocrisy and bigotry that has persisted as Church Tradition. It is at least as much at fault as are the vagaries of any non-religion-caused factors in propagating inconsistencies within social and cultural forms.
Integrity is personal and individual. It is the basis for the phrase, "Out of many, one." E Pluribus Unum.
Jesus understood this and taught this. The basis for a civil society is built around how one man views his neighbor. Without consistency and integrity within the individual at this primary level, there can be no competency in the wider society.
The Church, in all of its denominations and providing moral guidance, is historically guilty of refusing to look clearly at itself, except for a few major revulsions. And thank God for those.
We are in the midst of another one. A Good One that is forcing all of us to take a clear look at how we are failing each other.
Hypocrisy is a strange beast. It allows people to hold onto their deepest inconsistencies, while accusing the other guy of doing the very same thing, justifying the accusation with only a minor difference in veneer.
Your veneer is showing, Fitz.
Rev. Ken
Its interesting that you somehow equate the ravages of Frankfurt school marxism & Neitchise "total eclipse of all values" with the word of Jesus Christ.

The fact of the matter is that this society has collapsed into decadence and degeneracy, once its elites "exchanged the truth of the creator for things of mortal man"..

Now we are all wicked & bickering, and (some) ingenious in their wrongdoing.

The sexual revolution has failed precisley because it has succeded. "by their fruits you will know them"

His Church has seen it all before.. It has outlasted kings, countries, empires, consitutions, entire ages of contrary thought, laws and actions.

His Church is know were near excepting the pedestrian mind/body dualism that the sexual revolution requires to ply its trade.

This too shall pass, and probably sooner rather than later.

On the politcial level radicals for ideas like gay marriage are showing themselves true to form, they have bulldozed liberal debate, the rule of law & democracy in order to get at their genderless utopia.

This will help speed the process of conciousness that is already underway, the conciousness that realizes those values are unsustainable - that there is a human nature - that its not all a social construct, and man is not infintally mallable.

Except the Lord that buildith the house thy labor in vain who build it

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#969
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
Nah! I don't think I'll take your assessment of my qualifications for ordination into the priesthood of Jesus Christ very seriously ...
... because the only thing you take seriously is yourself.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#970
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

T McCabe wrote:
<quoted text>
What is most interesting of all is the fact that marriage is declining in America and that a very high percentage of children are born out of wedlock or live in a single parent house hold.
It seems that the churches and the law are both missing the point about what the American people really believe about marriage. Their behavior shows that the think the institution isn't that vital to them on the personal level any more.
Sic transit gloria mundi!
Yup saw this on yahoo today. May post it on topix.

Y! Big Story: The state of matrimony and other unions

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/y-bi...

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#971
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
DNF
Concerning your Loving Anti-miscegenationist argument.
I would draw your attention to the argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision
Hernadez v Robles.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 37981, 381 n.3, 382
Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage
I notice you ignore the fact that this didn't keep New York from passing SSM.

So much for it's "power and significance".

A lot of your posts make me wish Topix would make a snooze icon.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#972
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I notice you ignore the fact that this didn't keep New York from passing SSM.
So much for it's "power and significance".
A lot of your posts make me wish Topix would make a snooze icon.
Court opinions are not typically influential to the general public or to legfislatures. Rather they are meant to sway other Judges, Courts, Lawyers, and people who work in the feild of justice.

In that arena the Hernadez v Robles opinion continues to have power and significance; it is a signifigant case still being cited in court briefs & law journal articles..

Now are you capable of addressing the issues they actually raise or must you simply dismiss their reasoning because you cant counter it.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#973
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Court opinions are not typically influential to the general public or to legfislatures. Rather they are meant to sway other Judges, Courts, Lawyers, and people who work in the feild of justice.
In that arena the Hernadez v Robles opinion continues to have power and significance; it is a signifigant case still being cited in court briefs & law journal articles..
Now are you capable of addressing the issues they actually raise or must you simply dismiss their reasoning because you cant counter it.
countering it is easy. The court rulings from other judges and jurisdictions that see the issue differently and support SSM.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#974
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Its interesting that you somehow equate the ravages of Frankfurt school marxism & Neitchise "total eclipse of all values" with the word of Jesus Christ.
The fact of the matter is that this society has collapsed into decadence and degeneracy, once its elites "exchanged the truth of the creator for things of mortal man"..
Now we are all wicked & bickering, and (some) ingenious in their wrongdoing.
The sexual revolution has failed precisley because it has succeded. "by their fruits you will know them"
His Church has seen it all before.. It has outlasted kings, countries, empires, consitutions, entire ages of contrary thought, laws and actions.
His Church is know were near excepting the pedestrian mind/body dualism that the sexual revolution requires to ply its trade.
This too shall pass, and probably sooner rather than later.
On the politcial level radicals for ideas like gay marriage are showing themselves true to form, they have bulldozed liberal debate, the rule of law & democracy in order to get at their genderless utopia.
This will help speed the process of conciousness that is already underway, the conciousness that realizes those values are unsustainable - that there is a human nature - that its not all a social construct, and man is not infintally mallable.
Except the Lord that buildith the house thy labor in vain who build it
I don't buy your argument, Fitz.

Your entire diatribe is resting on the single premise that gays are not sincere people.

Well, yes, there are a lot of very promiscuous gay people. But, there are also a whole lot of very promiscuous straight people.

The whole point here is that there are plenty of truly sincere gay people who live normal everyday lives, going to work and making a reputable contribution to a healthy society.

They are just plain old everyday people, Fitz.

Some of them are even Republicans.

Jesus does not dismiss these people.

Rev. Ken

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#975
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't buy your argument, Fitz.
Your entire diatribe is resting on the single premise that gays are not sincere people.
Well, yes, there are a lot of very promiscuous gay people. But, there are also a whole lot of very promiscuous straight people.
The whole point here is that there are plenty of truly sincere gay people who live normal everyday lives, going to work and making a reputable contribution to a healthy society.
They are just plain old everyday people, Fitz.
Some of them are even Republicans.
Jesus does not dismiss these people.
Rev. Ken
well said.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#976
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't buy your argument, Fitz.
Your entire diatribe is resting on the single premise that gays are not sincere people.
Well, yes, there are a lot of very promiscuous gay people. But, there are also a whole lot of very promiscuous straight people.
The whole point here is that there are plenty of truly sincere gay people who live normal everyday lives, going to work and making a reputable contribution to a healthy society.
They are just plain old everyday people, Fitz.
Some of them are even Republicans.
Jesus does not dismiss these people.
Rev. Ken
You dont buy my argument because (apparently) you did not even read my argument. I never said gay people were permiscious. I know plently of these plain old everyday people, so whats your point?\

Obviously I had you admiting earlier to what has happened to this society AT LARGE since the cultural/sexual revolution of the 1960's.

You seem to think its a new and better world yet I can point to a raft of social problems of epic proportions that you cant seem to acknowledgeare even problems...

Go back and understand that this is precisley what Christanity is all about... The family and religion are to sides of one coin.

Say what you want about Chriatanity but in knows how to keep a tribe thriving.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#977
May 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>countering it is easy. The court rulings from other judges and jurisdictions that see the issue differently and support SSM.
Those opinions "ellide" the reasoning...they (like you) never confront it...they simply go around it..

“Ecce! Sic transit gloria mundi”

Since: Oct 10

I See New Jerusalem From Here.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#978
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yup saw this on yahoo today. May post it on topix.
Y! Big Story: The state of matrimony and other unions
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/y-bi...
I think I found the article I was thinking about in a fairly recent Time Magazine.

Thanks for the link!!!

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#979
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Those opinions "ellide" the reasoning...they (like you) never confront it...they simply go around it..
Sort of like when you say there is not right for SSM and courts agree but you need to have the laws changed anyway to outlaw SSM.

Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#980
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Sort of like when you say there is not right for SSM and courts agree but you need to have the laws changed anyway to outlaw SSM.
Got it.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I explained that obvious answer to you already..

Just because the constition contains an unenumerated right dosent mean that the States can specifically enumerate that right..

Why did they decide to do this?

Because various Judges threatened to Change the definition (Mass..Goodridge decision)

Thats a matter of near histroy.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#981
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You dont buy my argument because (apparently) you did not even read my argument. I never said gay people were permiscious. I know plently of these plain old everyday people, so whats your point?\
Obviously I had you admiting earlier to what has happened to this society AT LARGE since the cultural/sexual revolution of the 1960's.
You seem to think its a new and better world yet I can point to a raft of social problems of epic proportions that you cant seem to acknowledgeare even problems...
Go back and understand that this is precisley what Christanity is all about... The family and religion are to sides of one coin.
Say what you want about Chriatanity but in knows how to keep a tribe thriving.
Oh, I read your argument alright. Though, I nearly had to employ a translator to understand your oddly phonetic style of writing. You really ought to copy your replies into a Word Document and run a spell-check, then bring it back and post the corrected version, first.

You don't lend yourself much credibility by throwing out such illiterate garbage and then expect the reader to pick through it to find your obvious kernels of theological brilliance and preeminent social psychology.

And, don't bother to excuse yourself for typing poorly, either.

Your sloppiness is a perfect example of the very cultural impetuousness that you decry.

Society, at large, in many countries, is in trouble. But, there are also many exceptional graces and most excellent advances occurring on many social, political, economic, medical, technologic and informational fronts. You know, two hundred, even two thousand years, in the long run is a relatively short period.

Society at large, in fact, has been in trouble for the entire period. Thanks to people like Jesus, we are doing something about it.

You would have us in complete revolt over the fact that human sexuality is rampant and out in the open. But, the TRUTH is that human sexuality has always been rampant. It has just been occurring behind closed doors and in the closets and hallways and on the park benches after dark - ever since Adam and Eve started fondling each other!

It's NOTHING NEW, Fitz!

It's how we are MADE!

Does it make sense to show some restraint in public and thereby avoid some measure of opprobrium? Yes, it does.

Not much work would get done if every time somebody thought about it, zippers got yanked and skirts flew over the side of the desk while the paperwork got shoved aside.

There is a time and place for everything and the middle of the road is not generally the best place to be doing it.

But, you would try to blame homosexuality - not promiscuity - for social ills, when in fact, it is the attempt to hypocritically deny and to cover up and to blatantly lie that is at the core of our actual source of promiscuous malfeasance and incompetence.

You've got your pants on backwards, Fitz,....

Just like a whole lot of other Christians who are in denial.

Try the leadership of the Roman Catholics for example. Sheesh!

Rev. Ken
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#982
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I read your argument alright. Though, I nearly had to employ a translator to understand your oddly phonetic style of writing. You really ought to copy your replies into a Word Document and run a spell-check, then bring it back and post the corrected version, first.
You don't lend yourself much credibility by throwing out such illiterate garbage and then expect the reader to pick through it to find your obvious kernels of theological brilliance and preeminent social psychology.
And, don't bother to excuse yourself for typing poorly, either.
Your sloppiness is a perfect example of the very cultural impetuousness that you decry.
Society, at large, in many countries, is in trouble. But, there are also many exceptional graces and most excellent advances occurring on many social, political, economic, medical, technologic and informational fronts. You know, two hundred, even two thousand years, in the long run is a relatively short period.
Society at large, in fact, has been in trouble for the entire period. Thanks to people like Jesus, we are doing something about it.
You would have us in complete revolt over the fact that human sexuality is rampant and out in the open. But, the TRUTH is that human sexuality has always been rampant. It has just been occurring behind closed doors and in the closets and hallways and on the park benches after dark - ever since Adam and Eve started fondling each other!
It's NOTHING NEW, Fitz!
It's how we are MADE!
Does it make sense to show some restraint in public and thereby avoid some measure of opprobrium? Yes, it does.
Not much work would get done if every time somebody thought about it, zippers got yanked and skirts flew over the side of the desk while the paperwork got shoved aside.
There is a time and place for everything and the middle of the road is not generally the best place to be doing it.
But, you would try to blame homosexuality - not promiscuity - for social ills, when in fact, it is the attempt to hypocritically deny and to cover up and to blatantly lie that is at the core of our actual source of promiscuous malfeasance and incompetence.
You've got your pants on backwards, Fitz,....
Just like a whole lot of other Christians who are in denial.
Try the leadership of the Roman Catholics for example. Sheesh!
Rev. Ken
You are imputing thoughts into my argument that I never made, make, or even hint at...

I dont "blame homosexuals" for any of this.. Even my reading of scripture see's open and agressive homosexuality as indicative of social & sexual decadence NOT causal to it.

"But, you would try to blame homosexuality - not promiscuity - for social ills, when in fact, it is the attempt to hypocritically deny and to cover up and to blatantly lie that is at the core of our actual source of promiscuous malfeasance and incompetence."

My actual understanding is much more on the lines of this..

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#983
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have us in complete revolt over the fact that human sexuality is rampant and out in the open. But, the TRUTH is that human sexuality has always been rampant. It has just been occurring behind closed doors and in the closets and hallways and on the park benches after dark - ever since Adam and Eve started fondling each other!
It's NOTHING NEW, Fitz!
It's how we are MADE!
Does it make sense to show some restraint in public and thereby avoid some measure of opprobrium? Yes, it does.
Not much work would get done if every time somebody thought about it, zippers got yanked and skirts flew over the side of the desk while the paperwork got shoved aside.
There is a time and place for everything and the middle of the road is not generally the best place to be doing it.
But, you would try to blame homosexuality - not promiscuity - for social ills, when in fact, it is the attempt to hypocritically deny and to cover up and to blatantly lie that is at the core of our actual source of promiscuous malfeasance and incompetence.
You've got your pants on backwards, Fitz,....
Just like a whole lot of other Christians who are in denial.
Try the leadership of the Roman Catholics for example. Sheesh!
Rev. Ken
You also, in my opinion, misunderstand the travails of promoscuity and licentiousness...

Its not that fornication, adultery, pornography...and so forth; somehow make it impossible to get any work done.

Its that they attack the family itself, and family formation in the first place, as well as the longterm commitment neccesary to sustain a healthy marriage culture.

I like that you realize the deep trouble we are in as a society.. It can all be traced back to the sexual revolution and the breakdown in the family..

I am aware of mans fallen nature and the perwistant staying power of the sins of the flesh.. However, before the sexual revolution we were capable as a society of still maintaining (by & large) a healthy and sustainable marriage culture, intact family formation and the sustainable demographics that result.

Thats why I point to Rev Faultroys quote... "lock in and reinforce" is key to understanding your oppositions arguments.

You dont seem terribly familiar with your opponenets arguments or with Christs will for humanity when it comes to human sexuality and the family.

David Blakenhorns book the future of marriage has an excellent chapter of original research showing the cluster of beliefs and attitudes twoards sex & marriage that correspond with decaying demographics, family breakdown & the like.

You may also want to YouTube a short (1 hour) film called "demographic winter"..

Probably the most interesting aspect of our debate is that I talk regularly with gay & lesbian "polyamorist" law proffesors (thats right more than one) who have "broken the code of silence" on their understanding of these issues.

They are clear headed people who need to be clear headed in order to succesfully chart their coarse twoard same-sex "marriage" and beyond.

They (at least as far as I am concerned)- dont really disagree about the negsative reinforcing aspects same-sex "marriage" will have on our marriage culture. On the contrary they are looking forward to those changes...beyond "heteronormativity" - "the normal choas of love" and beyond manogomy and the like...

I find it odd that you share their aims and many of their attributes and arguments YET claim to be Christian while they are ardent atheists..

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#984
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You are imputing thoughts into my argument that I never made, make, or even hint at...
I dont "blame homosexuals" for any of this.. Even my reading of scripture see's open and agressive homosexuality as indicative of social & sexual decadence NOT causal to it.
"But, you would try to blame homosexuality - not promiscuity - for social ills, when in fact, it is the attempt to hypocritically deny and to cover up and to blatantly lie that is at the core of our actual source of promiscuous malfeasance and incompetence."
My actual understanding is much more on the lines of this..
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC.
What a bunch of Hooey!

"Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

The problems Walter Fauntroy would fix don't come from rampant sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual. They come from social engineering in the name of "Christian compassion" by taxation and redistribution of wealth - at the expense of teaching that working for a living has no redeeming value.

You are a misogynist.

You don't think that women are capable of or should be allowed to serve as priests and ministers in the Gospel of Christ Jesus!

I got you now. Barefoot and pregnant.

No women doctors. No women lawyers. No women Realtors. No women Restaurateurs. No women business owners, salon operators, grocery clerks, car sellers, post officev workers, Senators, architects, bakers, apparel designers, airline captainst, UPS drivers, bankers or KFC counter servers or GI's or inventors.
Oh, and No women voters.

No known homosexuals in any professional capacity and certainly not any who are financilly and socially responsible and can call themselves "happily married!"

Why? Its not biblical and it all leads to moral corruption and the demise of correct tribal methodology.

Boy, what a crock!!!!!

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#985
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

"financilly" - financially..

Got a bit ahead of myself, there! Sorry.

Of course I could have really stepped up the pace and employed Fitz's phonetic form -

finansilly

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#986
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You also, in my opinion, misunderstand the travails of promoscuity and licentiousness...
Its not that fornication, adultery, pornography...and so forth; somehow make it impossible to get any work done.
Its that they attack the family itself, and family formation in the first place, as well as the longterm commitment neccesary to sustain a healthy marriage culture.
I like that you realize the deep trouble we are in as a society.. It can all be traced back to the sexual revolution and the breakdown in the family..
I am aware of mans fallen nature and the perwistant staying power of the sins of the flesh.. However, before the sexual revolution we were capable as a society of still maintaining (by & large) a healthy and sustainable marriage culture, intact family formation and the sustainable demographics that result.
Thats why I point to Rev Faultroys quote... "lock in and reinforce" is key to understanding your oppositions arguments.
You dont seem terribly familiar with your opponenets arguments or with Christs will for humanity when it comes to human sexuality and the family.
David Blakenhorns book the future of marriage has an excellent chapter of original research showing the cluster of beliefs and attitudes twoards sex & marriage that correspond with decaying demographics, family breakdown & the like.
You may also want to YouTube a short (1 hour) film called "demographic winter"..
Probably the most interesting aspect of our debate is that I talk regularly with gay & lesbian "polyamorist" law proffesors (thats right more than one) who have "broken the code of silence" on their understanding of these issues.
They are clear headed people who need to be clear headed in order to succesfully chart their coarse twoard same-sex "marriage" and beyond.
They (at least as far as I am concerned)- dont really disagree about the negsative reinforcing aspects same-sex "marriage" will have on our marriage culture. On the contrary they are looking forward to those changes...beyond "heteronormativity" - "the normal choas of love" and beyond manogomy and the like...
I find it odd that you share their aims and many of their attributes and arguments YET claim to be Christian while they are ardent atheists..
Well,....

I am not an atheist and I don't share those aims or arguments.

I consider same-sex relationship resulting in gay marriage to be the socially and theologically responsible and moral alternative to the misguided teaching that homosexuality is sinful behavior. Period.

In fact, I'll go a step further and state openly as an ordained priest and disciple of Christ Jesus, that I will marry them, if and when a couple comes to me sincerely seeking their marriage to be blessed in the name of Christ Jesus.

And as far as the Roman Catholics are concerned, they should send all of their priests who would like to get married to each other over to The Episcopal Church for a honeymoon sabbatical. Then, the couple can reapply for ministry in the Roman Catholic Church as duly ordained and married priests who want to again "cross the Tiber river."

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 921 - 940 of963
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

9 Users are viewing the Movies Forum right now

Search the Movies Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Cannibalism Movies: Tin Cup 14 hr Abishai100 1
"Christine" (1983) sequel (Mar '11) 22 hr 50s Kid 19
movies that is great for vacation time !!!!! Sat GEORGE BROWN 2
'The Red Shoes' among classic movies in NYC the... (Nov '09) Sat GEORGE BROWN 16
Parents won't let me watch movies or tv shows t... Sat PDX Dave 5
With help from thousands, &#x27;Veronica Mars&#... Sat PDX Dave 2
Ashton Kutcher Sat PDX Dave 2
•••
•••
•••