RE: Homosexuality in the News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

tracydolls -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 4:29:10 AM)

quote:

Christians need to get there head out of the sand now, or they will wake up in a decade or so, and find themselves completely and absolutely ostracized in a society they now call home.


We are moving towards a godless society. If it's homosexuals now? What else will we accept as right, next?

Christians are becoming the only ones not gonna be tolerated in our zeal to tolerate everyone.

If we don't stand for something, we will fall for anything!



mapachito13 -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 6:59:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

Actually when I mentioned that homosexuality was a criminal offense was to show that there is a long standing history of law against this activity.


There was also a long history of rulings defending slavery (including Supreme Court decisions) but amendments to the Constitution did away with that. So what I keep saying is that there is no wording in the CURRENT federal and CA state constitution that expressly forbids it.



mapachito13 -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 7:06:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

Not to judge... Hmmm... How where people remove the church in regards to what Paul penned about removing those who will not repent from the church?

The US Constitution doesn't make sin right... It will not absolve the homosexual on Judgment Day...


You're talking Bible, I am talking the law of the land. Apples and oranges my friend.

quote:

And is also committed to a life in rebellion to God which will have him and partner spending eternity in hell... How anyone can champion that is beyond any biblical reason...It’s truly sad…

John


I'll still leave that judgement to God. We'll ALL have things to answer to God for. Some people will be judged harshly for usurping God's authority in judging their fellow humans which IS expressly forbidden by GOD IN HIS WORD!



Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 9:03:00 AM)

quote:

Thanks for the hyperbole and totally missing the point and besides those acts are forbidden due to their infringement on anothers rights or because they are an act of violence.


I am not sure how bestiality and polygamy are ‘acts of violence’; and of course pedophiles claim that it’s a matter of time before the legitimate sexuality of children is accepted.

quote:

And the legal verbage you posted was the very law overturned by the court in this ruling.

So? On what constitutional basis do you claim the court legitimately overturned this law?



Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 9:23:07 AM)

quote:

Can someone explain to me how granting a privilige that heterosexual couples currently enjoy to homosexual couples can possibly be contrued as the designation of a protected class?


First off, it's not a matter of 'privilege', it's a matter of rights, which are specifically delineated in the constitution or have otherwise been recognized by our courts through legislation.

Secondly, it is a change in definition; marriage now means something different in California than it did before this ruling. It no longer the institution it had been for the 200+ years previously in this country, and for perhaps thousands of years before that in most cultures.

A Protected class isa legal concept having to do with equal protections and how they are extended to various groups of people. So for example 'race' can be considered a protected class because the constitution specifically eliminates discrimination against people based on race; it guarantees them equal access to housing, employment, education, etc. It also extends to them the right to marry someone of a different race.

This case essentially does the same for homosexual; it treats them like a group, and extends to them as a group the same status enjoyed by other groups in our society.

The difference is, while other protected classes are considered so either as the result of Constitutional protections (like race and religion) and others through legislation (like age and disability) the current homosexual class in California is primarily the protection of judicial fiat - they pulled it out of thin air, counter to the expressed will of the people of California, and that judicial malfeasance.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 9:52:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13
Your emotionalism on this subject is seeming to be clouding that normally superior intellect!

?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Secondly, it is a change in definition; marriage now means something different in California than it did before this ruling.

Only 7-plus years before the ruling:
"In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Proposition 22, which said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

quote:

It no longer the institution it had been for the 200+ years previously in this country, and for perhaps thousands of years before that in most cultures.

I reiterate: the states that do have definitions of marriage in their constitutions amended them fairly recently. California's proposition has only been in place for 7 years.

quote:

So for example 'race' can be considered a protected class because the constitution specifically eliminates discrimination against people based on race

Except that this protected class includes everybody, does it not?

quote:

This case essentially does the same for homosexual; it treats them like a group, and extends to them as a group the same status enjoyed by other groups in our society.

"Other groups"? It extends to one group the same status as the other group (no s on the end).

quote:

the current homosexual class in California is primarily the protection of judicial fiat - they pulled it out of thin air, counter to the expressed will of the people of California, and that judicial malfeasance.

Here in Arizona, "the will of people" was initially to refuse to acknowledge Martin Luther King Day. My point is that sometimes the will of the people is not necessarily just or right.



Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 10:56:12 AM)

quote:

I reiterate: the states that do have definitions of marriage in their constitutions amended them fairly recently. California's proposition has only been in place for 7 years.


Marriage has been defined in law and dealt with accordingly as long as there have been laws; what the US failed to do was define marriage as being between a man and a woman - it failed to do so because that was what marriage was assumed to be, and that it would be perverted to mean something completely by a radical homosexual lobby has done hadn't been imagined until just recently, and thus the recent laws that were passed.

quote:

Except that this protected class includes everybody, does it not?


Actually, one of the debates is whether it does - affirmitave action laws for example seem to benefit one race over another, and yet are predicated on this notion of race.

quote:

"Other groups"? It extends to one group the same status as the other group (no s on the end).


No, other groups, protected classes.

quote:

Here in Arizona, "the will of people" was initially to refuse to acknowledge Martin Luther King Day. My point is that sometimes the will of the people is not necessarily just or right.


Which is irrelevant to the question. Would it have been right for the court to decide that people should celebrate MLK day? On what basis would a court do this - particular when the expressed will of the people was otherwise?

Is it conceivable that the ‘will of the court’ isn’t just or right? It's not a matter of that, but the proper role of the courts.



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 11:07:26 AM)

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

mapachito13,

An email has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



Marcus. -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 11:11:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

Actually when I mentioned that homosexuality was a criminal offense was to show that there is a long standing history of law against this activity.


There was also a long history of rulings defending slavery (including Supreme Court decisions) but amendments to the Constitution did away with that. So what I keep saying is that there is no wording in the CURRENT federal and CA state constitution that expressly forbids it.


That makes me wonder where the prohibtion on murder and theft is in the Constitution too. [;)] They aren't expressly forbidden either. Must be legal then we just don't realize it yet. Most of our laws covering crimes are at the local or state level and not the local level. Also a constitution doesn't get into the details we have in the law but provides a broader framework that is built off of. With this ruling there is little difference between the homosexual being granted rights and those involved in necrophilia, pedophilia, beastiality, etc. The arguements that the homosexual activitists used are being used by these other groups as well. It will only be a matter of time before they receive protection from long existing laws as well.

The California Supreme Court made this ruling out of thin air. There is no other way to look at it. They overstepped their bounds. This is a very dangerous precedent. When will they usurp the rights of the people or the executive next and on what issue?



1dblthnk02 -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 11:43:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Marriage has been defined in law and dealt with accordingly as long as there have been laws; what the US failed to do was define marriage as being between a man and a woman

Which brings us back to my point: the codified definition of marriage as applying to heterosexual unions exclusively is a recent definition, not a centuries/millenia-old definition as you contend.

quote:

Actually, one of the debates is whether it does - affirmitave action laws for example seem to benefit one race over another, and yet are predicated on this notion of race.

But everyone is of some so-called race, or mix of so-called races. Therefore, racial equality is a concept that includes eveybody.

quote:

No, other groups, protected classes.

Are homosexuals really protected? What protections do they enjoy that heterosexuals do not?

quote:

Which is irrelevant to the question.

No, it is not. The will of the people should not be the one and only arbiter to decide matters like this, because the will of the people can be unduly harsh or unjust.

quote:

Would it have been right for the court to decide that people should celebrate MLK day? On what basis would a court do this - particular when the expressed will of the people was otherwise?

Actually, the NFL decided it! They threatened to refuse to hold the Superbowl here (the first time) because of it. The will of the people of Arizona bent to public pressure.

Was this just?

quote:

Is it conceivable that the ‘will of the court’ isn’t just or right? It's not a matter of that, but the proper role of the courts.

So were you for or against the Supreme Court getting involved in the presidential election? If you are one of many ex-Bush supporters here, you must have been for it at the time. We pick-and-choose when it comes to the courts' "proper role," do we not?



Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 12:31:15 PM)

quote:

Which brings us back to my point: the codified definition of marriage as applying to heterosexual unions exclusively is a recent definition, not a centuries/millenia-old definition as you contend.


It has always been the understood and operational definition; it wasn’t necessary to codify it until recently.

quote:

But everyone is of some so-called race, or mix of so-called races. Therefore, racial equality is a concept that includes eveybody.


Not necessarily in it’s application.

quote:

Are homosexuals really protected? What protections do they enjoy that heterosexuals do not?


Well in this case, it appears that a special right to marry people of the same sex has been extended to them as a class; until previously adult men and women (whether hetero or homo sexual) could marry each other per the understood definition of marriage.

quote:

No, it is not. The will of the people should not be the one and only arbiter to decide matters like this, because the will of the people can be unduly harsh or unjust.


Sorry, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the courts; they are there to apply laws and Constitutional protections – both are derived from the ‘will of the people’. There is no other legal basis for the courts to operate, which is why this court is operating outside accepted judicial boundaries.

quote:

Actually, the NFL decided it! They threatened to refuse to hold the Superbowl here (the first time) because of it. The will of the people of Arizona bent to public pressure.
Was this just?


Again, this is a significant misunderstanding of the ‘will of the people’. There is nothing wrong with entities influencing the will of the people – the NFL didn’t abrogate any right of the people or put unlawful pressure on the people of Arizona, like threatening to blow up Tucson.

Indeed, our system is built so that various entities can lawfully influence the will of the people, either through the press, or speech, or protest (whether that is monetary or otherwise). But that is not what the court did, which was to actually subvert the expressed will of the people of California with no basis in either the Constitution of law.

quote:

So were you for or against the Supreme Court getting involved in the presidential election? If you are one of many ex-Bush supporters here, you must have been for it at the time. We pick-and-choose when it comes to the courts' "proper role," do we not?


The Supreme Court roles in terms of deciding constitutional issues based on constitutional clauses is pretty well established; and in this case it was the product of the equal protection clause of the Constitution – and the court in this case did not overturn a clear legislation mandated by the will of the people.



henny -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/20/2008 9:34:26 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Except that this protected class includes everybody, does it not?


Actually, one of the debates is whether it does - affirmitave action laws for example seem to benefit one race over another, and yet are predicated on this notion of race.


I don't think gay marriage falls under the category of "special rights," though, nor do I think affirmative action is a very good comparison. To benefit from affirmative action laws you have to be a specific race, but anyone can "benefit" from (or "use" might be a better phrase) legalizing gay marriage regardless of sexual orientation. If you lived in California you could legally divorce your wife and marry a man, despite the fact that you are a heterosexual. Likewise, your new same sex marriage would basically give you the same "rights" as your old heterosexual marriage, the only difference being the gender of the two parties involved.

So while California's supreme court may have taken "homosexuality" as a class into consideration when ruling, in practice the laws really don't confer any "special" rights upon homosexuals that heterosexuals wouldn't also have access to.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Marriage has been defined in law and dealt with accordingly as long as there have been laws; what the US failed to do was define marriage as being between a man and a woman - it failed to do so because that was what marriage was assumed to be, and that it would be perverted to mean something completely by a radical homosexual lobby has done hadn't been imagined until just recently, and thus the recent laws that were passed.


How would you suggest the "homosexual lobby" go about legalizing gay marriage? Or in other words, how could a state go about legalizing gay marriage in a way that you would accept as legally valid, if not morally valid?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/21/2008 12:09:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

So for example 'race' can be considered a protected class because the constitution specifically eliminates discrimination against people based on race;


Where does the Constitution do this? The 15th amendment addresses voting rights, but race is otherwise not mentioned in the constitution. Equal protection in the 14th amendment applies to 'any person'.



Marcus. -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/21/2008 12:21:51 AM)

quote:

Or in other words, how could a state go about legalizing gay marriage in a way that you would accept as legally valid, if not morally valid?


For me there will never be any form of union between homosexuals that I would consider legitimate no matter what the courts or legislature say. God's Word will prevail. Same as it does with divorce and remarriage (to sum that up look to Luke 16:18 and Romans 7:3. All the others are in agreement with these two passages).



WormHeart -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/21/2008 8:53:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

I don't agree... Sin tends to be like a rock hitting the water and the ripples head in every direction.... The more the behavior is legitimize the worse it will get and drag others into the pit of filth…

John


?
How does that work? If gay people are getting married, would more people become gay? Thats insane.

I live in Denmark, a pretty liberal nation with a great degree of freedom, and here homosexual unions have been allowed in quite a while. Some of my aquantaines(sp?) are gays.

Still, I have never been the slightest tempted by other men. I'm not even qurious about it - the thought is gross to me.

In fact, I cant remember being a young boy and deciding that I would prefer girls. I just did.

How do you see homosexuality spreading among hetrosexuals? We're not at all inclined to that, are we?

WormHeart



RangerForGod -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/21/2008 9:43:00 AM)

quote:

That makes me wonder where the prohibtion on murder and theft is in the Constitution too


The Constitution if for protecting our rights when laws are made by legislators. A prison sentence for the above mentioned crimes does not infringe upon our rights.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/21/2008 10:26:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mapachito13

You're talking Bible, I am talking the law of the land. Apples and oranges my friend.



Yes, the bible the supreme law... The law of the land that is in question here is a direct vilolation of God's law, which means the government and those who support the law are sinful in regards to it...Waving the law of the land around is meaningless and just compounds the sin...

quote:

I'll still leave that judgement to God. We'll ALL have things to answer to God for.


God words is quite clear on the matter... A homosexual lifestyle isn't conducive with the Christian lifestyle, so one can’t be both which given the word of God is clear on what happens to those who are not of Christ...

quote:

Some people will be judged harshly for usurping God's authority in judging their fellow humans which IS expressly forbidden by GOD IN HIS WORD!


If it's "expressly forbidden" how do you explain God ordaining the civil government(that judge), appointing kings(who judged) the concept of removing unrepentant sinner from church(another judgment) and the command to judge all things against His word, which would have a believer making judgments daily... Unless of course it's ok visit the local topless bar and get drunk since not doing so is liken to passing judgment on those who frequent the place... If it's expressly forbidden to judge why are expressly told to judge a righteous judgment?

If anyone will be judged harshly it will surely be those who incourage sin in the name of God...

John



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/21/2008 10:34:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WormHeart

quote:

ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe

I don't agree... Sin tends to be like a rock hitting the water and the ripples head in every direction.... The more the behavior is legitimize the worse it will get and drag others into the pit of filth…

John


?
How does that work? If gay people are getting married, would more people become gay? Thats insane.

I live in Denmark, a pretty liberal nation with a great degree of freedom, and here homosexual unions have been allowed in quite a while. Some of my aquantaines(sp?) are gays.

Still, I have never been the slightest tempted by other men. I'm not even qurious about it - the thought is gross to me.

In fact, I cant remember being a young boy and deciding that I would prefer girls. I just did.

How do you see homosexuality spreading among hetrosexuals? We're not at all inclined to that, are we?

WormHeart


Being the sin is a choice I stand behind my statement: The more the behavior is legitimize the worse it will get and drag others into the pit of filth…

The fact that homosexuality is a reality says that some are inclined and when the authority gives the OK for the behavior is makes it worse.... It empowers those who are being sinful which cannot be a good thing.. Not everyone is as strong as you in regards to the temptation...

John



TheosCentric -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 5:15:23 AM)

I just heard about this, just down the road from me.

Irmo High principal quitting over Gay-Straight Alliance
IRMO, SC (WIS) - The Irmo High School Principal's announced resignation over a controversial student group is already drawing national attention.

Principal Eddie Walker told WIS News 10 his resignation won't take effect until June, 2009 - the end of the 2008-2009 school year.

Walker says it comes after he was asked to allow the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance club at the school.



I can't believe some of the stuff they are accusing the principal of, for not wanting this group even formed.



henny -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 5:35:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheoCentric

I just heard about this, just down the road from me.

Irmo High principal quitting over Gay-Straight Alliance
IRMO, SC (WIS) - The Irmo High School Principal's announced resignation over a controversial student group is already drawing national attention.

Principal Eddie Walker told WIS News 10 his resignation won't take effect until June, 2009 - the end of the 2008-2009 school year.

Walker says it comes after he was asked to allow the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance club at the school.



I can't believe some of the stuff they are accusing the principal of, for not wanting this group even formed.



I guess he has to follow his convictions.

But his reasons are kind of funny:

"I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or members of both sexes."

So he's oppossed to any club in which students who join "will have chosen to or will choose to" engage in sexual activity?

Wouldn't that pretty much eliminate every club?

I assume even the members of something like the high school debate team, or the Anime club, or Choir club will "engage in sexual activity" at some points in their lives (well, maybe not the members of the Anime club [:D] ).



everythingat -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 5:51:49 AM)

I certainly respect the principal for his decision, it was a very mature choice for him to make rather than stay and make things difficult for everyone. Brent Childers' issued statement was ridiculous, I'm not sure he fully understood the situation. Considering that the principal is doing nothing to try and stop the club, instead choosing to resign so to make sure peace will be kept. And the principal even had to say this to the people who would also disagree with the club, "It is very important to me that the club sponsor and all students who join this club receive Golden Rule treatment from everyone."

I agree with you, henny, that his comment about members choosing to have sex because they belong to the club is silly. He makes the club sound like it's only going to be for arranging sexual meetings, rather than talking about what's really on the kids' minds, prejudice and homophobia. When I say homophobia, I'm not talking about Christians disagreeing with homosexuality...when I think of the word "homophobia," I think of violence and harmful slang. In South Carolina, where there are many gay bashings...I think it's a good idea for the kids of that school to take initiative and promote tolerance. Not forcing everyone to accept homosexuality as "right"....only tolerance. Meaning, even though you don't believe it's "right," you're not going to bash their heads in or use inappropriate slang to make them feel worthless. Sorry if it seems I'm spelling out everything I'm saying...I just don't want there to be any confusion over what I'm trying to say.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 2:40:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: everythingat

I agree with you, henny, that his comment about members choosing to have sex because they belong to the club is silly. He makes the club sound like it's only going to be for arranging sexual meetings, rather than talking about what's really on the kids' minds, prejudice and homophobia. When I say homophobia,


Sex isn't on the mind of these kids? Given the reality of the situation that a homosexual lifestyle isn't conducive with that of a Christian one we should just assume the club establishment is for “good” reasons and that "good" things for these lost kids will be the likely outcome of this group?

John



everythingat -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 3:12:13 PM)

SovereignIsHe, they're teenagers...and even more...humans...of course sex is on their minds. But sex will be on their minds whether this club exists or not, and in this particular instance...this club is not encouraging sex. It's called an "Alliance"...because it's promoting tolerance. Yes, I do believe good things would be the outcome...like someone not being murdered for no other reason than who they think they are.

I live in South Carolina. I've lived in Tennessee, North Carolina, and here. Out of those three states, I've noticed that South Carolina has the largest homosexual population. As I said in an earlier post, I've personally known two people to be injured solely because they were gay...one of them died from it. But I've also known many others through other people who were injured for the same reason. The one who died was leaving a bar, a 21 year-old spotted out that he was acting feminine, assuming he was gay (which he was). They didn't speak a single word to one another, didn't even know any of the same people. The homosexual left the bar, and was talking to his female friend when the 21 year-old drove by. He got out of his car, called the homosexual some names, then punched him. The homosexual was knocked to the ground and hit his head on the asphalt, which caused him to hemorrhage. He died in the hospital an hour later. It was terrible, and one of the most heartbreaking and angry experiences I've ever had. It's been a year this month since it happened.

In another story, I stopped by a gas station that's near the gay club here. There were two distressed homosexuals that had been beaten up, they called the police and I stood with them. They explained to the police what had happened, and the police officer said there was nothing they could do and left. Of course we called and reported him. Violence is prevalent everywhere, but it is quite special in South Carolina. I'm not old at all, and neither are my friends...we've all known more than one person to be murdered. For the longest time, South Carolina had the highest rate of domestic violence (mostly against women) in this country. I'm not sure if it still does, as I haven't checked or heard anything about it in a few years. The legal system here is awful, which is why so many women have been killed by their psychotic boyfriends. My own mother killed her second husband in self-defense. These are the reasons this club has come about, the legal system is offering no protection, so people are taking it into their own hands here to provide social change. Tolerance and understanding needs to be promoted here...not for any other agenda than assuring the physical safety of the residents in this state. After all, if the homosexuals are being killed for no other reason than being gay...how will we have the chance to minister?

Sorry if I didn't explain myself or my point well, I haven't had any sleep and I'm on sleep medication. I can't explain myself well anyway, you could argue that the sun is purple and would probably end up winning.



Jhud -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 4:25:32 PM)

quote:

Where does the Constitution do this? The 15th amendment addresses voting rights, but race is otherwise not mentioned in the constitution. Equal protection in the 14th amendment applies to 'any person'.


Taken together, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments provide the basic framework protecting against racial discrimination, though the Civil Rights Act of '64 built on this to provide specific protections againt racial discrimination.



SovereignIsHe -> RE: Homosexuality in the News (5/22/2008 9:51:56 PM)

quote:


ORIGINAL: everythingat

SovereignIsHe, they're teenagers...and even more...humans...of course sex is on their minds. But sex will be on their minds whether this club exists or not, and in this particular instance...this club is not encouraging sex. It's called an "Alliance"...because it's promoting tolerance. Yes, I do believe good things would be the outcome...like someone not being murdered for no other reason than who they think they are.


What good? What is good about reinforcing their sin of homosexuality that will land them in hell? All this club is doing is heaping coals on their head... And I don't buy that the club is not encouraging sex, given its foundation isn't one founded on godly principles but on human ones...


quote:

I live in South Carolina. I've lived in Tennessee, North Carolina, and here. Out of those three states, I've noticed that South Carolina has the largest homosexual population. As I said in an earlier post, I've personally known two people to be injured solely because they were gay...one of them died from it. But I've also known many others through other people who were injured for the same reason.

The one who died was leaving a bar, a 21 year-old spotted out that he was acting feminine, assuming he was gay (which he was). They didn't speak a single word to one another, didn't even know any of the same people. The homosexual left the bar, and was talking to his female friend when the 21 year-old drove by. He got out of his car, called the homosexual some names, then punched him. The homosexual was knocked to the ground and hit his head on the asphalt, which caused him to hemorrhage. He died in the hospital an hour later. It was terrible, and one of the most heartbreaking and angry experiences I've ever had. It's been a year this month since it happened.

In another story, I stopped by a gas station that's near the gay club here. There were two distressed homosexuals that had been beaten up, they called the police and I stood with them. They explained to the police what had happened, and the police officer said there was nothing they could do and left. Of course we called and reported him. Violence is prevalent everywhere, but it is quite special in South Carolina. I'm not old at all, and neither are my friends...we've all known more than one person to be murdered. For the longest time, South Carolina had the highest rate of domestic violence (mostly against women) in this country. I'm not sure if it still does, as I haven't checked or heard anything about it in a few years. The legal system here is awful, which is why so many women have been killed by their psychotic boyfriends. My own mother killed her second husband in self-defense. These are the reasons this club has come about, the legal system is offering no protection, so people are taking it into their own hands here to provide social change. Tolerance and understanding needs to be promoted here...not for any other agenda than assuring the physical safety of the residents in this state. After all, if the homosexuals are being killed for no other reason than being gay...how will we have the chance to minister?


First... I have not and will condone beating people up because they are gay... Nobody's chance for salvation is ever cut short, so that really isn't a valid argument... The fact they are murdered is enough of an argument, at least it should be...

Though I must say the establishment of the club itself is partly a stumbling block in regards to their coming to the truth. The more the sin is legitimized the harder it is to pull them out of it...

quote:


Sorry if I didn't explain myself or my point well, I haven't had any sleep and I'm on sleep medication. I can't explain myself well anyway, you could argue that the sun is purple and would probably end up winning.


No problem and you made your point :)

John



Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI