Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 271

Thread: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

  1. #91
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If they only single out homosexuals and not other "sinners" they are engaging in an arbitrary exclusion, regardless of their own flawed opinions on it.
    Actually no...

    If they single out ONLY homosexuals and not other sinners who routinely, on a daily basis, continually and routinely perform the same sin and not only perform it but perform it without an attempt to repent for it nor attempt to NOT perform that sin, then you're right.

    For example, if they had a member whose a rapper that uses the lords name in vein in every one of his songs, sings those songs on a weekly basis, and repeatedly states he doesn't care about using it and doesn't repent for it then, then you'd be right.

    However, there is a difference in someone who sins, repents for that sin, acknowledges its a sin, and works to not sin and someone who indulges in a sinful lifestyle every moment of every day through his thoughts, actions, and way in which he identifies himself and proclaims no repentence or asks for no forgiveness from god for it but instead indulges in it as a good thing.

    If they exclude all sinners, the group can't exist because all people are sinners accoring to Christianity. If they only exclude unrepeneatent sinners, they need to be consistent in their application of that. Are they excluding people who have ever lied, coveted, adultered failed to keep the sabbath holy, dishonored their mother and father and that haven't made any attemtps to make ammends? Then they aren't being arbitrary.
    As I said, they could easily state "Anyone who wantonly and repeateldy engages in a sinful lifestyle daily with no repenetence for that act or attempt to not engage in that sin" and it would be hard pressed to find much else that it would fit. Adulterers? Unless that person is CONTINUALLY performing adultry, someone that has done it once would not fit. Someone that coveted? Again, they'd have to do it continually, and they'd have to do it each time without repetence and with an attitude or statement that its perfectly acceptable to covet things. And on and on.

    I get your point, I understand YOUR view of the hypocrisy of it, but YOUR view in and of itself is arbitrary as well based on what you view as logical.

    To me, while I don't agree with it, its entirely logical to suggest that someone who continually performs a sin, regardless of what that sin is, without any regret/repentence/asking for forgiveness and more than that actually claims its a good thing and makes no endevours to stop sinning is someone living a "Sinful lifestyle" where as someone that commits sins, but repents from thos sins, acknowledges those sins are wrong, and works to not sin is not living a "Sinful lifestyle".

    Everyone sins, sinning is part of being human. The difference in this case is how one reacts to their sins...do they revel in it, are completely unrepentant of it, and plan to continue doing it routinely rather than work to stop it....or do they recognize it as a sin, repent, and attempt to lesson their sinful ways?

    Yes, I would say if they said "no one living a willfully sinful lifestyle" may enter and its somehow proven that someone else doing a different sin fits the same bill and they let them in...THEN its arbitrary. But if you can't find another situation where someone was allowed entrance while continually and repeatedly engaging in a sinful act that they proclaim as not sinful and instead perfectly okay and that they brazenly promote and proudly proclaim a desire to continue doing rather than work to fix, then there's nothing arbitrary that I see in it.

  2. #92
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    I say take all government money out of our schools. maybe then we might see some parody in what is being taught.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #93
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    NAMBLA espouses behaviors that are illegal.
    Irrevelant. We are talking about personal behavior. You must accept it.

    No, I do not believe that groups that promote illegal conduct, whether it is sexually abusing minors or discriminating on the basis of race/ethnicity/gender/religious faith, or distributing heroin, should receive federal funding. Nice try, though.
    Then you are descriminating.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #94
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Actually no...

    If they single out ONLY homosexuals and not other sinners who routinely, on a daily basis, continually and routinely perform the same sin and not only perform it but perform it without an attempt to repent for it nor attempt to NOT perform that sin, then you're right.

    For example, if they had a member whose a rapper that uses the lords name in vein in every one of his songs, sings those songs on a weekly basis, and repeatedly states he doesn't care about using it and doesn't repent for it then, then you'd be right.

    However, there is a difference in someone who sins, repents for that sin, acknowledges its a sin, and works to not sin and someone who indulges in a sinful lifestyle every moment of every day through his thoughts, actions, and way in which he identifies himself and proclaims no repentence or asks for no forgiveness from god for it but instead indulges in it as a good thing.



    As I said, they could easily state "Anyone who wantonly and repeateldy engages in a sinful lifestyle daily with no repenetence for that act or attempt to not engage in that sin" and it would be hard pressed to find much else that it would fit. Adulterers? Unless that person is CONTINUALLY performing adultry, someone that has done it once would not fit. Someone that coveted? Again, they'd have to do it continually, and they'd have to do it each time without repetence and with an attitude or statement that its perfectly acceptable to covet things. And on and on.

    I get your point, I understand YOUR view of the hypocrisy of it, but YOUR view in and of itself is arbitrary as well based on what you view as logical.

    To me, while I don't agree with it, its entirely logical to suggest that someone who continually performs a sin, regardless of what that sin is, without any regret/repentence/asking for forgiveness and more than that actually claims its a good thing and makes no endevours to stop sinning is someone living a "Sinful lifestyle" where as someone that commits sins, but repents from thos sins, acknowledges those sins are wrong, and works to not sin is not living a "Sinful lifestyle".

    Everyone sins, sinning is part of being human. The difference in this case is how one reacts to their sins...do they revel in it, are completely unrepentant of it, and plan to continue doing it routinely rather than work to stop it....or do they recognize it as a sin, repent, and attempt to lesson their sinful ways?

    Yes, I would say if they said "no one living a willfully sinful lifestyle" may enter and its somehow proven that someone else doing a different sin fits the same bill and they let them in...THEN its arbitrary. But if you can't find another situation where someone was allowed entrance while continually and repeatedly engaging in a sinful act that they proclaim as not sinful and instead perfectly okay and that they brazenly promote and proudly proclaim a desire to continue doing rather than work to fix, then there's nothing arbitrary that I see in it.
    Two words: Premarital sex.

    Applying the "sinful lifestyle" exclusion would include any person who actively engages in premarital sex. That would include homosexuals, but not be limited to homosexuals. Having sex with one's girlfriend before marriage is just as much of a sinful lifestyle as homosexuality is.

    Just because you failed to realize that there is a massive heterosexual population that would be excluded by such a rule doesn't make my logic arbitrarily determined.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Irrevelant. We are talking about personal behavior. You must accept it.
    So, you don't believe that any behavior should be illegal? Homosexuality = drug trafficking = homicide to you? Wow. I'm not sure how to help you.

    Then you are descriminating.
    You can't even spell the concept, much less articulate an understanding of discrimination.

  6. #96
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Two words: Premarital sex.
    Great example. And i'd agree. They'd have to exclude anyone who routinely engages in premarital sex, believes it to be a perfectly acceptable way to live, shows no attempt to NOT perform that sin, and is not repentent for doing it.

    Spot on.

    The one issue with this is its far, far harder to prove...or more importantly far, far easier to lie about...than homosexuality without potentially changing ones outward persona and perhaps a large amount of their social activities.

    In regards to homosexuality one would have to essentially be "closeted" to be able to make a claim that they're not violating the notion of "living a sinful lifestyle". In regards to premaritial sex someone just doesn't have to admit to banging.

    So I could see it still being a defacto discrimination due to that, but you're absolutely right, its one of those things where if they know someones notorious for sleeping around then they'd need to deny them membership.

  7. #97
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Great example. And i'd agree. They'd have to exclude anyone who routinely engages in premarital sex, believes it to be a perfectly acceptable way to live, shows no attempt to NOT perform that sin, and is not repentent for doing it.

    Spot on.

    The one issue with this is its far, far harder to prove...or more importantly far, far easier to lie about...than homosexuality without potentially changing ones outward persona and perhaps a large amount of their social activities.

    In regards to homosexuality one would have to essentially be "closeted" to be able to make a claim that they're not violating the notion of "living a sinful lifestyle". In regards to premaritial sex someone just doesn't have to admit to banging.

    So I could see it still being a defacto discrimination due to that, but you're absolutely right, its one of those things where if they know someones notorious for sleeping around then they'd need to deny them membership.
    Actually, a homosexual only needs to do the same as the premarital sex person. It would have to be proven that they engage in homosexual sex acts in order to make the claim that they are actually living a sinful lifestyle.

    Listening to showtunes and calling yourself gay isn't a sin. The homosexual sex acts are what is a sin.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #98
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Actually, a homosexual only needs to do the same as the premarital sex person. It would have to be proven that they engage in homosexual sex acts in order to make the claim that they are actually living a sinful lifestyle.

    Listening to showtunes and calling yourself gay isn't a sin. The homosexual sex acts are what is a sin.
    Again, arbitrary and upt to interpritation. I've known of Priests and Scholars that believe the designation and lifestyle of "homosexuality" is in and of itself sinful, not simply the act. If that is the belief of the club who are you to say that they're belief of what is sinful or not is somehow not valid?

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I say take all government money out of our schools. maybe then we might see some parody in what is being taught.


    j-mac
    Oh, I'm pretty sure we'd see a parody of education, all right.

    Sadly, I bet the irony in your post won't even be obvious to you.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 06-30-10 at 12:55 PM.

  10. #100
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Again, arbitrary and upt to interpritation. I've known of Priests and Scholars that believe the designation and lifestyle of "homosexuality" is in and of itself sinful, not simply the act. If that is the belief of the club who are you to say that they're belief of what is sinful or not is somehow not valid?
    They would have to present a logical defense that proved that not engaging in homosexual sex acts while still calling oneself a homosexual is, in and of itself, sinful according to the bible. A very difficult thing to try and prove using the bible since the homosexual culture didn't exist back then. If they can't defend ther posiiton logically, it isn't valid logically.

    In order to include homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual sex acts on the exclusion list, they would probably need to extend their exclusion to include those who are actively promoting sinful lifestyles, it would be easy to argue that self-labellingas a homosexual would be included, but that extension would necessarily include hetero people who listen to certain music (some music promotes blashphemey, adultery, premarital sex, etc) or wear certain types of clothing (one could easily defend the claim that provocative clothing promotes teh sinful lifestyle of premarital sex, arguing the reverse is not very easy) watches certain TV shows (Someone who is a fan of Sex and the City would clearly be promoting premarital sex, adultery, South Park fans prmote pretty much every sin one can think of and a couple that haven't been thought up yet ) etc. etc.

    Then it would also, by necessity, exclude people who are hetero. They'd have to argue how those things don't promote sinful lifestyles since it is apparent that they actually do promote such lifestyles.

    If the rule is only being applie dto one group, even though other ones are apparently not being excluded, then they'd have to give a logical defense of the differentiation. If they can succesfully do this, then there's nothing wrong. If they cannot, then there is something wrong.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •