• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian Group Finds Gay Agenda in an Anti-Bullying Day [W:159]

Donahue said:
I don't know what that means but it's not really relevant.

We're almost five pages in on an anti-Christian thread masquerading as a pro-homosexuality thread without a single attack by a Christian. That is what is relevant.
Click to expand...

What do you find to be anti-Christian?
 
Donahue said:
There is a difference between not supporting someone's position and downright attacking them.

It's not even so much the continued attacks on anyone different by liberals that I find comical. It's the insistence of how tolerant they are.
Click to expand...

Seriously, some of you are so married to this idea that there's a "war on christianity" that anything that anybody says that is even remotely critical of a group of Christians, and it's an "attack on religion by Godless lefties."

If you think homosexuality is wrong, go for it. That doesn't mean it's OK to beat them up and belittle them. That's what the thread is about. Apparently saying that beating them is wrong is a "proTgay" agenda, and saying that this group of people is a bunch of douches is an attack on all reigion and Conservatism.
 
This is the Catholic Church's official stance on homosexuality.

[H]omosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Click to expand...



wolfman24 said:
You miss the entire point of this thread. These people use religon to thier own ends. God hates no one and It says so in many places in the New and Old Testament. There are even commandments against judging your neighbor and not loving them. NO one who is religious or a person of faith can come out against a child of God and still claim they are so.

"I am the God of love come and follow me". You can argue my points all you want but if a person says they believe in God - They must prove it and live according to the word every day. Otherwise its just smoke and mirrors to acheive a personal end.
Click to expand...
 
madman said:
Well, im always given a quote from the bible. Isnt the bible the final word?
You see, that's a big issue that i have with religion. People pick and choose what they like and dont like. I really believe they use their religion as to mask their hate.
If you're gonna organize a religion, for chirst sake, make sure everyone is on the same page. This is why i cant take any religion seriously.
Click to expand...

All religions have sects and a disparate base of adherents. And it doesn't matter one iota that YOU can't find one that suits you, painting entire religions for the beliefs of a subset is the same kind of wrong as when you do it in the political arena.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Maybe they think it legitimizes a lifestyle that they disagree with.
Click to expand...

So... gay people should be attacked on site or you're pro-gay? Yeah, that's a reasonable position.
 
People should really make the effort to read OP links before commenting. The American Family Assn. is simply lying about the purpose of "Mix it up at Lunch Day"

The program is not about sexual orientation but rather about breaking up social cliques, which are especially evident in a school cafeteria, Ms. Costello said.

In some schools, cliques are socioeconomic. In others they are ethnic or religious or based on sexual orientation. By giving students a way to mix with other students, self-imposed social barriers can be broken down and bullying can be curbed, she said.

“Many of the targets of bullying are kids who are either gay or are perceived as gay,” she said.

But the idea that the program is intended as homosexual indoctrination is simply wrong, Ms. Costello added.

“We’ve become used to the idea of lunatic fringe attacks,” she said, “but this one was complete misrepresentation.”
Click to expand...

Xian persecution is a fantasy which is promoted by groups and individuals who are afraid of societal changes they see looming over their self-perceived position at the head of society. They are afraid of true equality and interpret every attempt at elevating others to the same level they presently enjoy as nothing more than attacks on their own presumed right to lead. Our nation is not a zero-sum game - simply because others may claim equal rights and privileges does not mean you lose any - that is the definition of EQUAL

What is Mix It Up at Lunch Day?
 
Last edited:
Well what exactly happens on this day?

Einzige said:
How you make the leap from 'opposes bullying' to 'overtly supports homosexuality' is beyond me, unless your default premise is that gays are rightfully the subjects of bullying.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Maybe they think it legitimizes a lifestyle that they disagree with.
Click to expand...

And if people disagree with the "Christian" they should be able to bully "Christians", right?
 
Peter Grimm said:
I didn't say that.
Click to expand...

You claimed that this group believes that not beating people up for being gay legitimizes being gay (and I suspect you're right that that's what they believe). The converse of that is that in order to ensure your anti-gay street cred, you have to beat up gay people. This, of course, is the crux of the thread: the AFA, by conlfating anti-bullying with being pro-gay is promoting a pro-bullying stance. This is unconsciounable, and really has very little to do with Christianity as such.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
All religions have sects and a disparate base of adherents. And it doesn't matter one iota that YOU can't find one that suits you, painting entire religions for the beliefs of a subset is the same kind of wrong as when you do it in the political arena.
Click to expand...

I am painting christians in general because that's what they call themselves. These are the christians (or so they claim to be) that are against homosexuality, think that bulling is OK and want to legislate their morality on ALL.
And a majority of those sects read from the same bible. And yes, you are right, i can not find one indoctrinates hate.
 
No. I claimed that schools holding a special day to celebrate homosexuality legitimizes being gay. It has nothing to do with bullying.

If Christian students can't pray in school, why should you be able to have gay-day?

Aderleth said:
You claimed that this group believes that not beating people up for being gay legitimizes being gay (and I suspect you're right). The converse of that is that in order to ensure your anti-gay street cred, you have to beat up gay people. This, of course, is the crux of the thread: the AFA, by conlfating anit-bullying with being pro-gay is promoting a pro-bullying stance. This is unconsciounable, and really has very little to do with Christianity as such.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
No. I claimed that schools holding a special day to celebrate homosexuality legitimizes being gay. It has nothing to do with bullying.
Click to expand...

1) Then you didn't actually answer the question you appeared to have answered (which specifically asked about how being anti-bullying promotes homosexuality). and...

2) You're arguing from a fantasy position. Nothing about this program celebrates homosexuality. It's explicitly and specifically about breaking up high school cliques in order to reduce bullying.

Peter Grimm said:
If Christian students can't pray in school, why should you be able to have gay-day?
Click to expand...

1) Students can pray in school, we just don't allow the school to set aside a specific time for it or condone it in pretty much any way.

2) We don't have a "gay-day." If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that.
 
rocket88 said:
Seriously, some of you are so married to this idea that there's a "war on christianity" that anything that anybody says that is even remotely critical of a group of Christians, and it's an "attack on religion by Godless lefties."

If you think homosexuality is wrong, go for it. That doesn't mean it's OK to beat them up and belittle them. That's what the thread is about. Apparently saying that beating them is wrong is a "proTgay" agenda, and saying that this group of people is a bunch of douches is an attack on all reigion and Conservatism.
Click to expand...

You guys hate Christians. It's fine.

I read it loud and clear through your posts calling them "****ing troglodytes", "ignorant", "bigoted", "douches", etc.

Just because you hate them doesn't mean it isn't an attack.

I'm not screaming "War on Christianity". I'm just calling you hateful.

That's all.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Where did I say it was OK to bully homosexuals?
Click to expand...

The AFA actively endorses legalized discrimination against gays as well as advocates the psuedo science of reparative therapy that often times has had disastrous results.. That is bullying.
 
winston53660 said:
The AFA actively endorses legalized discrimination against gays as well as advocates the psuedo science of reparative therapy that often times has had disastrous results.. That is bullying.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't think the left could have taken this in a more ridiculous direction.

So he wants to "bully" homosexuals because a group he has zero affiliation with believes in something you disagree with.

You guys are obviously too ridiculous to bother with anymore. I'm just going to block you all.
 
Last edited:
Donahue said:
Wow, I don't think the left could have taken this in a more ridiculous direction.
Click to expand...

The left probably couldn't have. You, on the other hand, have done a pretty fantastic job of it.
 
digsbe said:
Homosexuals shouldn't be bullied, but if the anti-bullying laws/promotions push moral beliefs regarding homosexuality (as in saying it's normal/healthy/moral etc). Then the AFA would have a valid point (which they probably don't here).
Click to expand...

Let's talk about those standards for a moment. Those first two can be objectively evaluated, can't they?

Let's start with normal. What is normal? In this case, do we mean "average"? In which case, homosexuality is not average. It is a small minority. No one (save those who say that everyone is really bisexual) is claiming that homosexuals outnumber heterosexuals. By normal, do we mean "common"? In which case, homosexuality is quite normal. It being an Inuit abnormal? I bet you know more gays than Inuits. I certainly do. By normal, do we mean "the recommended sexual patterns for everyone"? No, of course not. So... what definition of normal are people attributing to homosexuality that isn't true? And clearly there is a certain amount of normalcy to homosexuality, given how it is not particularly rare, and it certainly seems to have been a part of humanity for the whole of recorded history. I'm not sure that there is an objective way to say that homosexuality isn't normal.

So let's move on to healthy. What's unhealthy about homosexuality? Gays and lesbians form stable and loving relationships same as anyone else. Some point to the higher incidence of AIDS among gays, but would that be true if the first infection had been a heterosexual? HIV is becoming more and more common among heterosexuals. And certainly this worry didn't exist a century ago. How about the increased risk of transmission of STDs in anal sex? Well, plenty of heterosexual couples have anal sex. There's nothing intrinsically homosexual about it, and it obviously doesn't apply to gay women the same way. The only major source of harm to mental health that gays experience that heteros don't comes from the discrimination that gays face. So there's really nothing physically or mentally unhealthy about homosexuality. Again, objective assessment.

So, any group that bases their positions off of scientific evidence HAS to say that homosexuality is normal and healthy. That's what the facts say. That's not a matter of opinion.

So now let's talk morality. I can see two ways to examine morality. Either there is objective morality or there isn't. If there's objective, than we base it off of minimizing harm and possibly promoting satisfaction and happiness. (Even this standard is somewhat subjective, but no one has yet offered any better standard. Even these standards can be analyzed objectively, and this one is more in line with what more people think is or isn't moral than the contents of any specific or aggregation of holy books.) If you do that objectively, then again, you are forced to conclude that homosexuality is perfectly moral. No one is harmed by anyone else's sexuality (unless you count heteros who pursue gays who don't want them, but I don't think we want to delve into the scenario where it is immoral to turn down an offer of sex, do you?), and people following their orientation and being with the people they want to be with makes them happy. So it's moral. Unless, I suppose, there's an overwhelming need to increase the population, but that's a problem we don't have. For such a situation to be sufficient cause for homosexuality to be immoral, we would need to be in a position where literally every single childbearing person had to be making babies as fast as they could, and that's a scenario I don't really see happening. So homosexuality is perfectly moral if evaluation objectively.

So let's assume that morality is subjective. Okay, it's subjective. Then everyone is entitled to their own position and no one's should hold more sway. In which case, the position of some religions that there's something immoral about homosexuality earns no special treatment over any moral stance that says otherwise. There is no special protection for the anti-gay position. If objective assessment isn't necessary, then an anti-bullying law or promotion can take whatever moral stance it wants. The only argument against their position is "I don't agree with that", which holds no sway, since every position is equally valid.

So no, no valid point. Just refusal to listen to facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom