Sally Kern, "Gay's are Infiltrating our City Council."

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
apc

posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
You're confusing reproductive biology with sexual pleasure. Two VERY different subjects. Some people get off on feet. How do feet play into making babies?

Regardless, when someone is not causing anyone else harm they must be free to live their life however they please and not be judged or condemned for it. They have just as much right to be a city councilmember, senator, or president as anyone else.




posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
When I hear the words "Gay's" and "infiltrating" ....




seriously, I don't understand why a secular country like America (separation of Church and State) is so backwards towards LGBT issues. Yeah, you might think its wrong and not your cup of tea but these individuals are fellow citizens and have the same democratic rights as us [Mike Huckabee will disagree]



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   


seriously, I don't understand why a secular country like America (separation of Church and State) is so backwards towards LGBT issues. Yeah, you might think its wrong and not your cup of tea but these individuals are fellow citizens and have the same democratic rights as us [Mike Huckabee will disagree


I agree with you fully. They are still people and can do any job they would like. They should not push a gay agenda on people which seems to happen much much more than people realize. Just the same, noone should push an anti gay agenda. Peoples sex lives are their business. Whether I think it's morally wrong or not.

In response to another post, sex biology and sexual pleasure coincide together. Humans are the onle species to have sex for pleasure. Think about it for a sec. Childbirth is very painful and enduring. If sex wasn't pleasureable, there would not be billions of people on this planet.
Please don't get into semantics either and start hunting for the exceptions to the rule by pointing out an isolated incident or two in the animal kingdom.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
Mr. johnny canuk, we are not talking about any of those things on this thread. We are discussing homosexuality and a politicians words about it. The Bible says a lot of things are wrong, but for this thread I'm just touching on homosexuality.
It is clearly a choice. An unnatural one at that. No homosexual is forced to have sex with another man. He chooses to. I am heterosexual. That is how you are born, given that sex was designed for procreation. You choose to be contrary to that.


And you know this...how? You sound very sure of your opinion; do you have evidence to prove it isn't a choice? Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
Also, Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. Anti-gay passages can be found in the Old Testamant, but as a Christian, the Old Testament is supposed to be viewed as History - you are supposed to live by the New Testament, not the old one of anti-homosexuality.

I agree, as soon as you say "choice", you lose credibility. I suggest you do some research about homosexuality - from factual sources, not religious fundamentalist sites.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   


Also, Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. Anti-gay passages can be found in the Old Testamant, but as a Christian, the Old Testament is supposed to be viewed as History - you are supposed to live by the New Testament, not the old one of anti-homosexuality.


Actually the New Testament is just as clear
Romans 1:24-28

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
The New King James Version, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1998, c1982.

Pretty clear to me



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 

As Johnny Canuck predicted, you are in over your head.

Your Argument From Anatomy would be more convincing if not for the prevalence of homosexual behaviour among nonhuman sexual dimorphs that are similarly constructed. Not to mention the avalanche of confirmation from gay people everywhere (but then would you ever believe them, even if they swore to it on a stack of Bibles?)

The rest of your post offers a rather stale buffet of microwaved slander that has nothing to do with your claim that homosexuality is a choice.

But never mind all that: what do you think should be done about this awful woman?



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


Sorry, you are wrong.

Homosexual behavior is not allowed, as per the New Testament. Instead of accusing people of being ignorant of the facts you should seek them out yourself.

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another...” Romans 1:26-27.

"For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine" 1 Timothy 1:10.

The Greek word used in 1 Timothy 1:10 is "arsenokoitai" and it means literally “men who sleep with men.”

There are more, no need to elaborate.

So far as being a choice, I am willing to concede that homosexual desires may not be a choice, they may be natural in some people. HOWEVER, so are heterosexual desires in others.

Heterosexuals are NOT allowed to fornicate, as per the Bible. How then do you claim that homosexuals ARE allowed to fornicate?


apc

posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 

You are dead wrong on so many fronts it's disturbing how many people actually think that way.

It's perfectly fine if you want to believe all that hateful Biblical rhetoric. Fortunately we live in a society where no law can be made in favor or disfavor of a particular religion. You can cite fundamentalist bigotry till you're blue in the face but your ilk has no right to deny another free citizen from holding political office simply because you don't like them. If you wish to argue this point then please do so but leave the Bible out of it.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


Sorry, I screwed my sentence up. What I'm saying is that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality in the NT. I read this on an FAQ from the United Church of Christ.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Hm, quoting from the King James Version; you are aware that King James was a bisexual?

"If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his “wife” and called himself Villiers' “husband”! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his right, and another on his left."

www.greatsite.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Holy cow (no pun intended), this is one tough topic to talk about. I say that only because there is so much political correctness surrounding anyone "gay".

These are my opinions and if you disagree, that's great. Before you, the royal you, has a knee jerk reaction, please stop, think and if I am unclear ask me for clarification.

Honestly, what I think is sad is that on a forum like this, if I hadn't put that politically correct blurb I truly feel the masses would call for my figurative hanging.

Anyway, on to my opinions:



  1. There is nothing "fascist" about her comments. She isn't "forcing" her views on anyone else. Something truly fascist would be if the City Council enacted an ordinance that prohibited homosexuals from serving. Simpily articulating opinions is not fascist. Demanding those who think differently than you be silenced is.
  2. Because she says this in a public forum doesn’t mean that those who voted (is she in an elected or appointed position?) for her condone this behavior. Don’t use such a broad brush to define those whom you know nothing about
  3. She has the absolute right to speak her mind without the masses calling for her silence. Calling for someone to be silenced because you don't agree with what they are saying is, in fact, a fascist act. The act of saying something others don't agree with is not.
  4. She's an idiot and has proven herself to be
  5. She absolutely has a right to her opinions and she has the responsibility to "own" those remarks once she airs them out
  6. Meaning, she can say whatever she wants to, and she will have to live with the repercussions - like being voted out of office/recalled/removed/fired
  7. We live in a representative republic. If she does, in fact, represent the opinions of that town, she isn’t doing or saying anything “wrong”, per se.
  8. We, you, me, etc may not like what her opinions are. She should not be removed for simply articulating a view point you don’t agree with. That’s fascist.
  9. Even if we don’t like it, she may very well be articulating views that did get her elected/appointed/whatever. The way to defeat her is politically and by being better spokesmen of counter-ideas than she is, not by demanding she have her ability to voice her opinion taken away. Again, that’s facist.



[edit on 9-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Aside from the obvious ignorance some people possess about the nature of homosexuality...willfully so,it's obvious this woman is unfit to serve in public office and probably should be kept away from children, too. If she's a Christian she should (according to her dogma) submit to the authority of the nation state in which she resides which states that ALL people are created equally and ALL people have the same rights. The right to serve on the city council, the right to vote ignorant religious fanatics OUT of office....you get my drift. If she can't accept that fact, she should step down. As a matter of fact if Christians consistently believe this way perhaps they should ALL be banned from holding public office as thier ideals are contrary to the Constitiution.

Reasearch has proven, over and over and over again that children are 400 times more likely to be molested by their biological heterosexual father. Perhaps all heterosexual men should be locked up because the statistics seem to point to the fact that they are OBVIOUSLY more inclined to hurt children. Or maybe just castration?

The Bible says a lot of things, including an admonition to stone disobedient children. I HOPE you don't plan to follow bible doctrine in that sense, do you? Oh, but it's in the Old Testament...blahblahblah...cherry picking doctrine to suit your prejudicial stance is so typical.

Bible doctrine admonishes women to be silent. This woman wouldn't be allowed to have her job if this country had to follow Bible doctrine.

If you think gay people shouldn't "act gay" and I assume you mean show affection, admit they aren't heterosexual, live a validated life, you should really think about moving to a Muslim country where there are no openly homosexual people. Just be prepared to have all your human rights abrogated like you're willing to abrogate the rights of others. I sense you'd be more confortable there, as you don't seem to believe in the laws of this land and would rather live under religious law.

And trust me, your teenage neice is revelling in the attention she's getting, or she wouldn't continue to do it. She just feels funny about it, it's a new feeling. We try on all sorts of identities when we're that age, some kids are more creative than others. But don't worry, it'll pass. It's a developmental stage, unlike homosexuality -- which is in no way a choice. And I doubt she's in danger of being murdered or attacked for dressing like a Goth.

That gay Republican congressman that was hooking up in public restrooms for sex? His CHOICE was to live a lie and prosecute others for the same thing he's guilty of while choosing to PRETEND he isn't gay.

Regardless of what you believe about "pushing a gay agenda" the facts remain that far more people "push the heterosexual agenda"...you are a perfect example thinking, erroneously, that someone being gay is going to try "make " anyone else gay. What's the gay agenda? Equal rights? Those dirty birds! How DARE they expect the same rights as any other American???!

Research has concluded that children raised in gay/lesbian households are as well liked by their peers, as mentally stable and as happy with their lives as their heterosexually raised counterparts. The same research (Hyde and De Lamater, 2002) concluded that the overwhelming majority of those children eventually expressed a heterosexual orientation themselves, which means your assertion that gay people want to make other gay people is really a load of crap.

I have four brothers and two sisters. One lesbian sister and one gay brother. None of my heterosexual siblings has been able to maintain a relationship. We are all serial failures at heterosexual love. My sister has been with her lover since 1976. My brother has been with his lover since 1983. Their relationships are loving, but I couldnt tell you the way they have sex. Your assertion that all gay men have butt sex is ludicrous. As well as the assertion that lesbians use dildos. HOW do you know what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Or...are you speaking from experience?



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


That is too funny.

The teachings of Jesus should come before all others if one is to call oneself a christian. Paul wrote Romans not Jesus. The whole Bible has been changed throughout the ages to reflect the views of those that held the power to rewrite it.

No other verse should contradict the word of Jesus if indeed Jesus is the Son of God. If one holds another word higher then what religion and or faith are they really?



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 



That letter was written to a Jew. You look ignorant trying to apply it to Christians.

The reason that letter is so effective is that it is not applied to its intended audience, the Jews, who for the most part WOULD agree that those things are abominations and that those people should be killed, even if contemporary Jewish leaders will not often allow it.

Yet you falsely direct this letter at Christians, the majority of whom have no idea why it is a sin to follow the laws of Leviticus because Leviticus is a book of laws that have not been taught to Christians.

An understanding of the way salvation works and the relationship between Jewish law and Christian faith would help here.

The Jews were commanded to act in a certain way, to try and be perfect, righteous.

They were offered salvation based on their works.

The problem with this is that none of them can do it, they all sinned. No person can live without sinning.

So, to atone for those sins, they would offer a blood sacrifice to the Lord, yet often still held evil close in their hearts.

The Lord, recognizing all this, sent us Christ, who would become our last and perfect sacrifice.

We understand that we are sinners and imperfect. We understand that we need the sacrifice of Christ and that nothing on Earth has been more pure, more perfect.

If we tried to live by the law, to include the law in Leviticus, we would be trying to save ourselves, saying that what Christ did was not enough, that we must do something extra.

Is that what you expect of Christians, to say that Christ was imperfect and that we need to try and remain clean to make up for his imperfect sacrifice? It would be a slap in the face of our Lord and his great act! The entire passion, the betrayals, the whipping, the beatings, the mocking, the stabbings, the crucifixion, all for nothing because we feel the need to try and save ourselves by not eating certain foods and not wearing polyfabric clothing? Absurd!

Everything I said is backed up by Paul in the letter he wrote to the Romans in the New Testament of the Bible.


[edit on 9-3-2008 by cavscout]



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


She is a representative of the people and as such, she doesn't have the right to try to persecute LGBTG and run them off. If she's going to make these kind of statements, then she needs to make it very clear that she is saying these things as a private person; otherwise, people will think she is trying to create a public policy of discrimination against a group of people -which is exactly what she's done.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Dolphins have sex for pleasure....and a LOT of it, even mixing species so that bottle nosed dolphins end up with speckled dolphins and have hybrid offspring. They also are promiscuous and often engage in group sex. For no other reason that fun.

Here's a link that asserts 1500 species of animals have homosexual sex:
www.news-medical.net...


PS-- Deny Ignorance!
Edit for the link.




[edit on 3/9/08 by themillersdaughter]



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
christian voice- bonobos and dolphins have been known to engage in sex for pleasure and have been seen using implements for pleasure. male dolphins have even been known to try and copulate with human females.

as to serial killers i believe ted bundy killed 40 women and was very straight. green river killer was straight. richard ramirez, the night stalker was straight. son of sam was straight.

just a few thoughts! have a great day!



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stikkinikki
No other verse should contradict the word of Jesus if indeed Jesus is the Son of God. If one holds another word higher then what religion and or faith are they really?


Seeing as Christ was silent on the issue all we have to go on is Paul. Now I understand that some people don’t believe that the words of Paul should be in the Bible at all, however if we are going to use the term Christian instead of identifying a certain denomination then we should go by the belief of 99% of modern Christians, and 99% follow Pauline doctrine even if half don’t really know who Paul was.



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 



We should?? Who says? You?



posted on Mar, 9 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by themillersdaughter
Here's a link that asserts 1500 species of animals have homosexual sex:


You think it is OK to act like an animal?

Do you drink from a bowl and run around on all fours?

Do you hump trees or deficate in public?

We are not like the beasts so who cares what they do?





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join