With this priest
Actually, there is no such thing as a homosexual person, any more than there is such a thing as a heterosexual person. The words are adjectives describing sexual acts, not people. The sexual acts are entirely normal; if they were not, no one would perform them
we can safely say bigotry lost.
Since all my readers are quite informed, this post requires no background. We have aurora telling us, in her own words
I can understand the mindset and the worldview of wanting “equality” for everyone. I am opposed to slavery and am grateful for the steps toward equal rights for African Americans in the United States. I am opposed to sexism and am so thankful to live in an era where women are allowed to vote, go to college and compete with men for jobs in engineering and medicine. And I believe that all human beings have dignity, value and worth. But I cannot support gay marriage.
Even though she understands the mindset that advocates equality for everyone, if he had her way, she would only grant those freedoms she thinks others need, nothing more.
And she knows our friend Pink is unhappy. She writes
But at my core, I do not believe that marrying someone of the same gender is ultimately for their good; I do not believe it will result in true and lasting joy.
One would be left wondering if all other marriages live in bliss so that if LGBTs get married, only them will be unhappy.
When god speaks to Job, he is being evasive and a bully. Job only wants to know why he is suffering. I see no way this chapter is relevant to LGBTs getting fair treatment before the law. It should always be remembered, had the state and church not concerned itself with who marries who, this court case would not have arisen. The only reason the state should have its nose in private affairs, should be limited to protecting minors or those being abused but nothing more.
And then she declares where she stands, without leaving room for any ambiguity
I tend to have Libertarian leanings. I am Pro-Life, opposed to gay marriage, and in support of keeping “under God” in the pledge.
I don’t know what she would say were Muslims, once they are the majority, ask to have under Allah in the pledge.
If as she says
And He wants us to enjoy pleasure and experience happiness. But He knows what will lead to our ultimate joy, and that is to be patient and wait until marriage.
it could have within her god’s power to make it such that the desire for sex only came once a person was married and never before. Since this is not the case, I suggest she takes the matter to a celestial court. While we are here, those who want to have sex will continue to, married or not and others will be miserable and others not so. In case it is lost on her, when you begin to have sex has no bearing on whether you will be happy or sad.
And, young woman, if this
Wives, how many of you have insecurities because your husbands made love to other women before he met you? Is he comparing me to her? Is he thinking of her when he’s with me?
is your greatest worry, then you have a long way to go and I suggest the best way out for you is to become a nun or remain celibate.
I believe when she writes
Premarital sex undermines the marriage, and – knowing that – God in His love and wisdom asks us to wait.
she hasn’t heard of the man who was divorced because he had a small manhood.
While she worries that there could be an earthquake in heaven because people are in a celebratory mood, it would do her much good to concern herself with living her life. Nothing is going to change. She will still walk to work, go to church on Sunday and only date men. No one is going to force her to date another woman.
If it will help her sleep, I would like to tell her she is mistaken in thinking
God was not surprised by this ruling; He is sovereign and knew about this day before the beginning of time (Eph. 1).
unless she is ready to admit that the 5 justices were working against her omni god and won.
As many others before me have written, these are the disasters Aurora and others like her can expect will happen now.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Theists often ask why are we antagonistic towards religion. Many times am not, but when religious dimwits following their religious dogmas feel they have a right to legislate, then I have to use every word in my arsenal to show they are not only idiots but are meddling with people’s lives where they have no say whatsoever. Their religious beliefs are only for them to follow not all of us who don’t adhere to their dogma.
The fellow captioned above who claims to be an SDA member believes members of the LGBT community should be stoned to death. He calls this a deterrence method. He argues homosexuality is not African. I want to be told what is African in being SDA or believing in a goat herders god. I am waiting to be told, until then I call bull on him and his colleagues.
I would like to know what rot his ilk talk about when they mention LGBTs.
Straight couples fuck left right and centre. If there is any rot, it is found in matrimonial beds where the couples are straight.
For legislators or their cohorts to think they can criminalize homosexuality or they can by doing so moralize a nation that went to the dogs eons ago, they really must be very foolish.
This sort of argument
Their rights are not in isolation. Whoever drafted the Constitution knows that rights are practised in society. You cannot spoil that society in which you are. You cannot dilute its morals
points to a fellow who uses his arse not his brains if he has any. One wonders how being gay dilutes the morals of a society. I am tired of all this idiocy.
Whenever I see a comment like
We have moral values in Africa,don’t enforce western virtues on us, well illustrated in the Holy books,advocate for the once dying because of hunger and diseases rather wasting your time on some irrelevant issues of gay people.
I know I have come into contact with an ignorant sissy. The books he calls [sic] holy are not African and tell stories of Hebrew goat herders. Stories that our ancestors were sold to on the threat of death. Indeed, it is known in many places, the colonialist came immediately after the missionary who himself had come with a gun and bible. Either way the African was fucked. He had to swallow the bible hook, line and sinker and as years go by, we continue to produce ignoramuses who have not thought beyond what their parents, who didn’t know better, told them. What a shame!
Am at the same time at a loss what this particular person means when he says we have moral values in Africa. Does he mean that the moral values, whatever they are, are distinct from what others who make similar claims of possessing moral values hold? And which values are these?
The next respondent who pretends to offer a third way is still as bigoted and stuck in a rut as the rest. He writes
Both Africans and Westerners should reject the false choice suggested by this article: that either a) homosexual behaviour is accepted as normal or b) we violently and irrationally persecute those inclined to homosexuality. There is a third way; it can calmly and rationally be identified as wrong, and calmly and rationally stigmatized, and also violence and hatred can receive the same rejection.
which is in essence not different from saying we ostracize those who are gay among us as if human beings come marked heterosexual or whatever sexual? It is a failure to understand that they who speak loudest against others can’t tell anyone the day they made the choice to be straight. As I have said before, what two consenting adults do in their private bedrooms or on the street is their business and the sooner this sinks into people’s heads, the sooner we will deal with other problems that face our race.
I feel sad every time I read articles full of such bigotry, stupidity and intolerance.