• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Chick-fil-A President is Against Same Sex Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.

LightyKD

Future CEO of OUYA Inc.
OP
Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
5,531
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Angel Grove, CA
XP
5,277
Country
United States
In related news, The Muppets have dropped Chick-Fil-A.

The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.

And just like that Chick Fil-A got the "F.U."
big-bird-gives-middle-finger_big.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

chavosaur

Chavo
Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,796
Trophies
1
Age
29
Location
Huntersville, NC
XP
8,177
Country
United States
I just find it funny that a business built entirely on cocks would not support gay marriage.

In related news, The Muppets have dropped Chick-Fil-A.

The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.

And just like that Chick Fil-A got the "F.U."
big-bird-gives-middle-finger_big.jpg
I don't know which one makes me laugh more...
 

BlueStar

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
4,092
Trophies
0
Location
UK
XP
691
Country
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.

So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.

Oh, and no marrying non-virgins, unless you want them to be executed.

I presume they've come out against divorce as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

nando

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
2,263
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,023
Country
United States
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.

So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.

Oh, and no marrying non-virgins, unless you want them to be executed.

I presume they've come out against divorce as well?


well now you are just pick and choosing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

SifJar

Not a pirate
Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
6,022
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,175
Country
So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.

Oh, and no marrying non-virgins, unless you want them to be executed.

I presume they've come out against divorce as well?
All of the things you mention are from the Old Testament, which was written a long time ago, in a very different culture. That explains, at the very least, the 300 wives. And probably the marrying your brother's widow thing. I'll also agree strongly with nando that you are picking and choosing a few more extreme examples. There are plenty of more "conventional" families in the Bible. It's never said in the Bible that the family situations you mentioned were "right" or "good" (well, to the best of my knowledge anyway).
 

ThatDudeWithTheFood

TRIANGLEZ
Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
2,198
Trophies
0
Location
Illuminati
XP
536
Country
United States

BlueStar

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
4,092
Trophies
0
Location
UK
XP
691
Country
So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.

Oh, and no marrying non-virgins, unless you want them to be executed.

I presume they've come out against divorce as well?
All of the things you mention are from the Old Testament, which was written a long time ago, in a very different culture. That explains, at the very least, the 300 wives. And probably the marrying your brother's widow thing. I'll also agree strongly with nando that you are picking and choosing a few more extreme examples. There are plenty of more "conventional" families in the Bible. It's never said in the Bible that the family situations you mentioned were "right" or "good" (well, to the best of my knowledge anyway).

Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?

Which part of the bible is this bit about gays being an abomination in again? Would that be the Old Testament? The Chik-fil-ay guy is the one picking and choosing. Rules against divorce are in the new testament, where's his vocal opposition to that?

How long come Christians can turn to the old Testament and claim it's the infallible word of God when they want to base laws on the Ten Commandments or creation stories or whatever and then try and drop it like a hot potato and claim it 'doesn't count' when people point out its full of wicked, evil shit, barbaric instructions and a petty, childish god?
 

SifJar

Not a pirate
Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
6,022
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,175
Country
Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?

Which part of the bible is this bit about gays being an abomination in again? Would that be the Old Testament? The Chik-fil-ay guy is the one picking and choosing. Rules against divorce are in the new testament, where's his vocal opposition to that?

How long come Christians can turn to the old Testament and claim it's the infallible word of God when they want to base laws on the Ten Commandments or creation stories or whatever and then try and drop it like a hot potato and claim it 'doesn't count' when people point out its full of wicked, evil shit, barbaric instructions and a petty, childish god?
I never said the Old Testament was irrelevant or "doesn't count" or anything of the sort. Far from it. What I was saying is that the culture was different back then. By today's standards, yes polygamy (for example) seems wrong, but in those days it was perfectly acceptable. I'll be honest, there's stuff in the OT that I don't fully understand why it was acceptable back then, but not now. However, I will note that when Jesus came and formed the new covenant, He "raised the bar" so to speak on a number of OT laws. (e.g. from "don't commit adultery" to "don't look at a woman with lustful intent").

And I doubt the Chick-fil-A guy supports divorce. Divorce is a much less controversial topic. The vast majority of Christians will be opposed to divorce. Homosexuality is more controversial, some Christians say it's OK, other's disagree. He also hasn't voiced an opposition to murder that I know of - doesn't mean he supports it. He doesn't have to vocally oppose everything he disagrees with. Heck, he didn't even vocally oppose homosexuality, he just vocally supported "traditional family values" or something along those lines.
 

MFDC12

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
815
Trophies
1
Age
32
Website
Visit site
XP
878
Country
United States
Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?

Which part of the bible is this bit about gays being an abomination in again? Would that be the Old Testament? The Chik-fil-ay guy is the one picking and choosing. Rules against divorce are in the new testament, where's his vocal opposition to that?

How long come Christians can turn to the old Testament and claim it's the infallible word of God when they want to base laws on the Ten Commandments or creation stories or whatever and then try and drop it like a hot potato and claim it 'doesn't count' when people point out its full of wicked, evil shit, barbaric instructions and a petty, childish god?
I never said the Old Testament was irrelevant or "doesn't count" or anything of the sort. Far from it. What I was saying is that the culture was different back then. By today's standards, yes polygamy (for example) seems wrong, but in those days it was perfectly acceptable. I'll be honest, there's stuff in the OT that I don't fully understand why it was acceptable back then, but not now. However, I will note that when Jesus came and formed the new covenant, He "raised the bar" so to speak on a number of OT laws. (e.g. from "don't commit adultery" to "don't look at a woman with lustful intent").

actually, the old testament is mainly invalid because after jesus came he fulfilled the covenant and created a new one, which is why a lot of Christians will say that eating pork and shellfish is ok, and how wearing clothes of mixed fabric is ok. Jesus actually didn't say anything about homosexuality in the NT.
 

BlueStar

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
4,092
Trophies
0
Location
UK
XP
691
Country
Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?

Which part of the bible is this bit about gays being an abomination in again? Would that be the Old Testament? The Chik-fil-ay guy is the one picking and choosing. Rules against divorce are in the new testament, where's his vocal opposition to that?

How long come Christians can turn to the old Testament and claim it's the infallible word of God when they want to base laws on the Ten Commandments or creation stories or whatever and then try and drop it like a hot potato and claim it 'doesn't count' when people point out its full of wicked, evil shit, barbaric instructions and a petty, childish god?
I never said the Old Testament was irrelevant or "doesn't count" or anything of the sort. Far from it. What I was saying is that the culture was different back then. By today's standards, yes polygamy (for example) seems wrong, but in those days it was perfectly acceptable. I'll be honest, there's stuff in the OT that I don't fully understand why it was acceptable back then, but not now. However, I will note that when Jesus came and formed the new covenant, He "raised the bar" so to speak on a number of OT laws. (e.g. from "don't commit adultery" to "don't look at a woman with lustful intent").

And I doubt the Chick-fil-A guy supports divorce. Divorce is a much less controversial topic. The vast majority of Christians will be opposed to divorce. Homosexuality is more controversial, some Christians say it's OK, other's disagree. He also hasn't voiced an opposition to murder that I know of - doesn't mean he supports it. He doesn't have to vocally oppose everything he disagrees with. Heck, he didn't even vocally oppose homosexuality, he just vocally supported "traditional family values" or something along those lines.

Wait, most Christians are opposed to divorce? More so than homosexuality? Then how come so many Christian churches now marry divorcees, but hardly any marry gays? How come proponents of Political Christianity are lobbying to make gay marriage illegal, but not make divorce illegal?

If 'culture was different back then' means stuff like polygamy was a-ok and God didn't even express the slightest concern about ti when talking to people directly involved in it, or any of the other zany 'families' in the bible, how come the same can't be said about the 'gays are an abomination' stuff? you know "Oh, that's just how it was back then, people thought being gay was wrong, but it's a different time now"? The Old Testament was a 'different time' so family types don't matter from back then, but if you go back to the very beginning of time in the creation myth it's all "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"?

As for Jesus overrulling/updating the old laws, as with most things in the Bible you canjust pick the bit that matches whether you believe he did that or not. Asked pretty much this specific question, Jesus responded

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
 

SifJar

Not a pirate
Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
6,022
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,175
Country
actually, the old testament is mainly invalid because after jesus came he fulfilled the covenant and created a new one, which is why a lot of Christians will say that eating pork and shellfish is ok, and how wearing clothes of mixed fabric is ok. Jesus actually didn't say anything about homosexuality in the NT.
It's not invalid. Some of the laws no longer apply, but that does not make it invalid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

MFDC12

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
815
Trophies
1
Age
32
Website
Visit site
XP
878
Country
United States
actually, the old testament is mainly invalid because after jesus came he fulfilled the covenant and created a new one, which is why a lot of Christians will say that eating pork and shellfish is ok, and how wearing clothes of mixed fabric is ok. Jesus actually didn't say anything about homosexuality in the NT.
It's not invalid. Some of the laws no longer apply, but that does not make it invalid.
My question to you then, how come some laws stayed and not the others, if Jesus fulfilled the old covenant and created a new one you do not get to pick and choose what laws stay and what lays don't, he fulfilled it all. I'll bring up this point again because it is very relevant, how come dietary restrictions and clothing restrictions do not apply to Christians? Invalid was probably the wrong word, anyways. There are teachings/stories that are very useful and can be relevant but the laws do not apply to us*. I am going to refer you to BlueStar's post because he explains things better than I do, and I believe we are on the same page.
*Keep in mind Leviticus even, which has the most commonly quotes the famous Leviticus 18:22 regarding homosexual sex (not relationships, and as we all should know now, not all LGBT have sex) was written for Jews specifically and not NT Christians.
 

SifJar

Not a pirate
Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
6,022
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,175
Country
I get where you guys are coming from, and frankly, I don't have a complete answer for you. The dietary stuff, that is because of a vision Paul had where a sheet came down from heaven containing "unclean" animals, God told him to eat, he said it was unclean, God said "don't call anything unclean I have made clean". This symbolised that the dietary requirements no longer applied. The clothing one, I don't really know tbh. There are plenty of laws which are still valid, some which aren't, some which Jesus specifically changed (e.g. making divorce only acceptable in cases of adultery). One thing I heard once is that there are three types of laws given. Moral (e.g. last 6 commandments), which are still valid. Ritual (e.g. Jewish cleansing laws and stuff), which are generally no longer followed. And cultural (e.g. polygamy, clothing etc.), some of which are still applicable and others aren't. A piece of advice I was given was to look at the purpose of the law, and translate that to modern day society. I'm trying desperately to think of an example of that, but at this exact moment I can't I'm afraid. Sorry about that.

Obviously, I don't have all the answers. I don't know why some laws are still followed and others are completely rejected. I think Jesus summed it up best with the two commandments "love God" and "love your neighbour as yourself" (or as I hear it paraphrased often "Love God, love people, nothing else matters"). Jesus said those were the most important things. I do apologise for not being able to answer those questions you're bringing up properly.
 

Castiel

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
502
Trophies
1
Age
28
Location
Ba Sing Se
XP
469
Country
Canada
I get where you guys are coming from, and frankly, I don't have a complete answer for you. The dietary stuff, that is because of a vision Peter had where a sheet came down from heaven containing "unclean" animals, God told him to eat, he said it was unclean, God said "don't call anything unclean I have made clean". This symbolised that the dietary requirements no longer applied. The clothing one, I don't really know tbh. There are plenty of laws which are still valid, some which aren't, some which Jesus specifically changed (e.g. making divorce only acceptable in cases of adultery). One thing I heard once is that there are three types of laws given. Moral (e.g. last 6 commandments), which are still valid. Ritual (e.g. Jewish cleansing laws and stuff), which are generally no longer followed. And cultural (e.g. polygamy, clothing etc.), some of which are still applicable and others aren't. A piece of advice I was given was to look at the purpose of the law, and translate that to modern day society. I'm trying desperately to think of an example of that, but at this exact moment I can't I'm afraid. Sorry about that.

Obviously, I don't have all the answers. I don't know why some laws are still followed and others are completely rejected. I think Jesus summed it up best with the two commandments "love God" and "love your neighbour as yourself" (or as I hear it paraphrased often "Love God, love people, nothing else matters"). Jesus said those were the most important things. I do apologise for not being able to answer those questions you're bringing up properly.
The clothing one (I'm thinking head-coverings) was an issue in the OT because if women had their hair down, back then it generally meant that they were a prostitute. Christian women were told to cover their hair so that they didn't get thought of or mistaken as a prostitute. We can still apply this today because, although we can now wear head-coverings, the idea that we should be counter-cultural and not get mistaken for as a non-Christian still applies. So an example of this would be to not wear overly revealing clothing, mini-mini skirts etc.

This is the best explanation I can come up with at the moment because I am in a hurry and so my mind is moving very fast...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

koimayeul

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,362
Trophies
1
Age
44
Location
France
XP
482
Country
France
First of, if you are not a believer in any religious way but the average gbatemp gay friendly or hateful rebel youth browsing such thread with a passion for controversy, it may be wise to skip my post as my language might fly out of your radar and misinterpreted as homophobic. I'm an adult and i can take it anyway but trust me as i state i'm not trying to pick any fight or argue here, only expressing my honest feelings about the topic at hand, just like you, in a civil manner.
If you are open to disproval from other people and willing to know different opinions, and a person mature enough to at least consider them, then by all means read my post. Thanks.


For the record i am a fervent Christian myself and, as such, i feel the need to react about this concerning OP and people's posts cursing the Bible for homophobic values and the likes..

There is no need to argue and debate about the Bible. Holy Scriptures are here for us to learn and to know about the personality of the Abrahamic God, the one and only God of the three main monotheist religions of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Scriptures teaches us about God's Will for us, who to become and how to behave as His creatures. Even more for Christians, as His Children! Context is different but most of the depicted situations are still remarkably reliable in most cases. Read it, understand it, just believe it or not. Scriptures are Scriptures, and God's norms are the same today as they were yesterday, and to be tomorrow. They are not to be re-written by passing civilizations to soften or adapt with current flowing social norms, gaining more followers and believers that way is losing more people to their sins providing them with a fake peace of mind and a twisted freedom of act.

The Scriptures clearly state homosexuality to be a sin. I know it, you know it, we know it. No point twisting the Scriptures involved by interpreting and extrapolating like "David and Jonathan" suppositions, it will get nowhere but here, there is no changing Holy Scriptures. While homo-affective feelings are normal elements within any genuinely deep friendship, twisting it and taking it into the act of homosexuality is the sin.

While it is said a sin, it is just among many others such as lust, greed, theft, adultery, fornication etc.. None greater or lesser than the others sins, so there is no particular discrimination against homosexual people in the Scriptures.

About same sex "marriage", the Truth of the Scriptures teaches God's marriage law an Holy institution set by God Himself. "So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." So God gave marriage as the answer for Adam finding someone who is a suitable companion and partner, Eve, blessing forever and exclusively from other creatures their union to multiply and fill the Earth.

It teaches also homosexuality was severely punished by death in the times of Moses law's Israël Theocracy, and Jesus-Christ re-affirmed God's Will about marriage and divorce, and the complementarity of the man and the woman. "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

As for Christ's Two Great Commands, "Jesus, which is the great commandment in the law? and he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind. this is the great and first commandment. and a second one is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
It is a totally wrong idea to take the love of the neighbor as homosexuality being approved.. Love as Jesus-Christ teaches us and command us to have for the neighbor is kindness, respect, compassion and charity, not romantic or sexual passions.. !! Those are exclusive to married couple and exclusive to each other as married partners. Any sex outside the Holy institution of God's marriage law is fornication, and sex with another partner than the spouse, adultery. Exclusive to straight heterosexual married couple have i to clarify, and sadly i have to in this day and age, where homosexuality is expanding at an alarmous rate, trying hard to be seen as a viable alternative to God's Will and natural, biological ways..


With that out of the way, don't LGBT already have the same social rights than straight married couples does with civil partnership, PACS and such..? So why the offense with this man's words.. ? Don't see them LGBT going much after Muslim religion and Islamic countries lapidating homosexual people on a daily basis.. Usualy common and safer to pick on Christians and criminalising the Bible as homophobic. That's really low as most of us are tolerant and keep our arms, hearts and minds open to homosexual people just the same as for any people, even more in this day and age. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Call it hypocrisy but in most cases, the compassion is real, and the will to save such people is genuine. The choice is here and ours, at anytime, anywhere as long as we're alive and breathing it is available as a grace!! But the real deal is, do we want to be saved by conforming our whole being to God's norms, and not to our own norms or social norms.. ?

Personally i don't care that much about a person's sexuality and accept people for who they are and how they behave toward others, as long as they are consenting adults involved they are free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their home, their business. As for public and social behavior, discretion is advised, but not any more or less than straight couples rules, no obvious sexual gestures in public so no discrimination here.. Are they non-Christian people, i have no word to say. Are they Christians, my part to point out their sin and to try and save them, otherwise i would silently approve their ways and commit a sin just as much, knowing what i should do and not doing so.

For myself.. The celebration and blessing of same sex "marriage" is not a civil right by any means the society affair, while i am firmly against traditional religious wedding and God's blessing for them (that might just be my zealous, bigoted feeling as i can admit it to an extent at least) my main opposition, that i have a right to fight for as a person, is about LGBT hidden/obvious goal from their push on our traditional family unit (since they already have civil partnership and such why would they go after traditions anyway.. ? For God's blessing i think few still care) namely, same sex couples adopting children in masses using civil laws, and this is not any less than totally terrifying and unacceptable for our future.. Imagine, a new world order with no other pre-requisite than "married" couples with $$$ financially stable situations granting any right to homosexual couples to take away children from their natural, real parents as it goes on... TERRIFYING!

Please read me and understand me.. Children.. Adoption.. No woman, no cry.. One does not exist without the other.. A man and a woman are clearly made for each other as the Scriptures says, as natural conscious says... A penis fits perfectly to a vagina for a reason.. In all ways, body, mind, soul a man and a woman feeds and edify on each other.. This, is the True dynamic of our human lives and needs. Affective, spiritual, sexual needs.. New lives born from it.. Whoever denying our human genders complementarity and natural, biological purposes to pefectly fit with each other as males and females correspondances is greatly in the wrong.. Such wonders of nature should be enough to actually prove God is our Creator for non-believers, if anything!! Remember, this is how you and i were born, alive and breathing right here and now, from our parents both natural and blessed union from God's Will.. This is the Truth. There is no sexual union possible with the lack of corresponding, complementary organs. The only genuine sexual encounter is between a penis and a vagina, i will get rude and crude now if you excuse me but homosexual people can cry out all they want, it wont make rectums naturally lubricate for deviant purposes and sexual toys mighty pulsating with flesh and blood. I'm sorry to come out raw on this but it has to be said once in a while to get through and now's a suitable time.. As human beings we exist as men and women, as people with distinct and complementary organic functions and affectivities for a purpose. To rejoin and edify ourselves as a family, developing our societies, our human race. How unique and undescribably rich and deep opportunity is offered to us as a precious gift, as a grace!! Such opportunity to take part through the Holy institution of heterosexual marriage to unite our will as a blessed union with God's Will of creating and promoting new lives.. The male and the female genders are simply meant for each other, in this Holy way as far the Scriptures says and as any healthy natural conscious can only bow down to as being right, and as correct truth.. Denying our genders perfect correspondance on our factual biological reality basis is just silly, but rebellion against God's Will for our human race with pushy civil rights and laws for same sex "marriages" and adoptions is way much wrong, and a lost cause with could lead to terrible consequences such as civil wars and bloodshed.

Homosexuality is indeed a threat to our traditonal family unit and values.. Now religious marriage and we all know next comes adopting children.. No biased studies diagnostics and panels matter, as it is a moral decision. Children are HUMAN BEINGS, not statistics or things to dispose of. Financially stable situation is not enough as pre-requisite, children MUST be protected and nurtured within the traditional family unit of a father and a mother. The balance of both distinct complementary role models for both genders can not be replaced and ignored.. The well being of Children are to come first, before the desire of couples to adopt regardless of their sexuality. Your life is not even your own, your fragile breath, it is God's.. Now to dispose of the lives of children.. ? NO!!
Nothing new stating it but : Majority > Minority; Mankind > Human Being; Society > Civilian. The good of the most beats the good of the few. It is a matter of survival and social order!


That said, most of people on this forum community are not even adults, and there is so much left to know and to grow, to mature at any age of life.. But the most of our principles and aspirations take its shape during the childhood and teenage.. If you are not a believer you are free to do as you wish and will probably curse me for my opinion and my preach. Consequences of homosexuality won't make a difference either way, believe me or not.. Read ambiguous relationships, shameful feelings, genders confusion, invasive thoughts etc.. If you are a believer, you will understand my message as a selfless, clever and heartful warning against dangers and temptations of the sin of homosexuality.
If my honest, inspired Christian message can help people suffering from homosexual tendencies or even people with active homosexual behaviors, as legit and healthy as they seem, to think twice about it then i have reached my goal and saved a few, if just one person... Find help in local churches, in Bible teachings, in online communities such as here, in prayers.. Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not a genetic curse, it is just a sin and we can all be saved from our sins if we confess and recognize them as they are, with the firm will to change our ways conforming our whole being to God's norms for us to become and behave as His Children.. As for any sin, temptation is the one and only root, and the only suitable response to temptation is none other but to cut it off from its roots.. So pray, don't give up to it! None is responsible for their tendencies and feelings, but one is fully responsible for his/her actions! Flee far from the risks of being tempted and watch yourself carefully on you friendships, books and mangas readings, video games, tv shows, movies, songs, internet use etc.. No one is alone as we are all linked together as one spiritual family in Christ with no discrimination for any reason... As a fellow temper and Christian, Amen!

Edit : Link to a good FAQ about homosexuality and the Bible, with no biased answers : http://www.twopaths....mosexuality.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

Blood Fetish

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
1,100
Trophies
2
Age
44
Website
Visit site
XP
1,244
Country
United States
The balance of both distinct complementary role models for both genders can not be replaced and ignored
Typical argument. So you are in support of outlawing divorce I presume? If one of the parents leaves the picture (arrest, military, death, etc) then shall we take the children and give them to a "whole" couple?

I would love to see your citations for the studies that show a causal link between same-sex parents and poor child outcomes. Being religious necessitates the ability to accept bold claims without evidence. I, however, will not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

koimayeul

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
1,362
Trophies
1
Age
44
Location
France
XP
482
Country
France
The balance of both distinct complementary role models for both genders can not be replaced and ignored
Typical argument. So you are in support of outlawing divorce I presume? If one of the parents leaves the picture (arrest, military, death, etc) then shall we take the children and give them to a "whole" couple?

I would love to see your citations for the studies that show a causal link between same-sex parents and poor child outcomes. Being religious necessitates the ability to accept bold claims without evidence. I, however, will not.

In the case of biological parents, the death of one of them the children is legally under the responsability of the remaining biological parent.
As for same sex parents, they can not be without the use of science and adoption which is a natural consequence of homosexuality..
I'm not favorable to divorce at all if it can be avoided. Either homo-parentality or mono-parentality through adoptions to be avoided as possible if you ask me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

SifJar

Not a pirate
Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
6,022
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
1,175
Country
The fact it is a fake account does not prove it was Chick-fil-A that made the fake account. It could have been anyone who agrees with their position.

Or maybe the girl from the stock photo decided to make a Facebook for herself (they do exist as real people outside of the stock photos as I understand it...), and it just so happened she made it 8 hours before this incident. She would have looked for a few pages to "like" shortly after signing up to FB, found the page of her chicken based fast food restaurant of choice and decided to post a helpful comment.

(Yeah that second scenario is a little far fetched, I'm mostly joking. But the point is, just because it's a fake account doesn't mean it was made by Chick-fil-A)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    S @ salazarcosplay: but nintendo licensed