OK Rep states homosexual agenda destroying nation

[nebula]

And there is a difference between being homophobic and stating that homosexuality is sin. The man from your link displays this difference very effectively, although I take issue with his assertion that acceptance of homosexuality in an area is correlated with decrease in religious freedom and free speech.

Thank-you for watching the video.

OK, I have a couple of questions:

1) If laws were proposed to encourage behavior and actions that you believe are abominable to God (consider something specifically you feel this way about), would you fight against them or let society do as it will? Even more, if you believed this behavior was being crammed down your throat, would you remain silent about it or resist?

2) What do you think about what happened to the Boy Scouts?

[WillingToDie]

And there is a difference between being homophobic and stating that homosexuality is sin. The man from your link displays this difference very effectively, although I take issue with his assertion that acceptance of homosexuality in an area is correlated with decrease in religious freedom and free speech.

Thank-you for watching the video.

OK, I have a couple of questions:

1) If laws were proposed to encourage behavior and actions that you believe are abominable to God (consider something specifically you feel this way about), would you fight against them or let society do as it will? Even more, if you believed this behavior was being crammed down your throat, would you remain silent about it or resist?

2) What do you think about what happened to the Boy Scouts?

1)How is allowing for, say, a civil union encouraging their behavior? It will happen, Civil Union or no Civil Union, so it really doesn't make a difference to non-homosexuals. That said, I can understand your point, but why all the focus on outlawing homosexuality? Why not put ore effort into outlawing adultery, which is arguably a great threat than homosexuality, since, if for no other reason, more people are practicing adultery than there are practicing homosexuals.

1)I don't remember hearing about the boyscouts in the audio clip, but if you're referring to the controversy that sprung up not too long ago, they're a private organization, and while I don't agree with their decision, they have the right to make that decision.

[nebula]

OK, I have a couple of questions:

1) If laws were proposed to encourage behavior and actions that you believe are abominable to God (consider something specifically you feel this way about), would you fight against them or let society do as it will? Even more, if you believed this behavior was being crammed down your throat, would you remain silent about it or resist?

2) What do you think about what happened to the Boy Scouts?

1)How is allowing for, say, a civil union encouraging their behavior? It will happen, Civil Union or no Civil Union, so it really doesn't make a difference to non-homosexuals. That said, I can understand your point, but why all the focus on outlawing homosexuality? Why not put ore effort into outlawing adultery, which is arguably a great threat than homosexuality, since, if for no other reason, more people are practicing adultery than there are practicing homosexuals.

With all due respect, WTD, this response does not answer the question.

I am asking what how you would respond to legislation you believed was abominable to God.

1)I don't remember hearing about the boyscouts in the audio clip, but if you're referring to the controversy that sprung up not too long ago, they're a private organization, and while I don't agree with their decision, they have the right to make that decision.

He mentioned that as a part of the homosexual agenda's attempt to silence by intimidation. It came just after what he said about Archi Bunker. Did you hear that part?

[WillingToDie]

OK, I have a couple of questions:

1) If laws were proposed to encourage behavior and actions that you believe are abominable to God (consider something specifically you feel this way about), would you fight against them or let society do as it will? Even more, if you believed this behavior was being crammed down your throat, would you remain silent about it or resist?

2) What do you think about what happened to the Boy Scouts?

1)How is allowing for, say, a civil union encouraging their behavior? It will happen, Civil Union or no Civil Union, so it really doesn't make a difference to non-homosexuals. That said, I can understand your point, but why all the focus on outlawing homosexuality? Why not put ore effort into outlawing adultery, which is arguably a great threat than homosexuality, since, if for no other reason, more people are practicing adultery than there are practicing homosexuals.

With all due respect, WTD, this response does not answer the question.

I am asking what how you would respond to legislation you believed was abominable to God.

1)I don't remember hearing about the boyscouts in the audio clip, but if you're referring to the controversy that sprung up not too long ago, they're a private organization, and while I don't agree with their decision, they have the right to make that decision.

He mentioned that as a part of the homosexual agenda's attempt to silence by intimidation. It came just after what he said about Archi Bunker. Did you hear that part?

1)OK, fair enough. I would oppose legislation that I felt to be an abomination to God. However, there isn't much that the country could legislate that I would deem an abomination to God.

2)I remember the bit about Archie Bunker. I'm too young to have ever seen the show, but I've heard about the character. I think we do a good enough job of creating our own Archie Bunker by allowing people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "speak" for us.

[nebula]

1)OK, fair enough. I would oppose legislation that I felt to be an abomination to God.

Thank-you.

Now consider this: what do you think of other people opposing legislation that they consider an abomination to God? Please no arguments for why something is or isn't in your opinion, but plain and simple - are you opposed to other people acting on their convictions in this way - even if you do not agree with their convictions?

2)I remember the bit about Archie Bunker. I'm too young to have ever seen the show, but I've heard about the character.

Imagine a politically conservative version of Homer Simpson, only with a short temper. That was Archie Bunker.

I think we do a good enough job of creating our own Archie Bunker by allowing people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "speak" for us.

Diverting the argument again?

The speaker in the radio clip, who is a former homosexual, pointed out the intimidation tactics used by homosexual activists to change society via silencing any opposition voices. I mentioned the Archie Bunker bit to refer you to when he talked about the Boy Scouts. The homosexual activists tried to force the Boy Scouts to change their policy with regards to homosexuality (they won't let it in their troops) through law suits, encouraging supporting organizations to drop their funding, forbidding them from meeting in certain buildings, etc.

Is this freedom?

[The Lorax]

Just saw this thread. What an idiotic woman, and it doesn't help that she makes these claims while representing a state that suffered one of the worst terrorist attacks ever on US soil. Wow.

[WillingToDie]

1)OK, fair enough. I would oppose legislation that I felt to be an abomination to God.

Thank-you.

Now consider this: what do you think of other people opposing legislation that they consider an abomination to God? Please no arguments for why something is or isn't in your opinion, but plain and simple - are you opposed to other people acting on their convictions in this way - even if you do not agree with their convictions?

2)I remember the bit about Archie Bunker. I'm too young to have ever seen the show, but I've heard about the character.

Imagine a politically conservative version of Homer Simpson, only with a short temper. That was Archie Bunker.

I think we do a good enough job of creating our own Archie Bunker by allowing people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "speak" for us.

Diverting the argument again?

The speaker in the radio clip, who is a former homosexual, pointed out the intimidation tactics used by homosexual activists to change society via silencing any opposition voices. I mentioned the Archie Bunker bit to refer you to when he talked about the Boy Scouts. The homosexual activists tried to force the Boy Scouts to change their policy with regards to homosexuality (they won't let it in their troops) through law suits, encouraging supporting organizations to drop their funding, forbidding them from meeting in certain buildings, etc.

Is this freedom?

1)Of course I wouldn't oppose someone acting on their convictions

2)OK

3)BSA are certainly free to make choices about who or who is not allowed in their organization. However, people are also free to protest those choices in any way they see fit. Freedom runs both ways.

And I'm not meaning to divert the argument, I'm trying to predict where the argument will go. Call it a defensive measure.

[nebula]

1)Of course I wouldn't oppose someone acting on their convictions

So then, you are OK with us protesting Civil Unions for this reason?

And I'm not meaning to divert the argument, I'm trying to predict where the argument will go. Call it a defensive measure.

touche

[chirpy]

just trying to figure this conversation out ... WTD is homosexuality a sin?

[WillingToDie]

1)Of course I wouldn't oppose someone acting on their convictions

So then, you are OK with us protesting Civil Unions for this reason?

Of course, you can protest anything you want. Free country.

just trying to figure this conversation out ... WTD is homosexuality a sin?

Like I said beforehand, I've suspended judgment on the issue.