Christian Group has bank account removed due to "unacceptable views"

You aren't making any sense. No I don't hate homosexuals and I don't attack their character either. I have homosexual friends. What is the matter with you people. Do you just sit around trying to dream up things to accuse Christians of?

Saying they "pity" me, they feel like they are in a room with a crazy person etc? This is "criticism?" No, this is personal, this is character assassination. I guess you haven't read the thread. The remark you made was also personal the time I mentioned it and I forget what it was. It wasn't addressed to my views, my opinions, it was about me personally. Sorry I don't remember it. If I find it I'll let you know."Criticizing" homosexual acts is identifying a sin (violation of God's Law) according to the Bible, not a personal characteristic a person simply happens to dislike.I'm sorry, I DO get short-tempered when hit from so many different angles by so many different people. I need a break.

Oh come on, you know what I mean. You all know what I mean but you like playing games about it, and in fact your answer is just another example of hating me as I'm using the term. Oh well.See Message 64

Sigh.

Um, you might want to check the context and read a bit of the thread?

Same with me, Jaaman, and welcome.

You're welcome. I really don't think you are stupid, I was simply angry, and am very sorry for hurting your feelings.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-28-2005 11:51 PM

I request that you prove that I have advocated any such thing.

The one crucial thing you left out of your post is: Exactly how does Stephen Green make the lives of others unpleasant?I would point out that gay parades make the lives of many unpleasant. And unavoidable porn on the internet certainly contributes to the unpleasantness. And oh so many things I could name that intrude upon our lives in an upleasant way for some of us.It is true that I haven't read the entire Christian Voice site but what little I did read suggests that Stephen Green is simply an advocate against allowing gay rights to make our lives more unpleasant, and that his own unpleasantness to them is limited to his having a political opinion. If all political opinions that we dislike may be described in such terms I guess we could eliminate everyone's right to speech on the ground that they make somebody's life unpleasant. In any case, I don't see that he has DONE anything to deserve your accusation.

Excuse me?I don't know what you are referring to, but it SOUNDS like you MIGHT be referring to a choice to boycott an organization that supports something you don't want supported?

What kind of BS is this? The charity itself refused the donation. The "strong arm tactics" were informing the charity that it would be a "public relations disaster" to accept money from Springer. The whole thing seems quite odd to me, as I can see boycotting a business that supports public policies I object to, but I don't see the point of a charity's refusing a donation from anyone. Certainly there is more to this story than has made print. Be that as it may, blackmail??????

If it is as you say then I am strongly opposed to it. I'm for picketing and boycotting under certain circumstances but I can't see how I could support that.

Marriage is for heterosexuals. That's what it's for, always has been. It has a specific cultural function for heteros, circumscribing and protecting the NATURAL sexual function and its NATURAL offspring. Gays have no need for it except a psychological need. It's just phony twisted propaganda to call this "second-class status." They have the same civil rights as everyone else, and if in some particulars in some cases they don't I'm for legal measures to grant them, such as next-of-kin rights or whatever, but I understand those are in fact not the problem some try to make out of them. Legal adjustments, accommodations, fine, and whatever they want to do to officialize a relationship within their own communities, but not forcing a government redefinition of marriage on all the rest of the population. That isn't civil rights, that is wagging the dog.{EDIT: marriage is as much for society as a whole, a principle of social order, as it is for the involved parties. There is no benefit for society whatever from gay marriage, and blurring the definition of marriage is not a good thing from any point of view.}This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 12:06 AM

My point, which should have been clear enough as stated, is that this is not a matter of equality. Historically, cultures don't marry gays. Nero indulged in a gay marriage, I understand, if you want to point to him as a model, but staid Roman society frowned on his antics. Marriage was designed to unite heterosexuals. It simply has no application to gays whatsoever. Changing the custom of millennia is not a good idea for the health of society. This is a bogus redefinition of "equality" of the sort that got going only in very recent decades. "Freedom" and "equality" as applied to gay marriage and some other social projects dear to the Left, are an abuse of language and logic, very recent revisionism.

Oh that old bit about voluntarily and involuntarily infertile heteros. I believe we are talking about a principle here, and the principle is that marriage is for heterosexuals, who in principle are designed to conceive children, while in principle, as well as in absolute reality, gays can't. Marriage is to sanctify the heterosexual principle if you will.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-04-2005 03:52 AM