Try to keep hatred out of our Constitution.

Oh dear, jar, this isn't about "offense" this is about truth and slandering your opponents instead of respecting them. You customarily go for the personal smear and that's all the term "hatred" is, a lowlife characterization of people you disagree with.

Trust you to find the most subjective slanderous terms for your opponents. "Attack on the Constitution and civil rights" and "hatred" and accusing them of cynicism is low demagoguery. Your opponents regard their concerns as support for the Constitution which you and others on the left are tearing apart, and their concerns are entirely for the protection of the meaning of marriage throughout history. Fairness obliges you to present their views objectively. But I don't think you know what the term means. Your views are so far from Christian you aren't even a cult.Your demagoguery is beyond disgusting. Hatred and bigotry? That's just your narrowminded subjectivist slander of your opponents. There's something so low about attacking what you impute to your opponents' inner life, making it up, daring to label what others feel as if you saw into their hearts and then daring to condemn it as if you were God, words can't capture it.Again, these people you are slandering consider themselves to be defending the true meaning of the Constitution and the wellbeing of society, and the only right way of arguing your point with them is to start from that basic respect for their intelligence and their genuine good intentions.Otherwise you are just contributing to the polarization of this country, ripping it apart, which is all the left has been doing for years now.Your tactics are despicable.

I certainly hope and believe so.

Here, read what I just wrote on the thread about "Christian Nationalism"http://EvC Forum: christian nationalism -->EvC Forum: christian nationalism

quote:

---

Freedom never meant that anyone could do what he liked. That is one way the idea is seriously distorted these days. It never meant having the right to demand some special status from the government, the right to force the majority to accord you a status you believe you should have, the right to anything more than protection of your life and liberty to live as you choose -- and even then, only within the criminal law and community standards.

​

When you get into demanding that the historic definition of marriage be altered to suit your tiny minority lifestyle and falsify its clear meaning over the millennia you have left the domain of natural rights and freedoms. Gay marriage by the way isn't even a specially Christian cause. It may be Christians who most feel the meaning of it in this day and age, but no society ever considered such a thing in the past, no pagan society, no other religion, nobody at all ever. It is insane to treat it as a right and freedom. Common sense ought to tell all you nonChristians this. But something is terribly twisted in the meaning of these fundamentals these days so that you get all up in arms against this enemy you've concocted, a false enemy of a false notion of rights and freedoms.

---

You are calling people bigots who are defending something as old as history and as broad as all cultures on earth in all times, that ought to be obvious and commonsensical to any sane person. How dare you. The idea of gay marriage and even of some special category called gay rights is a perversion of the very concept of rights and freedoms.Marriage has a specific historic meaning of uniting heterosexuals, implying the possibility of children by that union, such that extending it to gays who can't produce children makes a travesty of it and violates it in its very essence.You misuse, distort, twist, devalue, demean, trash, destroy, the very meaning of such terms as "basic human rights" and "equal protection under the law."You are the intolerant one. Intolerant of all sanity and righteousness and common sense in what a healthy society and rational government require.

You guys are so confused, so many of you, so many that the whole nation may come under the sway of your confusion and we'll just lose all the work of the great thinkers of the past. Sad. There are many besides Christians who support the amendment to prohibit gay marriage. No. This is the way so many people think nowadays, as if one's religious beliefs were to disenfranchise us from taking part in the life of the nation. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the meaning of religious freedom, specifically the first amendment. The original intent of our Constitution is twisted to mean exactly the opposite, and you state it so innocently, having learned it from people who have been malevolently turning it upside down for decades. The nation is surely doomed since so many now think in such twisted terms. Yes, they are not allowed to stop us from exercising our religion in the public sphere. That's what that means. How utterly twisted. WE are the ones whose rights are protected by the First Amendment. WE are the ones who have supposedly been guaranteed the right to the free practise of our religion and the exercise of our religious principles in the body politic. You are turning it upside down and against the very people it was meant to protect, violating the actual intent of the amendment. How this twisted thing happened is a wonder to contemplate.However, the definition of marriage does not require the Bible. It is as old as history and as broad as all cultures on earth. The Bible happens to define it clearly enough, and this nation is still predominantly Bible-believing enough, for it to be an important part of the argument against gay marriage, yes. And again, the First Amendment guarantees US the freedom to argue from the Bible. Oh don't be ridiculous. Think please. Nobody is saying they can't live as they please. What is argued is that they may not impose on the society a whole a NEW definition of marriagen that never before existed on earth, and that they are not entitled to special rights from the government. They have the same rights as everyone else in respect to those things. This is that same crazy idea that by refusing to grant some brand new twisted definition of marriage we are interfering with somebody's constititional rights. This is insanity. I don't know how you can even think the thought with a straight face. Insane idea. Subjugate? This is sheer raving lunacy. And the left actually teaches this perversion. You have a totally leftist perverted revisionist idea of what rights and freedoms have always meant in this culture. It is those who believe as you do who are taking away the true rights and freedoms the founders supposedly gave us, and substituting this false new definition. Out of ignorance mostly. Malevolence in some cases. The trashing of the idea of marriage. Destroying its meaning for future generations. Making a travesty of it. Forcing people who are offended by homosexuality to support it as if it were a normal way of life.

No, marriage is not an individual thing, it's a cultural thing, it's something the whole culture participates in in a sense. If it didn't there would be no need for marriage at all because it is to define a couple within the culture. This is not about individual marriages. This isn't about YOUR marriage or anybody's marriage. This is about the meaning of a cultural institution.

Effective at what?Do you really think that those who are in favor of gay marriage outnumber those who aren't?

So much for the relevance of "studies."

Your image of me is really funny. Wild imagination there. And such emotional excess in response to your own invention there too.Such research obviously is only as good as its definitions, which are only as good as the ability of the researchers to conceptualize what they are looking for. Education can't give one that ability. And why would scientists have any special native ability to be able to do this anyway? More likely they have less, judging by the complete inability of those of the scientific persuasion to understand the first thing anybody on the other side of the divide has to say at EvC for instance. I've seen some really laughable definitions of "fundamentalism" for instance.

No, I believe I've called the policy crazy, not the people, and in any case it's a generic term, unlike imputing an actual emotion to a person. When you attribute "hate" to somebody that's a slam on the person of the lowest kind, and has nothing to do with the ideas we are discussing. Edit: What makes it so despicable is that it is false, there is no hatrede involved, it just functions to deny the reasons for objecting to gay marriage. Just demagoguery, an appeal to emotion, hatred of this supposed hatred, which is just a big fat lie, and discredits the argument without even addressing it. Really despicable this PC formula and how everybody buys into it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, TL, I'm very tempted to answer your opponents for you, but I'd really rather see your answer. I certainly agree with you on this one, though I'm hardly on your side on many things you've said.

What are you going to do when Christians absolutely refuse to obey laws forcing them to accept homosexuals* in their churches and communities?Edit: * That is, unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. Repentant homosexuals struggling with it for the sake of Christ are as welcome as all repentant sinners struggling with sin.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Homosexual behavior is sin, and Christians are to put ALL sin out of our lives, of whatever kind. Those who consider themselves homosexuals unable to change, if they are willing to put all homosexual behavior out of their lives, are always welcome in Christian communities.

Homophobia is a purely political category. It doesn't exist. The term originated in psychoanalysis in the case histories of some kinds of paranoia if I recall correctly, and was never applied to normal people until along came the Marxist inspired Gay Liberationists and made it part of their propaganda campaign, and now it's regurgitated PC cant.Or, if you want, let's say it exists in normal people. In which case it is a normal reaction to a perverted condition.Homosexuals often can't help it. There is no Christian hatred of people who find themselves with such feelings. But they are no different from anybody else with strong proclivities to various sins. If they want to practice them that's their business, but they have no right to make the rest of us call it good, right, or normal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, but sin is sin and those groups deny Christ who say it isn't. As I said, if people want to practice their sin that's their business, but no genuine Christian group should be required to accept them.Tolerance always meant to put up with, to be kind to, but it always implied disagreement, or what would be the point of the term anyway? We tolerate those we disagree with. That's civilized. Being forced to accept views we disagree with is what is uncivilized.Edit: We are being asked to agree with the current PC cant that homosexuality is normal, right and good, and what's intolerant is the attitude that calls us haters because we will not agree with this. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.