Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck



Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals. I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church, you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it; I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain. That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth. Gays in the bible belt can try to address the local and state government for their interests, but I think it is a bad policy to force as a federal amendment to make all states accept gay marriages. I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time. I think right now the biggest issue is stop the lazy people from taking advantage of the en***lements, the spending of our government, and the political campaigning that seeks to mudsling while hoping the economy will recover so they can spend more.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

I'm afraid I don't understand most of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to make is that reality is not affected by your belief or disbelief therein. It's not reality because I believe in it; it's reality independent of my belief or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals.

Your earlier posts seem to contradict that, in which you implied that gay people are "city slickers" and don't exist in "small town America".

I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church,

So far I'm with you on all counts.

you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it;

No, rather I think that it's unfair that you may have the opportunity to vote on the matter at all.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
– U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain.

Feel free to do so. You will remain free to do so as long as that First Amendment remains intact.

That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth.

That's true, but the price of our living in a cons***utional republic (and not a democracy) is that the majority cannot vote to limit the fundamental rights of a minority.

I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time.

A very strange position, if you ask me. "I oppose this amendment, but would support it if I could." Doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that you believe this matter should be up to local municipalities to decide.

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.


I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.


I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

One would think that "working for the good of the city to which you are exiled" should entail caring about the well-being of those who do not subscribe to your particular version of your particular faith.

You'll remain free (and I'll fight for you to retain this freedom, if necessary) to personally object to marriage equality on religious grounds—to speak out against it, to refrain from taking part, for your church to refrain from blessing such unions. But this isn't a matter of majority/minority. This is a matter of equal justice under the law. This is a matter of religious freedom, particularly for religious people who are gay & lesbian.