One more thing Bodecea, I am on the record here in this thread and many others over the last several years as to my belief that the government should get out of the marriage business completely and state marriages should be civil unions and apply to not only the homosexual community, but the straight community as well. That the religiuos rite of marriage should remain the realm of the church AND that any church that chose to marry homosexual couples should be allowed to do so.
And you and I have discussed that very fact several times.
I can understand why CurveLight would be unaware of my stance and have a problem with what I say, but since you and I have discussed this before, I fail to understand why you are taking issue with what I have said here.
Immie
Your rhetoric bounces across several lines blurring your position. If you are going to claim some gay activists will not rest until they can force all churches to marry gays then you need to be extremely clear and not leave room for misunderstandings. It would also be helpful to cite evidence and if you can't then that is a good sign the fringe groups you are referencing are so inconsequential it is a moot point and should be left alone. I would suggest doing a consistency check for how you frame responses but hey, as many have graciously pointed out, I'm a fucktard moron so take that advice with a huge grain of salt.
I did cite evidence... the civil rights movement for one. You know... History repeats itself. I fully believe that it will here. Maybe not so far as to get the Catholic Church to offer marriage to homosexuals or to ordain them, after all, they still wont give priests the right to marry women, why would they allow homosexuals the rite of marriage? But, maybe someday they wont have to pretend to be something they are not. Even better, maybe Christians will some day see them as sinners in need of a savior as well!
Also, your statement about my point being, "some gay activists will not rest until they can force all churches to marry gays", is not the message I have been trying to bring across. The word "force", is definitely not what I have been attempting to portray although, if circumstances were right maybe some would attempt that tact. Force is too strong of a word. Coax would be a little closer. I don't believe the activist would necessarily use force per se, but rather bring about their desires using methods of persuasion. On the other hand, given a political climate that was ripe for them, "forcing" churches through use of the legal system would not be out of the question. I'd use it if my cause (say pro-life) could pull it off, why wouldn't the homosexual community?
The states adopting civil unions is a step in that direction. If the homosexual community can bring moderate members of society to see them as "normal" human beings then they have taken a step towards acceptance. Enough steps and a religious ceremony in a real church (not saying that those churches that have opened the door to them already are not "real" churches) might not be out of the question. That is all I have really been trying to say.
I have to say that I can understand your feelings that I
cross several lines and blur my position and for that I apologize. Sometimes, I confuse myself on my position. You see, I am a Christian and to make things worse, I consider myself to be a conservative Christian. I am supposed to hate gay people... or so I am told. I am supposed to be opposed to gay marriage... again that is what I am told even stating that I support the idea of civil unions for straights and gays and getting the state out of the marriage business is heresy to some of my friends. I am supposed to condemn any woman that would think about let alone have an abortion, but I just can't do that and stick to my belief that without God's Grace, I have no hope myself.
There are many things that I am supposed to be and do simply because I am a conservative Christian. I'm not supposed to want to help the poor or the hungry, because I am supposed to be rich and arrogant... well, some would call me arrogant, few would call me rich, yet, I support the idea behind Welfare and Social Security although I believe that both programs need some major help.
Consistency? Sorry, not going to find that from me. I tend to jump over the center line too often.
Did I ever call you a "fucktard moron"? No, I didn't because I don't use the first word in that phrase as it is imbecilic. You and I had one real disagreement but I know I didn't call you a "fucktard moron". Maybe a moron, but never fucktard. I know that I said something about you calling everyone else names or just plain attacking them for no reason, but it seems to me that most people begin posting on these sites with guns blazing and then when they get to know people a little better they tend to moderate their, "hatred" especially their hatred of the dreaded "other side". I know it happened to me and I see you moderating a bit as well.
I pray you don't find that to be an insult as it is not at all intended to be.
Immie
