| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Criticized for Gay Rights Stance | |
|
||
| Time: 01:11 EST/06:11 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp., one of the earliest companies to extend benefits to gay employees, now finds itself in the crosshairs of angry activists for rescinding support for gay rights legislation in its home state. Critics say the world's No. 1 software maker caved to pressure from an NFL linebacker-turned-local pastor who had threatened to launch a nationwide boycott, and tried to tiptoe away from a bill it had previously supported. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 180 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:10:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.206.248.144) at 4/28/2005 8:12:17 AM |
|
#1 Whilst I can understand your anger towards certain groups, especially since those groups pretend to be all loving and understanding, you're just giving those groups more ammo with some of the comments you made, just be aware of that.
#2 "narrow minded hatefilled anti religious person" Perhaps he's just reacting to the even more narrow minded hatefilled (and hate spreading) religious people that hate gays? It doesn't necessarily make it right, but I believe it's important to try and understand where a person is coming from to be able to fully appreciate their actions. Perhaps he wouldn't have such strong feelings towards those religious people if they didn't have such strong feelings towards him, brought on by fear or a general lack of understanding or "god" knows what. #3 "There are a lot of us out there in the world" What's quantity have to do with it? There are a lot of people that believe in Scientology but I'm fairly certain you won't have too many nice words to say about that particular 'ology. And although Christianity is the world's largest religion, only 30% of the world follow it! "Please be aware that not all christians/catholics and other religions see things that way, so don't paint us with the same brush." Like I mentioned earlier, I think it's more of a response than anything else, can you really blame him though given the views of those certain groups? "And I am suprised AW allowed these NEO Facist I hate christians/catholics, words on this forum, but now days nothing surprises me." He's not allowed to express his opinions/views on Christianity, but catholics/christians are allowed to express their hatred towards gays? You're right, nothing should suprise you! |
| #2 By 12071 (203.206.248.144) at 4/28/2005 8:23:37 AM |
|
"Last week, the measure failed in Washington state's Senate by a single vote."
Not sure why others are being criticised given it failed by a single vote! "even though he believes gays don't belong in the same group as African Americans and other minorities who have fought for equal rights." Ahh can you feel the love, understanding and compassion from pastor Hutcherson! Now I don't want to take anything away from African Americans - they have fought for hundreds of years to try and get equal rights, but people are either equal or they're not - let's not add categories of discrimination here. And then people like ghosty12 wonder why people have such strong views back at those catholics/christians! |
| #3 By 6859 (206.156.242.39) at 4/28/2005 9:32:22 AM |
|
Hate is a slippery slope. Suffice it to say that lumping #1's post in with the haters out there is similar to saying that the blacks in this country, wo became angry at the inequality, are no better than the Klan--a kind of statement that you all should stay away from.
The best way to fight religious intolerance is with their own words. In Leviticus is where is the issue, yet few know that the original term--incorrectly translated--was not "abomination" but "ritualistically unclean". It becomes clear that there is more than one author of the text in question. Author "A" writes that it's unclean; author "B" amends that making it a punishable offense. Later translators work from that "intent" and change "unclean" to "abomination." I'd seriously ask the pastor if he'd ever eaten shellfish: an offense punishable (and equal, by the way) to homosexuality according to Leviticus. Does he allow women to speak in his church? If so, he's not following the word as written. (1 Cor.14:34-36) And finally, who are they to judge when it is for God alone? (Romans 2:1) -- note, by making judgments they condemn themselves to an equal crime, it is for God alone to judge good from evil in this manner. In other words: flip 'em the bird and get on with your life. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/28/2005 12:06:09 PM |
|
Microsoft should have known you can't negotiate with whackadoodles. These wingnuts who complain that MS isn't anti-gay enough... they probably don't even know how to use a computer much less tie their own shoestrings. Bah, what are they going to boycott? Windows Klan edition? There isn't such a thing.
Whatever. If they want to live in the 12th century then let 'em. But they aren't a threat unless you let them be. Stand up and show some gumption, Microsoft. |
| #5 By 143 (68.248.159.149) at 4/28/2005 1:45:21 PM |
|
Maybe I'm reading a different black Bible book but, people have to go to God NOT the other way?
Religious values and Corporate values really don't mix. Religious values is Faith on to God. Corporate values is Profit at all costs. The last thing you want in Church is greed. The last thing you want in The Board Room is a Prophet. |
| #6 By 143 (65.221.158.226) at 4/28/2005 5:43:17 PM |
|
Neo-Cons and common sense just don't work together.
That's why there's separation of Church and State. Look at all the Boy Poking being covered up by the Church! Do you want Kid Pokers making Law? "I don't" |
| #7 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 4/28/2005 6:25:22 PM |
|
After hearing Steve Too's rants, I am four square behind him (well - er . . . not in the bibilical sense - if you get my drift!).
I have never read a more tolerant and kind person of other people's beliefs, mores and cultures, as this poster. I am going to write Bill as soon as I post this and tell him what a neanderthal his is for not backing, er . . . supporting this person's "special" law that BLTs - sorry - GBLTs be afforded the same rights as us God fearing, Christian, Republicans . . . rant rant rant . . . blah blah blah . . . So, there! |
| #8 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 4/28/2005 6:38:12 PM |
|
Gentlemen – and I use the word advisedly; what does this have to do with Microsoft? Microsoft is a business; a business that sells software. I suspect that their new stance is to neither support nor work against gay rights issues. This is a reasonable position.
In the United States, political causes are generally championed by those who stand to gain from the political movement as envisioned in the Federalist Papers. Gay rights activists have as much right to do this as the Church. I understand that some see this process differently but it is what makes America great. No one (with the possible exception of the Supreme Court) can unilaterally change the law. The problem in the gay rights debate is that both sides see this as essentially a “god given rights” issue. In that sense neither side is willing to compromise, and this becomes a non-negotiable debate. I predict the battle will be as protracted and as intransigent as the Arab-Israeli conflict with similar religious overtones. The battle line have been drawn. |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/28/2005 8:13:13 PM |
|
Goodness... AW must have known what would happen when they posted this, but anyhow....
I have mixed feelings on this.... I don't know the details of this law (the hype around the case seems to have buried details of the actual law), but as far as discrimination regarding jobs, etc., it becomes a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, you have a gay person wanting a job. But what if the potential employer is a church, and the position is a minister? Can the church not discriminate according to its sincerely held religious beliefs? You can take whatever issue you want with the particular church's beliefs, but do they not still have the right to those beliefs? In other words, which Constitutional right wins here? Regarding another point in the article... personally, I'm kind of grossed out by things like Gay Days at Disney, etc.--and I would be equally disgusted by "Straight-Sex Days!!" at Disney. If I had kids, I'd be a bit upset to pay Disney's park entrance fees for my whole family only to have my young son/daughter indoctrinated with some sexual agenda, whether gay or straight. Let the youth have their innocence (don't get me wrong, I'm not saying no to sex ed...), and have fun with Mickey and Donald and Minnie and Goofy without being to subjected to some overtly sexual agenda. Steve Too... interesting the things you claim as fact in both #1 and #12, particularly when you appeal to science. For what it's worth: It’s a fact that 1 in 10 people are gay. Incorrect. It's a good political tactic (akin to a peacock spreading its feathers to intimidate), but all major research studies conducted in the past few years show that homosexuals account for 2-3% of the population. Yes, your statements are objectionable emotionally and logically, but unlike Chris Kabuki, I don't believe there is any excuse for it, just as there is no excuse for hate-filled anti-gay rhetoric. Nothing positive happens for the cause with that approach. Rather, look to the example of leaders like Martin Luther King--fighting for the cause with rational, determined, eloquent, and uniting speech and demeanor, not fighting against the people of the other side. After all, are you fighting for gay rights, or fighting against Christians, some (not all) of whom are hate-filled against gays? |
| #10 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 4/28/2005 9:26:20 PM |
|
#11 - Yes... Obviously my problem is that I'm not tolerant enough. I should be more tolerant of bigotry and hatred and medieval aged thinking. Hey, maybe we all should have been more tolerant of Fascism, then people would never have had to suffer through WW II. Sheesh.
#18 - "Steve, I hope you fight just as hard for the right of single people to get benefits as you do for gay people to get benefits. " Uhh, yeah. Clearly there is a bias against single people, because they don't get the same health benefits as couples. Man that sounds as stupid as my argument against the Government bias against Single People without Kids. I ought to be able to declare my cats as dependents, damnit! I hope you fight as hard to get my cats declared as dependents as you fight against critical thinking skills. Sheesh. Back to the 12th century with you. |
| #11 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2005 12:10:50 AM |
|
It's sad that Steve Too is so confused, especially about Religion.
First, you're spitting at the wrong section of Christianity. Catholics are actually very tolerant of Gays (in fact, when the priesthood was suffering in the 60's after the 'sexual revolution', Gays were welcomed. A controversial practice that led to the disaster of the child moslestations. Not all gays are pedophiles, but most pedophiles are gay. Your enemy is the fundy protestants who take literalistic interpretations of the Bible (i.e. "7 days" is not a literay technique, it really means 7 24-hour periods -- Catholics believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are based on the truth, but written so the audience of the time could understand because Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1 if you have a literalistic interpretation). Also, Leviticus is full of laws that says things like a woman who disrespects her husband should be stoned. Leviticus is not a good judge of what God thinks on Homosexuality. The New Testament, however is. Jesus clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman -- implicitly stating that heterosexuality is the norm. Homosexuality is a sin like most other sins. The bad thing about homosexuality is not the act itself, but the addicition to sex that it usually brings on. At least, that's what Catholics believe. Catholics welcome homosexuals and treat them like everyone else: Sinners in need of God's graces. As far as this mythical "separation of Church and state" and how religion and politics don't mix: I agree that FUNDAMENTAL/RADICAL religion and state don't mix, but like it or not, Western Civilization is built upon Judeo-Christian values and were it not for the mixing of Church and State, we would not be where we are today. Yes, there are terribly and horrific things in the Church's past (when it was corrupted by evil people), but the goodness prevailed and here we are today. "Separation of Church and State" is a scam pulled on the US Supreme Court by the radical secularists in the ACLU who want to outlaw all religion (or give it 2nd-class status as opposed to equal status). They contorted and misrepresented the intent of Jefferson's comments on the matter. Jefferson wrote his letters talking about the "Wall" that we always hear about in reply to concerned Christian ministers who were sensing an alarming trend towards secularism and anti-religion in the US Government. He wrote back to tell them that there would be a wall preventing the GOVERNMENT from INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF THE RELIGIOUS, not the other way around. Jefferson, like all the Founding Fathers, knew that Judeo-Christian values were at the cornerstone of our government and indeed our society and that they could not be denied or ignored. Having said that, there should be equal room for all religions in our government. The ACLU wants to make it where Government ignores and even punishes religious involvement. The Cathoilc church and most protestant groups want to make religious institutions equal with other secular institutions in terms of funding, influence, etc. Some fundamentalist protestants want to take over the government and bend it towards their will. I agree, this is wrong and that's where the line should be drawn. |
| #12 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2005 12:14:02 AM |
|
One more thing, #17:
The Gay Agenda (which has little to do with basic homosexuality, most homosexuals I know are not radicals and are quite content with their rights and freedoms as they are) doesn't have anything to homosexuals and everything to do with piling on more secularism on our Government in conjunction with the ACLU (who also fights for NAMBLA - The National Man-Boy Love Association -- and fights for the release and de-listing of convicted child molestors, etc). The Agenda doesn't want Equal Rights (they have that already, name one thing a homosexual male cannot do that I, a heterosexual man can), they want EXTRA rights and SPECIAL privileges that ONLY homosexual people will have. Where is the equality in that? |
| #13 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/29/2005 12:16:41 AM |
|
Ok, tell you what...
You can have gay marriage (even though it's a special/targeted/non-universal right that no one else in the US has) if we end abortion and the death penalty, OK? :) |
| #14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/29/2005 2:07:14 AM |
|
Ok, #1, Asserts there is no God.
So let's accept that for the moment as being true - and examine the behavior Steve Too asserts is normal - again, I remind each that in this argument there is no God, and only science and nature... Let us take two pigs. They are male pigs. These two male pigs choose not to engage in sexual acts with female pigs and work to create a climate where all pigs regardless of sex, only engage in sexual behaviors with other pigs of the same sex. The two pigs have no children - ever. The pigs succeed in convincing nearly all other pigs that they should only engage in sexual relations with pigs of the same sex. The pigs age. The pigs die - childless. Very soon, there are no more pigs at all. There are never enough piglets and the pigs went extinct. I ask you - each of you...if there is no God and there is only science and nature, would nature long sustain any living species that exhibited any behavior that contributed to its own destruction? A behavior, which is what sexual activity "is" is not a benign characteristic such as the color of one's skin, eyes, or hair color. It is based upon a choice and a series of choices. I ask again, would nature produce any specie that exhibited a behavior that would contribute to its destruction? Would nature allow such an evolution, which was not flawed if it resulted in the extinction of a species? And finally I ask, might God, provided he exists, create species capable of choices - even when those choices are destructive? If there is no God, the only logical reason there might exist a choice resulting in one's own destruction, then there is only science and nature and in such case as it would produce any specie which destroyed itself, then it would be flawed - as flawed as it must be, in order to produce the very mutations evolution depends upon - some of which might be so severe as to result in extinction. If both of these beliefs are true, then there must be a God - a creator of all things, because nature cannot produce a choice - it does not decide based upon any influence. What Steve Too is asking for is tolerance of a choice which manifests itself in a behavior, but according to the rules and laws of nature - a nature far less forgiving than the God whose existence he denies and the creation that he inspires. One cannot assert the perfect existence of a natural science which results in an intentionally unsuccessful species. Such a contradiction would not support any life - much less the abundance and diversity which surround us. Only a loving and tolerant God would do that just as he desires for us to be. Microsoft is wrong - but not for abstaining. It is wrong because it took no stand at all. |
| #15 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 4/29/2005 2:20:08 AM |
|
Interestingly, the ACLU also defended an anti-abortion terrorist organization for their Hit List against doctors.
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=13583&c=227 Now obviously this is a cause that daz can get fully behind. Which means, the problem isn't with the ACLU. They are consistent, they defend freedom of speech even if the speaker is the most vile person on earth. daz only defends free speech for people he agrees with. That's the fundamental problem here, and it's why daz is out of touch with American values, most notably those rights enshrined in the Constitution. |
| #16 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 4/29/2005 2:25:25 AM |
|
lketchum's argument has one major flaw. Homosexuality isn't a choice.
Actually looking at it more closely, it has several logical flaws. But then that's because he formulated a hypothesis, and is now trying to work backwards to justify it. |
| #17 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 4/29/2005 2:34:36 AM |
|
#23 - We've been trying to reduce the number of abortions for years now.
It's hard to believe, but by denying sex education and knowledge of contraceptives to children, and trying to keep teen children out of poverty, Republicans are in effect guaranteeing unwanted pregnancies which result in abortions. :-( We were actually making fairly good progress too, abortion rates had been on the decline right up until 2001. Now abortion rates are on the rise. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2851283 It's possible, I suppose, that Republicans just really love abortion. |
| #18 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/29/2005 2:42:19 AM |
|
Soda, you just fell into the very trap that many would like....
"Homosexuality isn't a choice..." if it isn't then it occurs as what? - a result of a natural process and one which results in no offspring. It must therefore be a flaw in the natural order of things and an aberration within evolutionary processes - something nature does not reward. It cannot be both natural and consistent with the survival of a species. It must therefore be a choice - something natural processes cannot make. If not so resultant, then from where does such a behavior have its origins if not in a choice? Where? |
| #19 By 12071 (203.206.248.144) at 4/29/2005 6:46:25 AM |
|
#12 "God makes gay people"
That all depends on whether or not you believe in god =) My parents made me, not god. #21 "Leviticus is not a good judge of what God thinks on Homosexuality. The New Testament, however is." Says who? you? Perhaps you want to read what Cthulhu wrote, I'm curious to know what makes you the authority on which bits are important and which bits can be ignored. Oh that's right, you're no authority on it, it just doesn't suit your argument so you'll ignore it and choose to use something else that will support your argument. #22 "name one thing a homosexual male cannot do that I, a heterosexual man can" Depending on which state he happens to be, he cannot get married. #24 "The pigs succeed in convincing nearly all other pigs that they should only engage in sexual relations with pigs of the same sex" Up to this point you at least seemed like a reasonable person. What kind of irrelevant example is this? I'm sorry, where do you live where you have gays trying to convince you that you too should give it a go? I live in a city that has a relatively open attitude towards gays and lesbians and I have not once even been approached by anyone trying to convince me to turn gay! On the other hand I've been approached numerous times by different religious people trying to "show me the light" and "bring Jesus into my life" and convincing me to join their religion (which of course is the correct religion as all the rest are wrong!). So where the hell do you live? "I ask you - each of you...if there is no God and there is only science and nature, would nature long sustain any living species that exhibited any behavior that contributed to its own destruction?" Not where YOU live obviously! Nature where you live tries to convert everyone to the Good Word. Everywhere else nature does just fine with many creatures having small percentages of homosexual tendencies, nature even handles creatures that change sex too. "It is based upon a choice and a series of choices. " Can you provide proof that sexuality is simply a choice? I'm not disagreeing that choice comes into it to some point but I'd say that you're born with a default "choice" if you like, which is why many homosexuals can try to fit into the "norm" but they aren't happy. It's not like they choose not to be happy - why would anyone choose not to be happy? Perhaps things are different where you live! "both of these beliefs are true, then there must be a God - a creator of all things, because nature cannot produce a choice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Rhetorical_use "Only a loving and tolerant God would do that just as he desires for us to be." Believe me, it's quite obvious on which side of the fence you sit on in this discussion. |
| #20 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/29/2005 10:46:14 AM |
|
Homosexuality isn't a choice.
This is still hotly debated, and hardly proven as fact. The genetic argument is flawed in many ways, not the least of which being that we are just beginning to understand the broad complexity of genetics. Besides that, there also have been studies pointing to a "genetic link" to alcoholism... so should we give alcoholics protected-class status? Should our children be taught that alcoholics are simply following a different lifestyle, over which they have no choice? So much of the debate seems to fall on the side of the rights of homosexuals. But there is little legitimate debate or even acknowledgment of the other side of this debate--they're simply dismissed as "religious far-right wackos." I'll be the first to admit that there are some wackos on the far-right (and in my mind, in rallying their flock for a political fight, they are not representing Christianity, in that Christ repeatedly and specifically refused to become a political figure), but as on both sides there are the scathingly vocal minorities and the more accommodating majorities. Nonetheless, there must be an acknowledgment on both sides that there are legitimate differences of opinion, and a simple law or court ruling really isn't going to solve anything. Will anyone address my earlier point about how this law could potentially affect the rights of those that oppose it (assuming that the law is written in such a way, which admittedly, I do not know)? This post was edited by bluvg on Friday, April 29, 2005 at 11:09. |
| #21 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at 4/29/2005 11:55:53 AM |
|
sodablue:
Which means, the problem isn't with the ACLU. They are consistent, they defend freedom of speech even if the speaker is the most vile person on earth. They fight lawsuits to ensure that death row inmates can get the Playboy channel on their TV at taxpayers' expense. They fight lawsuits to remove the taboo of pedophilia and to consider it a sexual preference and not a mental disorder. They fight lawsuits to remove all reference to God or any religion from any public place. This is not defending free speech, this is pushing an agenda. daz only defends free speech for people he agrees with. This is a ridiculous statement and is a personal ad-hominem attack. I won't dignify this ignorant puke with a response. That's the fundamental problem here, and it's why daz is out of touch with American values, most notably those rights enshrined in the Constitution. More drivel. Please show me the section/article in the Constitution that gives someone the right to marry another member of the same sex. Which rights am I "out of touch with"? It's funny, because it is you who are out of touch with "American Values". American Values favor the family, God, heterosexuality. Promiscuity and sexual deviancy was hoisted upon us by the radical, secularist left and it has disastrous results. Teen pregnancy, objectification/trivilization and loss of respect for women, sharp rise in STDs, destruction of the family unit and marriage as a wholesome institution, etc, etc, etc. As we saw in the last election, there is a strong majority of people who still believe in the true American Values, not the destruction of them as the left does. |
| #22 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at 4/29/2005 12:04:56 PM |
|
#27:
We've been trying to reduce the number of abortions for years now. Who has? The left? That's laughable. Several prominent members on the left have publicly stated that their goal is to make abortions common place and not controversial. How can you say that you want to reduce the number of abortions when the left pushes the RU-486 "Abortion Pill"? Your assertions are laughable. Also, the abortion rate ROSE 25% between 1990-1995. There are no reliable studies that show any type of sharp incline during the Bush administration. Any declines are the result of state legislation to restrict access, increase parental notification, increase education of crisis mothers (Planned Parenthood usually only pushes abortion and rarely anything else which has caused several states to pass laws requiring them to mention other options. Some states have even gone so far as to require a state-appointed observer to ensure that planned parenthood staff members fulfill their obligations). So don't even try to B.S. us into thinking that the left wants anything less than frequent/commonplace abortions at any time during the pregnancy. Clinton himself VETOED a Partial Birth Aborton ban... TWICE! |
| #23 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at 4/29/2005 12:10:10 PM |
|
#30
Says who? you? Perhaps you want to read what Cthulhu wrote, I'm curious to know what makes you the authority on which bits are important and which bits can be ignored. Oh that's right, you're no authority on it, it just doesn't suit your argument so you'll ignore it and choose to use something else that will support your argument. My point is that: a.) Leviticus has a bunch of other weird laws that would not fit into today's society. So you can't pick and choose which laws fit and which don't, you have to take the whole thing. b.) If you're quoting scripture to explain why homosexuality is a sin and you're Christian, then you shouldn't be citing Mosaic law since Jesus said that he came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it and set up a new covenant. Matters such as homosexuality should be determined from Jesus' teachings (again, if you're a Christian, that is), and not from Jewish law. Christ was explicit about adultery and fornication. That is, homosexual sex/sodomy itself is not necessarily wrong, but it is considered adultery/fornication since it is a form sexual activity outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. c.) I never claimed to be an authority on this matter. This viewpoint/argument is widely held within the Christian community, especially the Catholic community. If you wish, I can dig around and find some book references and give you the ISBN numbers so you can order and read them. |
| #24 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at 4/29/2005 12:16:28 PM |
|
#29
Oh, daz, if you're allowed to spew your far right religious hate, Far right? The view of "homosexuality is a sin" is not exclusive to the right. Second, how is it hate? I don't hate you. Is it hateful to say "Stealing is a sin"? You are a person and a sinner just like me. I fail, daily, at living a Christ-like life. So do you, so do all of us. You are no different in that regard. Having said that, it is not wise for a society to condone sinful behavior by enacting a law to protect it, especially at the expense of everyone else's rights. talk about a non-existent gay agenda incorrectly, Non existant? Apparently you haven't been paying attention. There is a strong lobby effort to push through the gay agenda. I mean, just look at the acts of Mayor Gavin in San Francisco. He became a tyrant/dictator and asserted his own law by allowing Gay marriage. If that isn't an "agenda", then I don't know what is. Not only that, but all the media/press and dozens of Democratic politicians and celebrities came to his aid and proclaimed how good it was that he overrode the will of the voters and became a temporary dictator by establishing his own law. and try to quote our founding fathers in their thinking of how our country should have been formed, then you cannot remove any comment in this sudo-forum I don't "try" to quote them, I did. And that view is widely held and, plainly, quote obvious if you ACTUALLY READ THE LETTER Jefferson wrote. Have you read the letter which talks about the "Wall"? Probably not, I'm sure. because you just robbed me of my constitutional right of free speech. Huh? You need to go back to high school and take a government class again. You have no clue what the first ammendment means. (hint: You have a right to pay for your own materials/web site and post whatever you want without GOVERNMENT interferrence but you have no right to force someone else to host/pay-for your drivel) This post was edited by daz on Friday, April 29, 2005 at 12:17. |
| #25 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/29/2005 1:03:09 PM |
|
I live in a city that has a relatively open attitude towards gays and lesbians and I have not once even been approached by anyone trying to convince me to turn gay!
I think what he was getting at is that both sides have the same (but opposite) mindset. One says that being gay is OK and some are incredulous (and a few arrogant) that anyone can think otherwise. The other side is saying that following a gay lifestyle is not OK, and some are incredulous (and a few arrogant) that anyone can think otherwise. I think he is pointing out a Darwinian argument about how an exclusively gay lifestyle is inherently unsustainable in a species. Incidentally, this is also a point against the "genetic link" argument. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 180 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:10:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
