Posted on 02/19/2010 9:02:31 AM PST by marcbold
Everyone talks about equality. But equality only exists in the eyes of God and is, after all, a rather Christian concept. We are all loved by God and in that is our worth. Ironically, many politicians are marginalizing religion from the public sphere in the name of equality. And many see the major obstacle to this enforced equality as Christianity.
Right now, homosexual advocates are marching under the banner of equality. And advancing quite well thank you very much. In fact, just this week the Archdiocese of Washington fell victim to the cause of enforced equality.
The Archdiocese just posted on its website that it’s dropping its foster care program as well as adoption program due to DC’s same-sex marriage law which states that all city contractors must recognize gay couples. The law would force the Church to place children with gay couples...
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
‘Right now, homosexual advocates are marching under the banner of equality’
The homosexuals are marching for ACCEPTANCE of their lifestyle rather than tolerance.
When fascism comes to America it will be carrying a pink swastika wrapped in a rainbow flag. Any time the smallest minority dictates to the majority there is fascism. We have lost our republic and forfeit it for the comfort of the legacy of Sodom. Heaven help us.
I don’t love people equally. To do so is nuts.
Okay, throw it back at them.
We’re all equal huh? The sex pervert in jail for raping kids is equal to you, Mr. Liberal? The unemployed loser spending his whole day in the library watching free internet porn is equal to you? The welfare mom who keeps having kids with different men is equal to your liberal wife, Mr. Liberal? You’re equal to the guy who sells drugs to junkies that are hooked? Your wife is equal to the prostitutes that sell themselves purely for money? You’re equal to the murderers and killers that shoot people for looking at them the wrong way? Your sex life with your spouse is equal to the two men and two women who can’t figure out anuses aren’t designed to be penetrated and the lesbians can’t figure out that biologically, Heather can’t have two mommies?
In the eyes of God we’ve all sinned. However we haven’t DONE exactly the same sinful things that carry the same consequences because the SEVERITY (ie DEGREE) of what we’ve done wrong gives us different temporal consequences.
There’s nothing fair about trying to redefine the concept of marriage that has ALWAYS been what it’s been, that has NEVER been defined to include homosexuals, for the 1-2% of people who say they are gay. There’s nothing fair about forcing such a change on the overwhelming majority by a tyrannical radical sub-minority of the 1-2% of the minority (the radical gay activists). This is the ultimate tyranny of the majority. THAT is hardly fair, if you want to talk about FAIR.
And by the way, in your own homosexual sex-ridden focus vernacular, screw fairness. I am sure you would if it was physically possible. Life isn’t fair. You want to get married, you follow the same rules we all do. You can get married. You marry a member of the opposite sex like all of us do. You have your little gay sham marriage that you somehow sometimes manage to have kids in, like you’ve always done. We haveto play by the rules too. We can’t marry anyone we want either. We can’t marry a close relative. We can’t marry parents, or underage persons, or persons currently married. We can’t marry dead people. We can’t marry children. We can’t marry pets, farm animals, our whole current sociology class, or our Swivel Sweeper. We have rules that we too are restricted by.
FAIRness is the lamest argument to put forth.
This is not what Scripture says. Scripture says that our value to God comes from the fact that we are created in His image, and thus He loves us. This is a prevailing theme from Genesis 1 and 9, all the way through to the Sermon on the Mount, and later. This is a very important nuance. Although God loves His creation, it upon those created in His image that He bestows special consideration!
Equality was never intended to apply to behavior-based judgment.
Marriage laws are entirely equal — every person has the equal legal right to marry any consenting adult person of the opposite gender. All are affected equally by the law ... you may not marry someone of the same gender, someone who is not an adult, someone who is not consenting, or any animal or inanimate object.
Removing “opposite gender” in the name of equality is as absurd as removing “adult” or “person” in the name of equality (thus allowing marriage to a child or “non-person”).
SnakeDoc
The totalitarian methods and discrimination of Christians by the state and the homosexual lobby is evident once again.
Don’t see how this is a defeat. They’ll be better of for it. Let the state take up the slack.
I understand your point here, and agree with it, but I caution you strongly against using the term "gender" instead of "sex."
The human species exhibits sexual differentiation: a sexually functional male and female are essential to reproduction. Thee are two sexes, neither more nor less, and those sexes are readily identifiable by objective anatomical, physiological and genetic markers.
"Gender," on the other hand, is fluid and multiform: it's a social construct. Originally it was just a category of grammar (the masculine, feminine, and neuter forms of nouns and their modifiers in some languages) but now the gender activists have it meaning anything: hairstyle, employment category, affective response, dress, presentation, social role, preference, mood, style.
Don't say "gender" instead of "sex." In the present hostile rhetorical environment, to focus on "gender" is to concede all important points to the genderqueers from the outset.
>> [...] Thee are two sexes, neither more nor less, and those sexes are readily identifiable by objective anatomical, physiological and genetic markers. “Gender,” on the other hand, is fluid and multiform: it’s a social construct. [...] Don’t say “gender” instead of “sex.” In the present hostile rhetorical environment, to focus on “gender” is to concede all important points to the genderqueers from the outset.
I would’ve said there are just two genders for the exact same reason you say there are just two sexes.
To abandon the word “gender” because of “genderqueers” is to concede that “gender” is “fluid” and “a social construct”. Gender isn’t fluid ... it isn’t a social construct. It means the same thing a “sex” — and to differentiate the two is to fall into the very trap you’re trying to avoid.
SnakeDoc
I accept them as people but couldn’t care less about their lifestyle.
Don’t bother me with what you behind closed doors or should.
Only a handful of languages have gender classifications for only masculine or feminine (for example Spanish, Hebrew); many more have also a neuter grammatical gender (Polish, and the Scandinavian languages) and some have additional genders (noun forms) having to do with distinctions between living/nonliving, rank, formality, or role (Japanese.) Even the languages that have only masculine and feminine genders do not always connect them with sex(e.g. in Spanish "mano" is a "hand", but not necessarily a male hand, etc. etc.)
Thus gender and sex are not exact synonyms.
For this reason, the Oxford English Dictionary, way before the "genderqueers" began to impose their interpretation on things, recommended grammatical usage as the primary meaning of gender in English. As Fowler's 'Modern English Usage (1926) says, "Gender...is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons...of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder."
The word "sex" distinguishes between reproductively male and female entities,in all species which reproduce sexually, even plants. Thus organs like stigma, style, and ovary (female) and anther and filament (male) are organs of sex but not gender.
That is important, because (for instance medically) a change of external presentation (e.g. surgery) may be used to help a person cope with an "intergender" condition (a social or psychological dysfunction) but does not actually change one's sex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.