« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
love won out
April 15, 2004 - 08:28 AM
|
|
Love won out
http://www.fotf.ca/lwo/
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Sigh.
April 15, 2004 - 11:07 AM
|
|
Back for another beating, huh Bladrunner?
The premise of the one-day Love Won Out conference...
Homosexuality is a topic that makes many people feel uncomfortable. Some Christians, through fear and ignorance, build up walls that communicate hatred to homosexuals. They don't know how to share their beliefs with those who are hurting, or how to deal with the heartbreak of learning about a gay loved one, with no one to turn to for answers.
That's why we've developed the Love Won Out conference. You'll learn how to minister to a loved one who's dealing with homosexuality, respond to misinformation in our culture, defend biblical beliefs and prevent your child from embracing this destructive way of life. Most importantly, you'll be reminded of the power of God's love and His desire to transform the life of a struggling homosexual to find freedom in Jesus Christ.
This is why it's so easy to just want to scream at the top of my lungs - get the *hell* off this planet!
Nevertheless, your spiteful intolerance disgusts me, but that you dare disguise the barbarity of your opinions with mournful prose and overt manipulation serves only to undermine you and what you stand for.
One can find Focus on the Family leaflets in places of worship and megachurches throughout north-america, right beside the equally manipulative pamphlets of hate groups such as the 'Promise Keepers.'
I find no pleasure in exposing you. Only sadness in that whatever I do, the hatred and pity you feel for human beings that do not assimilate to your restrictive and narrow-minded and destructive causes will never escape your mind.
I am reminded by something Abraham Lincoln once said in response to a question regarding whether or not God was on his side in the fight against the confederacy and for equality in the United States. Lincoln, without pause, replied that while he would not follow suit in relaxing knowing that God was on his side, he would join in hopeful prayer that they would instead be on God's side.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: love won out
April 16, 2004 - 02:23 AM
|
|
Wow,
Nice to be chatting with ya again. I was feeling left out there for a bit. How's your mom?
Exposing me? I think I am pretty upfront with what I believe. I don't agree with homosexuality.
My sister is gay. My friends are gay. My coworkers are gay. Do I hate them? No. I love them. Do I agree with their lifestyles. NO. Big difference.
By using Lincoln, are you trying to equate racism with intolerance of homosexuality? I can understand the logic, but it is not right. They are not the same.
By the way, stick to the Dalai Lama, he is more up your alley in philosophy. I think you would be quite suprised to find out what Lincoln actually stood for.
Peace
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Kimi
Joined: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 29
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Los Angeles
|
Re: love won out
April 16, 2004 - 02:45 AM
|
|
How do you have the authority to tell another person how to feel about their own personal feelings? This battle against same-sex marriage is reminiscent of a time when marriages between interracial couples was not allowed, the arguments against interracial marriage being the same arguments used against same-sex marriage.
Marriage is a social contract that has been made concrete in the form of a legal contract. By the definition of a social contract meaning that it is NOT a natural union-but a union made by humans for humans. Thus-the contract can incorporate any type of union. The problem is that the union of marriage has been incorporated into the law, the definition not incorporating the union of two same-sex individuals.
Denying partnerships the right to form a legalized union is wrong-it is against international law and is unconstitutional, especially considering that it has been legalized in numereous provinces in Canada.
The fact that the denial is due to the gender of the two individuals causes for more confounding and is sexual discrimination, not just discrimination due to sexual orientation. The denial being on a basis of your gender.
It seems to me that many people have the definitions of "natural", "human nature", and "marriage" all mixed up: and without such "justification", there is no validity to arguements that are against same-sex marriage.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Vivek
Joined: Mar 31, 2003
Posts: 86 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Karnataka
City: Bangalore
|
I OPPOSE
April 16, 2004 - 03:27 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Kimi
It seems to me that many people have the definitions is "natural", "human nature", and "marriage" all mixed up: and without such "justification", there is no validity to arguements that are against same-sex marriage.
The fundamental unit of society, the way I see it... is the Family. And a family is Man, Woman and Child or Children as may be the case. Any deviation from this... is nothing but decadence. Hence cannot be tolerated in society... atleast in the one I live in.
The insitution of "marriage" just makes it easier for society to recognize a family. And... there are numerous intepretations of the same, in various cultures worldwide.
Now... every person, or for that matter every society has a right to exist in whichever way they chose to. And hence there can never be a single universal "justification" for any of our actions. So... for all the liberal citizens of the US and Canada... PLEASE RESTRICT YOUR SOCIAL REFORMS TO YOUR RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES... AND SPARE THE REST OF THE WORLD FROM YOUR DECADENT WISDOM!
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danny Sweeney
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 214 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Kingdom
|
Re: love won out
April 16, 2004 - 03:40 AM
|
|
I have no problem with homosexuality. I have gay friends and get on with them fine. There is one guy I can't stand, he see,s to feel the need to be 'over gay' and play to a sterotype. He will walk around carrying gay porn magazines and if we ask him to put them away he says it's because he's gay. Any normal person would realise that it's because you don't have porn near the children who we work with.
He's also tried hitting on me before - he acctually told some of our friends that I been in a relationship with him - like one of my friends once said when he heard that
"1) Your not gay and 2) you could do better"
But I'm not sure that i agree with gay marriage. I do believe it to be a union between a man and a woman - but i've no problem with a legal union between homosexuals - granting them the rights of a spouse.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: love won out
April 16, 2004 - 03:47 AM
|
|
Wow, that was a long thread. Not much for purpose, but long. Just joking. 3 pages. Come on.
I always have to laugh when statements like this are put in,
"Remember that yes, homosexual activity IS natural-researchers have even found that monkeys exhibit homosexual tendencies with the males. It has been happening since the beginning of time. Who are you to say that something that has occurred since the beginning stages of evolution is not natural? Seems kind of absurd."
Actually, who says? Where is the research? Who did the research?
How about this, moral decline linked to belief in evolution.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4340relevance7-5-2000.asp
When you relegate us to a bunch of animals and justify actions because of it, then of course you are right. Then we should all be able to get our freak on.
However, fortunately, macroevolution does not exist and we have a higher purpose than animals.
Our purpose is to reflect the image of Christ. Homosexuality does not allow that. When a person gives their life to Christ, it is about restoration of the fullness of Christ within that person. Homosexuality prevents the fullness of this restoration, because it is not within the boundaries of God's precepts.
If you don't have a revelation of God's grace, you don't have a revelation of what a family unit should be. Thus why the arguments for justification of sin, rather than standing for what is morally right.
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan..."
--From the March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address
Lincoln
Lincoln never equated racism with homosexuality.
With that being said, I am not opposed to same sex marriages. I believe that it is their right. I just don't agree with it. However, I should have the right to forewarn others of a lifestyle that is immoral. If I didn't, that would be intolerance.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Kimi
Joined: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 29
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Los Angeles
|
Same-Sex Marriage: A Human Right?
April 16, 2004 - 05:43 AM
|
|
Same-sex Marriage is a Human Right. There are state and federal protections within the United States and there are numereous international declarations, covenants, and treaties and is also outlined in the UN Charter.
Although only 13 US states provide legal protections against hate crimes committed on the basis of discrimination due to sexual orientation (11 States for gender-for you to put it in perspective).
I would like to begin by stating that the issue of same-sex marriage that has been thrust into the spotlight is an argument about the LEGAL CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT OF MARRIAGE-the legality of allowing for same-sex partnerships to be recognized by the government as being equal, the individuals forming the partnership thus being recognized as being an inferior class, and thus causing for the increase in aggression towards same-sex partnerships and those who we term as "homosexual", or "gay." This is because we are taught to obey the law-it is what is "right" and "just," even thought there is nothing just about this denial of a right that should be left up to the two willing parties to discuss.
Don't listen to the rhetoric of "seperate but equal", for history has proven that the notion of "seperate but equal" has always resulted in anything but. History is evidence of the idea always failing. This "Civil Union" that has been proposed is ANYTHING BUT equal. The problem with your assertions is that the argument has to do with something other than the same-sex partnerships seeking to have the same legal benefits that heterosexual marriages get without question: such as a tax exemption, preffered treatment at work, inheretance benefits, child custody, and many more.
This is NOT an argument that should have anything to do with religion, and yet that is the main component of same-sex marriage arguments.
The "family unit" is NOT natural. The idea of Family is that of a social concept alse. The "family unit" is, once again: a false assertion. Just because a man and a woman have the natural ability to reproduce does not mean that they are the only two people able to form a union.
Shouldn't we be able to define the LEGALLY RECOGNIZED UNION OF MARRIAGE-which entails a legal document (a piece of paper with writing on it and signatures).
Do you not see the resemblence of your own arguments against same-sex marriage with the to the anti-segregation agruments? It wasn't "natural" for a white and a black to intermix and procreate.
Why should society have to conform to the law when the law was made specifically to conform to society? And what is the justification in denying equal rights to persons do to something that is a very private and personal issue. In Drucilla L. Cornell's artice, "Gender, Sex, and Equivalent Rights" she speaks of Justice White's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick stating that the "privacy right" (established previously by cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Carey v. Population Services International) "did not cover homosexual activity," arguing that there was nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (despite the previous interpretations) that guaranteed any fundamental right to homosexual activity.
Remember that yes, homosexual activity IS natural-researchers have even found that monkeys exhibit homosexual tendencies with the males. It has been happening since the beginning of time. Who are you to say that something that has occurred since the beginning stages of evolution is not natural? Seems kind of absurd.
Oh ya, one more thing: remember that "marriage" used to entail male ownership over the female. She was not a person: she was an object. The males having many wives (even in the Bible-think of Abraham, for instance, and his wife Sarah who weren't able to have a baby-so he went to one of his other wives or "concubines" and tried having babies with them. Sara was just his favorite.) It's called Polygamy (just two wives=bigotry)-one of the original forms of marriage. Marriage was a social contract that transformed into a legal contract.
Truthfully, I myself see it as wrong for married persons to have benefits over others who are not-it is wrong and it keeps in place the hierarchical class system that seems to now be innate in the white race and western society-imposing the "right" thing on others who were deemed as "savages" and "barbaric"-forcing them to lose their own identity and assimilate to ours. The Supreme Court even states these such intentions numerous times in numerous different cases. How can we just assume we know best when we aren't willing to take a walk in another persons shoes? We must also realize that we can never truely know what another persons perspective truely is-we are not capable of removing ourselves from our own experiences and take into consideration all of the other person's experiences. It is impossible-but we should always be striving to. One of the most important things about learning about a a group of people is to learn their language-something that the colonizer has never really been willing or able to do. The "experts" and "scholars" not being willing to think like the people the
Marriages in other countries do not abide by the rule that marriage is a union between a man and a woman-the men having many wives in many countries and these marriages are recognized. Are those still considered marriages then? Yes. So why can't two individuals seek the union?
Once again it is a false assumption of how the human species came to exist (in today's terms) and that the "basic unit of human society" is the "family unit", not to mention completely religiously based. If one looks at history, they would come to the realization that the concept of "marriage" is defined by those who wish to form such unions. The ideas of what is "natural" and the "family unit" creates completely unfounded, false assertion spawning from a socially constructed idea within a society that does not take into account the multipolarity of the word today.
Just b/c that may be what seems "natural" we must realize that we are the result of thousands upon thousands of years of evolution (the first signs of human life were found in Antarctica dating about 20,000 years before those in Africa) thus we cannot really claim things like social contracts as natural, for they are not. If they were-we would be penguins-who do mate for life.
All right, let's say that "marriage" as the "union of a man and a woman" is correct, you must look at the context-women were objects-we are still not considered to be equals.
Same-sex marriage is intertwined with Womens Rights, and if the right to form a legalized union is not incorporated into the law-thus effecting the lives of the people-they will be in violation of a number of rights and have more of a basis to deny women their rights also, allowing for the men to maintain their dominance in society.
Why are people seeking to make the union of "marriage" elite and uninclusive of some groups of people? Why is there always a force attempting to further the gap between the elite and the suffering? Why should one type of relationship be deemed as "wrong" and inferior just b/c it does not fit with the rigidly enforced guidlines of what a bunch of white men over 60 decided the contract of marriage to entail?
The results that arise from the denial of same-sex partnerships from having the capability of forming the legally recognized contract of marriage are detrimental to the lives of those who are being denied. The "Civil Union" does the same thing-it makes a seperate catagory which is inferior to that of "marriage".
We are too far removed from "nature" now (ijn today's day and age) to really be capable of discerning what is and is not "natural"-and should just go with what doesn't violate human rights. The law should abide by sociey and what is the best for the people: does same-sex marriage hurt anyone? Is it in violation of anyone else's rights? Is it detrimental to those around them and/or themselves? Does it infringe on anyone else's rights? The answer to all those questions is of course: no. The fact is that the denial infringes upon other people's rights and is detrimental to their own well-being and self-image. What ever happened to what the Constitution defined as "the pursuit of happiness," one of the most important rights of the U.S. citizens to have is now being completely ignored.
The claims of the same-sex unions have been completely undermined and the true arguements-the LEGAL arguments have been almost completely ignored by the media.
What does the legal union of two individuals who just happen to be of the same gender do that is so horrific-causing for their denial to form a relationship. It's not easy being gay-you are discriminated against every day (similar to the "experience of women" [in quotes because the universal experience of women is still to be determined). It is not exactally easy for them to "make the choice" of living with the same-sex sexual preference.
How can you delegitimize a union between 2 people when currently there is infidelity everywhere-what deems those relationships as being more appropriate and acceptable than other relationships based on the individuals' genitals? Seriously now.
You must step outside of the box you have surrounding the assumptions that "marriage" is a union between a "man and a woman" and that society is based on the family unit. Sorry to say but society is based on money and greed, not love and the well-being of others-for if it was gay and lesbian rights would not be an issue at all.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Kimi
Joined: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 29
Country: United States
Province/State: California
City: Los Angeles
|
Humans...not animals????
April 16, 2004 - 09:58 AM
|
|
Humans ARE animals. There is NO way to refute that. You speak of "nature" and what is "natural", yet you cannot accept that humans ARE animals? Humans belong to the Homo Sapien species. Evolution has been proven-it is not something you either accept or don't, for once again: it has been proven.
Why are you quoting Lincoln? If you actually think that he was not racist, you should doing some more research. Also, the Emancipation Proclamation made no effort to end discrimination and give the black complete rights as fully recognized citizens of the United States. Hey, wasn't it stated earlier that Lincoln was not a good example?
All of these "truths" you are speaking of are religiously based, and in order to understand what the argument truely entails and what is at stake, you must seperate the issue from your religious beliefs and teachings.
If you want a religious standpoint you should recall what Jesus said when a mob of people was attacking a woman who was a prostitute: "He who is without sin shall cast the first stone." When one looks at the issue of same-sex marriage they should look at it from all perspectives-especially this one. By people listening to the religious rhetoric fed to them and by repeating the information to others, forming their own opinion about the issue on this rhetoric causes for a false assumptions.
Your religious beliefs are yours, and this is because of something called the Freedom of Religion-the real reason why America was formed. This aspect of religiousity within the U.S. government is completely against what America stood for in the beginning. Due to this fact, the America we know today is not what the founders of our country desired. They wanted their freedom and their rights: just as same-sex partners do today.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler
Joined: May 18, 2003
Posts: 16 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: love won out
April 17, 2004 - 05:17 AM
|
|
I'm re-posting part of this comment from a like thread. Please take note of it because as I'm sure most posters don't intend to refer to gays as mental patients (Bladerunner of course excluded since that's what his hate mongering organization specifically advocates), the use of "homosexual" implies it.
****************************
Originally Posted 04/06/04...
Homosexual has become a Politically Correct term to describe those that prefer a partner of their own gender but in fact, its origins are found in the American Psychiatric Association's book of mental illnesses. Up until, I believe, the 1970s gays were considered to have a disease in the US (and I presume most of the Western world). So with that in mind, gay is a far friendlier term than homosexual. That said, heterosexual is free of all negative connotations because straight people have never been subjected to the same type of bigotry through that title.
****************************
And to all that use the "I have a gay friend": Even if a person who shoves gay porn in your face and hits on you does this, he is still the exception and much like the minority of men who use the same aggressive behaviour towards women. The fact that he claims "it's because I'm gay" means he's just as diluted as the person that sees some people as "over gay". Has anyone witnessed someone being stigmatized for being "over straight"? Things like this are a result of social values; to conform to those values is a piss poor excuse and is still homophobic.
-Adam
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: love won out
April 17, 2004 - 05:45 AM
|
|
Nice point,
And please kindly refrain from quoting cases that occurred in the courts of the United States of America... simply because the rest of the world doesn't follow the Constitution of the US of A, and WE simply don't go around imposing our beliefs on OTHERS the way YOU do! I still maintain that every society has the right to do what it deems best, and if same-sex marriages are ok by YOU... it doesn't make it universally "justifiable".
Kim, I use the bible as my point of reference, because it is the truth.
I could argue this point in a secular context, but rather not. The word of God never comes back void. Why? Because it is the truth. You don't follow it, you bring destruction to your own life. Which is freedom. You get to choose whether you will follow it or not.
Pred, God crushes the arrogant and exalts the humble.
Peace,
Andrew
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Andrew Lauman
Joined: Oct 18, 2002
Posts: 157 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Vancouver
|
Re: love won out
April 17, 2004 - 05:49 AM
|
|
Regardless, Pred, I would take you more serious if you weren't out to character assasin anyone who threatens your perspective of understanding. Do you believe this is intelligence? Really, it is slander. Your line of reasoning is based upon belittling who you argue with. Sure your smart. You have a lot of smarts Pred, but guess what, that doesn't mean a bag of beans, when you meet God.
You know what means a lot. Jesus will ask you this.
Did you learn to love? Did you learn to love?
Wisdom is proved right by her actions and actions speak louder than words.
If I am wrong I am open to that. I certainly have been wrong before and I know I will be wrong again. I would suggest you take the same approach.
If you have God in your heart Pred, than this will work itself out. The church was once the biggest supporter of racism, but now is the vehicle to stamp it out. The church is changing and becoming better.
But to say that focus on the family is a hate organization shows me how you are denying the truth my friend. And the reason you get pissed is because you are convicted by the truth. You once knew it, but now you are trying to suppress it.
I will keep praying for you.
Cheers,
Andrew
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Danny Sweeney
Joined: Mar 22, 2004
Posts: 214 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: United Kingdom
|
Re: love won out
April 17, 2004 - 07:00 AM
|
|
I know people like him are the exception and not the rule and I'm anything but homophobic. When I say I have a gay friend I use is as a term of reference so people know what i mean.It's like when i say "Chris is the black guy in my music class" (made up example) - i'm not doing it to be racist or mean to him in anywau i use it was a term of reference. The conotations which people choose to attach to things like that are their problem.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Brian
Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 464 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 39
Country: United States
Province/State: North Carolina
City: Raleigh
|
Re: love won out
April 17, 2004 - 08:57 AM
|
|
"Pred, God crushes the arrogant and exalts the humble." Actually this sounds more like a blanket character assasination to me. And hateful to boot. If religion is the base of your argument, you can't shove it down people's throats. That never works and only serves to make people hate God.
I have known many gays too. I have seen some who have tried to "go straight" and be holy. Why do they always fail? It isn't due to lack of trying or lack of faith even...it's because they are what God made them to be. Full stop. No amount of cajoling or quoting scripture will change that.
You said you don't go around imposing your views, but it looks like that's precisely what's happening here. I 've agreed with you Bladerunner in the past but must draw the line here.
The point brought up about homosexuality being natural shouldn't have been linked to evolution. I believe the two to be mutually exclusive. But that's a whole other issue, right?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 25
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
A response.
April 17, 2004 - 10:54 AM
|
|
All.
Given that I have been accused of assassinating one's character - a charge I will not enter a plea to, rather leaving the matter to be judged by those who moderate this forum and who have the power to punish or release me from this accusation - I choose not indulge in refuting it, to which I have absolute right to do, at this time. There is simply a greater myth being perpetuated and I feel it more pressing to fight it in particular than any other.
I will instead take issue with *three* of the other charges laid before me.
The UN Charter.
It is very true that the UN Charter for Human Rights does not incorporate rights for homosexuals or their right to marriage. Indeed, it even goes so far as to consider the family unit, consisting of man, woman, and children, to be the fundamental unit of society.
My response to that is; it was written in 1948.
I regret that Kimi, someone who I would consider belongs to my side of the argument - and who I encourage to continue otherwise believing in what she does - used the specific example of the UN charter. That was an incorrect thing to do. But well-intentioned nonetheless.
The circle.
I don't know if anyone noticed - but haven't these same arguments that Bladerunner subscribes to been used before? Were they not weighed, measured, and found wanting? Is Bladerunner and his followers simply employing a conditional argument that no matter how often or to what extent it is refuted, it can simply be repeated and repeated. I see through the fact that the false-love, for lack of a better term, and the deceitful pretense of 'homosexuality' being a chronic and medical ill (but yet 'heterosexuality' somehow doesn't qualify) can be hoisted to a position, supported by ignorance and hatred, so that it can falsely rise above the opposite argument.
The fact of the matter is this; Bladerunner and the other fundamentalist types who choose this place for their hate-mongering cannot be convinced of their wrongs when they believe that we are sinners. If anyone has ever tried convincing a racist of their wrongs, and I mean a hardcore, kkk card-carrying member, then you will know exactly what I mean.
Due to their hatred being disguised by the fact that they are christians, they use the idea of 'loving thy sinner' to justify their presence here and the righteousness of their beliefs.
The late English writer Sydney Smith once said that you should never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. Since it was not reasoned into him, it cannot be reasoned out.
So we're stuck in a circle. For this reason, I cannot see myself entering into this discussion any further, save for the last point I am forced to discuss.
I'm reminded of something MLK said;
"Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction."
Did you learn to love?
Bladerunner had the nerve to ask me this question.
I have the vanity to answer it.
The answer is simple. True love is not taught. It is found.
True love is not learned. It is discovered.
True love is not conditional. It is vast and never-ending and anything but relegated to the few known to your heart who fulfill a particular set of human faculties one deems favourable.
True love is not conquerable. It is a gift we are all engrained with; dispensed with the capability of administering given the will to do so.
True love is the supreme force for which we all compete under. It is countered only by hatred, which is the ignorance of that which is feared and misunderstood for the purpose of conquering one's own misgivings and failures in an attempt to be closer to the goal of finding true love.
And I fear you cannot ever understand that.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
