Debate: Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values | R Clarke Cooper & Douglas Wilson

Debate: Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values | R Clarke Cooper & Douglas Wilson

Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values? R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans, Washington DC and Pastor …

 

 

21 Comments on “Debate: Do Gay Rights Conflict with Conservative Christian Values | R Clarke Cooper & Douglas Wilson”

  1. I am gay and a christian and most of the hostility I see is on the part of gays toward the church not the other way around. I am 100% certain that some militant gay activist will upon federal recognition of gay marriage will go to a church to be married and upon refusal they will sue to have their tax exempt status revoked – 100% certain.

  2. Moron, sodomite is the Hebrew word Qadesh. It means a pagan prostitute, not a homosexual. Abomination is toe bah, it doesn't mean sin, it means a violation of the law. Try studying the bible little sheep

  3. tbretthauer1, that is because the word homosexuality or homosexual was not invested until much later. Paul and Jesus have both used the word pornea, which means sexual immorality. Also, the old testament states some law against homosexuality.

  4. If the dogma of religion is causing a member obvious harm, it is appropriate and necessary for that person to leave and worship God somewhere else to be safe, healthy, and happy.

  5. It doesn't matter how many "bugs" are removed from the proposal to legalize gay marriage – Wilson will never agree to gay marriage. Never. It's dishonest of him to even imply that he may.

  6. Anyone who is neither conservative nor christian commenting on this video is foolish. It's obvious that Wilson is correct from the simple standpoint that a conservative christian must abide by the tenants set forth in the bible and it clearly condemns all forms of gay. Any further arguments could be explored elsewhere, but even then Wilson's argument about the slippery slope remains valid. It must be answered. To simply state this poses no obvious harm would be the statement of a fool. If it isn't valid, then please give a detailed reason instead of simply stating that it is invalid. (And stating, "no one's arguing for that now," does not count as laws must be forward-facing.)

  7. Into the 21st century!

    If your opinion on an issue does not follow the main stream's flow of the day, you are LABELED a bigot, homophobic, a drama queen, a hater, a discriminator and minority oppressor. Someone who's negatively against that flow in a harmful way!. You become the ENEMY that must be silenced/stopped by any means and at all costs (legally or socially) possible .That does not translate into a democratic thought but to a double standard one when assessing two different issues.

    On one hand X group want to have the right to same sex marriage (all love is equal) and on the other hand Y group wants to have the right of free speech and free choice, parents must accept/comply with the way their children are been taught and indoctrinated (concerning sexuality and marriage) in schools, even if it goes against their moral/family values and believes. If we restrain ourselves from applying double standards, who is at fault?.

     I am not against equal rights been granted to all Americans, if the state grants the Gay community the right to get married, I have to comply and respect the law of the land I was born. That does not mean that I share the same view on marriage. I will still raise my children (which is my right and prerogative, not the state) with a traditional view of marriage and family values. 

    I advice those citizens, that share  the same traditional view of marriage and family values (marriage should only  be between a man and a woman) that I have, to do the same and raise their children accordingly!.If our children later on get a different view of marriage/sexuality from our education system, government or social media, at least they will have a choice to make based on how they were raised. Our ever faithful government someday will rule against the way we raise/teach our children, based on the conflict that it would create with our system of education indoctrination.

     They would base their opinion on a "psychological" point of view , we would be creating a conflict/confusion on our children minds when 2 different "realities" are presented!.(1) At home they are taught that marriage should ONLY be between a man and a women (2) at school they are taught that marriage could ALSO be between a man and a man.

     I'm not denying  Gays their rights to marry or HATING  them for choosing their life style and sexual preferences, THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE AND FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND THAT I RESPECT. I am taking a personal stance at home by raising my children according to the traditional family believes/values and not that of our  government or a sector of our society believes/values. We all must respect the law and the right of others but that does not mean that we are willing to change our views on marriage and its traditional/historical  definition.

    Here is a typical "objective" response from a Gay activist; "Bigots (heterosexuals) want to UNFAIRLY deny their constitutional rights to individuals belonging to other groups to get married. Just because they find it offensive/immoral or because they HATE homosexuals, that is the description of a bigot".

    Today the definition and concept of marriage has been redefine. IF DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE BEEN CONSTANTLY APPLIED, democracy (the right of free speech and free choice) should also be redefined. It seems like the words "bigotry" and "homophobic" are being strategically used (by the Gay community, the social media and the ever supporting government) to gain national support and leverage. 

    The final objective seems to be to persuade Americans to view Y group as been unjust/discriminatory/hateful and X group as the victim/tolerant/righteous. Public opinion does matter after all, AND MORE SO (votes=power and power=control) TO OUR TRUSTING "FRIEND", THE USA CONGRESS!.

    For obvious reasons, group X love to play the VICTIM role, the persecution complex at full capacity!. The prevailing view on marriage today is ; (1) if 2 people are in LOVE they should have the right to get married (2) marriage should be defined and stipulated by our government only, based on legal authority (3) all other elements of marriage (gender/sex orientation, number of people getting married, ect) should be IRRELEVANT!.

    Love has its importance within the context of marriage but I for one don't share the view that LOVE should be the ultimate reason for marriage. There are other elements and objectives in the institution of marriage which are of equal importance (family, maintain a world population/reproduction, social/religious moral values, tradition, ect).They are essential to the well being and future of our society, they have a much greater positive impact on the long run.

    Our American society, as we see it today, has been through a social/political process that took more than 200 years, starting in July 4, 1776 to the current year, 2014!!.

    It was on May 17, 2004 that Massachusetts became the first state in the union to approve same sex marriage.10 years is just a small fraction (aprox.4.3%) of our history as a nation to measure the impact of same sex marriage on society/family. Maybe we won't see that impact on our life time but America's future generations will. Those decisions we make today will always have an impact (+ or -) on the long run, there is no way around it!. 

    It seems like America is obsessed in looking for a short term solution (same sex marriage=equality) to satisfy X group's needs than for assessing long term issues in a responsible manner, family values and tradition!.

  8. You're either gay or you're not. You can't catch it, nor can you wish to be it. You are or you're not. You can lie, pretend and force yourself to go against what you are, but you still ARE what you always were. Michael Jackson was OPENLY straight, and he paid dearly to keep up that appearance, but WAS HE? – Richard Simmons could CHOOSE to be straight? REALLY? – Stop the lies and the pretending. It changes nothing. Forget God, Jesus (both GAY) and all that other crap, because nothing changes what you ARE. Being a homophobic bigot IS a choice. So yes, you can decide whether you want to be an asshole, but your sexual attractions (whichever they are) remain the same.

  9. OF COURSE GAYS CONFLICTS WITH THE RIGHTS OF CHRISTIAN, I HAVE SOME GAYS HARRASSING MY CHRISTIAN SON, WE SHOW THEM COMPASSION, BUT THEY (GAY) HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE CHRISTIANS. THEIR ATTACKING OUR FAMILY.

  10. OPINION :

    THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS GOOD FOR BODY AND SOUL, IF IT IS TRUE, AS THE APOSTLES, AND THE CHURCH DO BELIEVE.

    THERE'S NO MARRIAGE AMONG GAY MEN, OR AMONG LESBIANS.

    IT'S UNNATURAL FOR HOW THEY ARE CREATED, OR BORN.

    THEY HAVE TO FORGET THEIR SEXUAL LUSTS.

    CONTROL THEMSELVES.

    GOD IS A UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE.

    IN SOME WAY, TO SAY THAT GOD IS A UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE SEEMS TO HELP ONE, NOT TO THINK MUCH, OR THINK, ABOUT HUMAN BEING'S NAKEDNESS.

    BEING CATHOLIC IS A BAPTIZED JEW.

    TO THINK BEING A JEW IS ALSO HELPFUL TO HEALTH.

    SO ALSO TO THINK THAT GOD IS A UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE.

Comments are closed.