BibleDude.net: mock trial: carrie prejean v. the world
RickD335
· 8 months ago
Yep - we're the intolerant ones because we don't condone, support, or promote homosexuality. Also, just a quick observation - we've let a minority subculture hijack a word that once meant happy and lighthearted and now substitute the word "gay" for the more properly descriptive of homosexual. Can't sing "don we now our gay apparel" without wincing
Carrie may not have been the most articulate spokesperson, but she was honest, and respectful, and spoke about her beliefs - not what she thinks others should believe. Hilton and Rancic add nothing to the discussion save their opinions - we can't ignore their statements in hopes they'll go away (tempting though it is). We can, however, borrow Carrie's approach in response - low-key, truthful, and respectful.
BibleDude
· 8 months ago
I really feel bad for Miss California. Dude, she got ripped to shreds by people who preach tolerance but obviously know know how to practice it.
I agree that she may not have come off as the best spokesperson on traditional marriage, but she was asked to share her thoughts, and I thought that she did so quite well.
As to your point about the changes in the meanings of words... not sure what to do with that personally. I understand completely what you are saying, but am not sure who to put that 'blame' on, or if any blame needs to be placed anyway...
Thanks for popping by Rick! It's always a pleasure to chat with you!
RickD335
· 7 months ago
Hi Dan!
I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.
On the change in the meaning of words - specifically the word "gay" - I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The "new" connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle - I don't buy that for one nanosecond.
Thanks for posting, BD! :)
Casey
· 8 months ago
I don't get the gay rights movement. Why would you want to define yourself based on your sexuality in the first place? My friend John did a pretty good job of questioning this phenomenon here.
And why do they want to call their relationships "marriage"? It's not marriage. Marriage has a definition, and the only way to call their relationships marriage is to redefine the word. The only reason I can see for pushing for the right to "marry" instead of the right to enter into a "domestic partnership" is that they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal.
BibleDude
· 8 months ago
This is a great point about the definition of the word 'marriage'. And personally, I am not against a system that allows people the legal right to have a relationship where there can be sharing of things like medical benefits. But I agree that not only does the term 'marriage' have a definition, but I also feel that it is a very sacred and spiritual one.
Thanks for stopping by Casey!
Kara
· 8 months ago
I completely agree! I'm exhausted with being accused of being "extreme" or "ignorant" because I don't agree with gay/lesbian activity. Excuse me but isn't America supposed to be the "land of the free" for everyone? They sure have no problem exercising free speech when it comes to being gay/lesbian. They EVEN have a parade! (at least one that I know of) I don't keep up with all of that much. But if Christians march down the street for JESUS, we are "extreme" and "hateful!" I think it's TIME for us to STAND UP FOR CHRIST and stop being stomped all over by groups who obviously KNOW they are practicing lifestyles which are CLEARLY outlined in the Bible as SIN! That is why they are so defensive! They are lashing out at Christians while really they are probably feeling conviction because of their SIN.
BibleDude
· 8 months ago
It is important to stand up, but this is a tough one for me. The double-standard on tolerance is wrong, but we should operate with a heart of reconciliation, not division. I think of Jesus trying to deal with this balance....
He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.
So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, "Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?"
All Comments
Carrie may not have been the most articulate spokesperson, but she was honest, and respectful, and spoke about her beliefs - not what she thinks others should believe. Hilton and Rancic add nothing to the discussion save their opinions - we can't ignore their statements in hopes they'll go away (tempting though it is). We can, however, borrow Carrie's approach in response - low-key, truthful, and respectful.
I agree that she may not have come off as the best spokesperson on traditional marriage, but she was asked to share her thoughts, and I thought that she did so quite well.
As to your point about the changes in the meanings of words... not sure what to do with that personally. I understand completely what you are saying, but am not sure who to put that 'blame' on, or if any blame needs to be placed anyway...
Thanks for popping by Rick! It's always a pleasure to chat with you!
I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.
On the change in the meaning of words - specifically the word "gay" - I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The "new" connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle - I don't buy that for one nanosecond.
Thanks for posting, BD! :)
And why do they want to call their relationships "marriage"? It's not marriage. Marriage has a definition, and the only way to call their relationships marriage is to redefine the word. The only reason I can see for pushing for the right to "marry" instead of the right to enter into a "domestic partnership" is that they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal.
Thanks for stopping by Casey!
He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.
So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, "Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?"
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kara!