A "CURE" for lesbians?

[grahame]

RB, The further one gets along the road of the Christian life the more one sees the truth of this text

Now we know that what things soever the law saith , it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped , and all the world may become guilty before God.

(Romans 3:19)
When the unbeliever runs out of silly arguments that is a sign that God is working within his heart.

Only when the heart is put right with God by the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit will the reason work as it should. The reasoning power of every unbeliever is out of sinc. Only when the heart is healed and the spirit made alive by God the Holy Spirit will the reason also be healed and a man will then begin to think right.

But as our text says the mouth must be stopped. That is the time the Spirit convicts a man of his sins. That is the time he runs out of arguments against God. That is the time that God begins to speak to that person. But more importantly that is the time that the man begins to hear God speaking. Note how many times our Lord says to the people, 2He that has ears to hear let him hear".

To quote an old evangelist friend of mine, "Unbelief is stronger than evidence". Until that miraculous God encountering event with the soul of man the reason will be deficient and he will run around in circles like a dog chasing its own tail.

[grahame]

Grahame...read the first sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

I could have also included the next 2 sentences, but I didn't as I believe they don't describe the broadest definition of homophobia.

Yes of course you would. But the real definition of a phobia still remains the same in the Greek in spite of what Wikipedia may make it. The definition is wrong because the original meaning is as it says. The word is derived from the Greek meaning "fear". A word that does not agree with my opposition to the homosexual and lesbian act. ie I do not "fear" gays. I treat them with the same respect as I do others.

You cannot change a definition as you please (not you I am talking about those who have done, you have just chosen to agree with it) You just cannot choose every opposition to homosexuality under the sun to describe homophobia. Because that would mean that "anything" said against homosexuality and lesbianism could eventually find itself into the law of the land and persecution against any who would dare to speak out against the homosexual act would become a criminal thus restricting our freedom as Christians to preach the gospel to every creature. But the homosexual lobby are aiming to do this. To get the government to outlaw "everything" and "anyone" who opposes the homosexual act. That is why they have changed the definition of the word "phobia" to mean "anything" said against homosexuals. But at the same time it gives them the right to call "anyone" a homophobe even if they are not.

More. You will find (and it is happening as I write this) that it will restrict anyone from expressing their Christian faith and anyone including you to say what they believe is right and wrong. Whilst at the same time granting homosexuals to express their lifestyle and their beliefs and even say what they like against those who oppose them.

In order to demonstrate what I mean I can point out that this has happened in other areas of freedom of expression. In Britain we have a law which restricts people from saying what they like about Muslims. If you do you will be arrested and taken to court under the religious hatred act.
But at the same time people can say what they like about Christians and Christianity. You can and people do blaspheme Christ and say all manner of evil things against Christians and the law cannot touch them. Do you get my drift? I tell you this because I wish to inform you that your rights to freedom of expression are being undermined and you are agreeing with it, not realising that it is your rights that are being undermined.

Such legislation in favour of homosexualality being the norm will also restrict your rights as an Atheist to say what you believe to be right. Rights, I may add which Christians won for you also. For all these rights that you possess in the western world today were won over the centuries by Christians. Men and women who were prepared to die in order that we may enjoy the wide range of freedoms that we enjoy in the west today.

So it's about time you began to take stock and open your eyes to those "small" groups of people who wish to change definitions and then to gradually change the laws of the land. For you will find that eventually you will be very restricted in those freedoms that you once had as citizens of western democracy.

I cannot emphasise enough that your freedom and my freedom was bought originally by the blood of Christian men and women who dared to speak out against unfairness and injustice and even for freedom of speech. For, for many hundreds of years people in Britain were not free to express themselves or even free to believe what they wanted. But it was only through the actions of Christians (true Christians) That you and I have the freedom to say and to believe what we like in this country today. But this same freedom is being used by minorities today to try and restrict those freedoms that were so dearly bought by the lives of others.

[theatheistguy]

Is it worth my while answering your questions, I say a lesbian women is not restricted from IVF in response to your claims they are, and you respond with an 'actually gay woen are not restricted!'

As I had said before, originally I thought you were from the States, not the UK, so I was saying they do not have the right there (in many states). Actually, I was unaware that lesbians were allowed IVF on the NHS till searching for that article.

You then said, "Now, actually, no doctor would prohibit IVF to any couple that have been through the due process. A lesbian women then has just as much right to IVF as a hetersexual women, it is simply her life choice that prohibits her."
I thought you were meaning that lesbians could have children through IVF, so long as they slept with a man first and lead a heterosexual life (similar to your earlier statement that homosexuals had the right to get married...just to someone of the opposite sex).

You asked me to substantiate claims that have already been substantiated by 'trips as well.

If you're referring to the article, I've responded to that, no one was restricting anyone else's freedom of speech as the conference was not interrupted. So again I ask you to provide said evidence.

As to what I was refering to when I said 'choice' well having reread what I wrote I believe the context is obvious so does not need further clarification.

emmm, just a word or two. Call me thick, but it's honestly not clear to me.

As for link this, link that or you are wrong, well I have little time for your games my friend, we, as Christains, can speak from experience on these matters.

Are you actually criticising my asking you for evidence to support your claims? These things may be obvious to you, but as I've never had any experience of it, I cannot just blindly agree with you. If I were to tell you that I have a dragon in my garage, no matter how much you trusted me, you'd ask for evidence.

I am not playing any games, nor am have I said you're wrong if you cannot supply said evidence, but rather that without it, your claims are baseless. Again, I ask for evidence to support your claim that, "...just about every gay activist in existence..." wishes to restrict freedom of speech just to themselves, or at least limit it to others.

However as I said, all of this smoke and mirrors as it is not Christains that create the laws of our land, so again I ask you why does the militant gay voice spend so much time and effort mounting protests against us, why is it that the gay community wishes people to have the freedom of live as they please, yet want to deny me the freedom to leave as I please?

Again, I'm not saying that these laws are created by Christians, but rather that these laws appear to be supported by Christians (if not wanting even stronger restrictions). And again, I ask you for examples of these apparent 'attacks on the Christian faith' and the restrictions of your freedoms that have been pushed by the 'militant gay voice'.

I've said time and time again that I don't care who it is (gay, Christian, me, whoever), if crosses the line of incitement to hatred or violence, or partakes in violence or restriction of another's rights, then I believe they are in the wrong. So can you give me examples of this?

[theatheistguy]

First, can you explain what is meant by, "Unbelief is stronger than evidence"? You currently lack a belief in a 'fluffalump' (mainly because you have no idea what that is), however, if I present you with evidence of a fluffalump, chances are that you'll believe it exists.

Yes of course you would. But the real definition of a phobia still remains the same in the Greek in spite of what Wikipedia may make it. The definition is wrong because the original meaning is as it says. The word is derived from the Greek meaning "fear". A word that does not agree with my opposition to the homosexual and lesbian act. ie I do not "fear" gays. I treat them with the same respect as I do others.

Words change, and etymologies don't always help. The etymology for the word 'queen' is 'woman', for 'town' it is 'fence, hedge or garden' and for 'starve' it is 'stiff, rigid or die'.
I thought you like Wikipedia, but here's Merriam Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
and Princeton:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homophobia

You just cannot choose every opposition to homosexuality under the sun to describe homophobia. Because that would mean that "anything" said against homosexuality and lesbianism could eventually find itself into the law of the land and persecution against any who would dare to speak out against the homosexual act would become a criminal thus restricting our freedom as Christians to preach the gospel to every creature.

Persecution and discrimination are very different from opposition and prejudice. The latter two can be expressed legally, and the former cannot. This is the same for any matter, so I could stand in a street and say that I don't like religion in general and express why, I could even express (I don't hold this view, just using it as an example) that all religious people are evil and should not be given the same rights as none religious people. However, if I try to enforce this discrimination or say that harm should come to religious people, then the law is able to intervene.

But the homosexual lobby are aiming to do this. To get the government to outlaw "everything" and "anyone" who opposes the homosexual act.

Evidence of this please.

That is why they have changed the definition of the word "phobia" to mean "anything" said against homosexuals. But at the same time it gives them the right to call "anyone" a homophobe even if they are not.

The gays are in charge of the dictionaries? News to me. Are the Jews in charge of the media too?

More. You will find (and it is happening as I write this) that it will restrict anyone from expressing their Christian faith and anyone including you to say what they believe is right and wrong. Whilst at the same time granting homosexuals to express their lifestyle and their beliefs and even say what they like against those who oppose them.

Again, evidence of this please.

In order to demonstrate what I mean I can point out that this has happened in other areas of freedom of expression. In Britain we have a law which restricts people from saying what they like about Muslims. If you do you will be arrested and taken to court under the religious hatred act.

That act is not 'Muslim specific' but rather defends people of all religions, "In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief." And so far as I'm aware this does not cover anything and everything, but rather incitement to hatred or violence. The act is actually called Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

But at the same time people can say what they like about Christians and Christianity. You can and people do blaspheme Christ and say all manner of evil things against Christians and the law cannot touch them. Do you get my drift? I tell you this because I wish to inform you that your rights to freedom of expression are being undermined and you are agreeing with it, not realising that it is your rights that are being undermined.

If you're referring to the UN anti-defamation act, then I agree in part. There was a lot of hype about this, that only Islam is mentioned by name, however, this does apply to all religions and faiths, and you can see it's implementation in Ireland for the Catholic faith (which should hopefully be overturned soon). The UN resolution is non-binding, and the UK has not taken it on board so far as I know. As for only Islam being named, this does not make it more of a crime, but rather it was used as an example (I'm guessing to appease those nations who were proposing it).

Such legislation in favour of homosexualality being the norm

The norm? No. Being accepted and legal, on par with heterosexuality, yes.

will also restrict your rights as an Atheist to say what you believe to be right.

How so?

Rights, I may add which Christians won for you also. For all these rights that you possess in the western world today were won over the centuries by Christians. Men and women who were prepared to die in order that we may enjoy the wide range of freedoms that we enjoy in the west today.

By that logic then they were also won by Norsemen, Muslims, Catholics and a hell of a lot of Pagans (and I'm sure many an atheist too).