The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[TJ in Oregon]

Ron Paul's focus on social issues is disturbing. We need a nominee like Rick Santorum who has made his plan for bringing jobs back to the U.S. the focal point of his campaign.

Oh boy.

Guys, I think that was supposed to be sarcastic.

[TJ in Oregon]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

Since when does someone not have the authority to choose who can or cannot enter into his house? Parents have authority over their children while they are providing food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. for their children.

[TJ in Oregon]

Why do you assume I wouldn't love my child?

I'm not at all accusing you of not loving your hypothetical child. I'm simply pointing out that by being so intolerant of their lifestyle (getting pissed when they bring their partner around) you're making life a lot, lot harder for them than it needs to be.

Love does not mean always agreeing with everything someone does. It is in many cases the exact opposite: still honestly hoping the best for someone when you are distinctly not in agreement. Loving one's enemies does not mean they are no longer enemies.

In the case of a child, I would have made a promise before God to raise that child in the practice of faith upon baptism and engaging in a homosexual act or entering into a homosexual relationship is a grave sin thus contrary to God's teachings. Their partner would not be permitted to enter my house as a partner and my child would not be permitted to see his/her partner. I would teach my child to remain celibate with every bit of effort I can muster. It would likely be difficult to succeed but what choice would I have? Loving a child would include wishing them eternal life in heaven not just temporal happiness.

Since when does someone not have the authority to choose who can or cannot enter into his house? Parents have authority over their children while they are providing food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. for their children.

I don't object to a parent stopping their kid from being negatively influenced by someone they know.  It's the reasoning behind this decision that I find quite bothersome.

Entering into a homosexual relationship is sinful, therefore the partner would clearly be a negative influence.

[TJ in Oregon]

This is why this thing got closed last time, because instead of actually arguing why something is supposedly "absurd", "ignorant" or "bad" you can all collectively troll anyone who disagrees with you and post it in this thread as though it's self-evidently stupid by your collective liberal group-think.

[TJ in Oregon]

And what if I was in the closet? Would that disqualify my opinion any?

[TJ in Oregon]

The first two were positive events.

This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.

Someone must really like the Mets