Confusing tolerance with beliefs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Delphinus85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s an interesting thing. The “secular” society is presently being heavily influenced to regard my saying, “Homosexual-sex-acts are wrong” as being “rude” and “unloving”.
I agree with you to a point. I think that there is a stong attempt to change the attitude that “Homosexual-sex-acts are wrong, and therefore people who participate in them should be treated differently than others.”
When someone does something “rude” and “unloving” he is subsequently “persecuted” by ostracism and eventual violence.
I don’t agree with this statement. Labeling someone rude does not necessarily lead to violence, and usually does not.
What the “practicing homosexual” wants is for the “rude” to be punished (lightly preferably but more forcefully if necessary) so that rudeness is less likely to happen.

That is indeed the goal of the “practicing homosexual”, as you would probably agree.
I agree if by rudeness you mean different treatment, I would agree. If you mean unkind statements or attitudes I would disgree.
Eventually this “attitude” will be codified into law, and the “imminence” of laws to that effect is not the issue.
I still don’t know why you say this. Has any other ‘attitude’ been codified into law in this way? How would such a law survive constitutional challenge? This is just not going to happen, its a boogy man.
Hate-crime laws are utterly unnecessary, as they are simply “political condescensions” given to “special groups” in exchange for votes.
I am not a fan of hate crime laws, either. Assault is assault, murder is murder, I don’t think we need hate crimes laws. At the same time I don’t think they have far reaching effects. I do think that Title VII and the anti-discrimination laws have had a very positive effect on our society and I would support expanding them. What good argument is there against that?
The amazing fact that such a perverse trivial minority can affect such a massive change in society is absolutely amazing, and is GREAT motivation for normal people to do the Christian thing, in the Christian way, that would put the perverse back in it’s place.

The previous sentence would probably be regarded by the “practicing homosexual” as an actual “fightin’ words” attack on them worthy of actual legal punishment.
No, it is not. And I don’t think any serious person, gay or straight, thinks it should be.

I just don’t see the great harm and list of calamaties coming to pass if laws ensuring the rights of gay people are passed. It hasn’t happened when any of the other civil rights laws were passed. Criticizing black people is still not a crime. Hating Jews is still legal. No one gets sued for saying women should stay at home and keep out of men’s business. These laws would be no different.
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

It’s an interesting thing. The “secular” society is presently being heavily influenced to regard my saying, “Homosexual-sex-acts are wrong” as being “rude” and “unloving”.
I agree with you to a point. I think that there is a stong attempt to change the attitude that “Homosexual-sex-acts are wrong, and therefore people who participate in them should be treated differently than others.”
And my contention is that being “treated differently” is the RIGHT thing to do when it is done in a Christian way to avert evil.

To want to be treated “the same” by limiting proper Christian behavior is an improper “want”,… and will lead directly to legal diminution of proper Christian behavior.
When someone does something “rude” and “unloving” he is subsequently “persecuted” by ostracism and eventual violence.
I don’t agree with this statement. Labeling someone rude does not necessarily lead to violence, and usually does not.
We can disagree on this. 🙂
What the “practicing homosexual” wants is for the “rude” to be punished (lightly preferably but more forcefully if necessary) so that rudeness is less likely to happen.
That is indeed the goal of the “practicing homosexual”, as you would probably agree.
I agree if by rudeness you mean different treatment, I would agree. If you mean unkind statements or attitudes I would disgree.
The “practicing homosexual” wants non-“different treatment” when different treatment is the appropriate treatment.

To be made to “feel bad”, which is a REACTION to others under the control of the receiver and can’t be imputed to the giver other than by “interpretation”, is the choice of the receiver.

We all have the choice to “feel bad” in reaction to other’s actions, and the “practicing homosexual” feels he has a right to protection (from the state if necessary) from his own reaction, while feels no Christian has a right to “feel bad” in reaction to the existence of something they see as sin.
Eventually this “attitude” will be codified into law, and the “imminence” of laws to that effect is not the issue.
I still don’t know why you say this. Has any other ‘attitude’ been codified into law in this way? How would such a law survive constitutional challenge? This is just not going to happen, its a boogy man.
All hate-crime laws are of this kind. They exist solely as a “payoff” to special groups for their votes.

…continued below →
 
…continued from above:
Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Hate-crime laws are utterly unnecessary, as they are simply “political condescensions” given to “special groups” in exchange for votes.
I am not a fan of hate crime laws, either. Assault is assault, murder is murder, I don’t think we need hate crimes laws. At the same time I don’t think they have far reaching effects. I do think that Title VII and the anti-discrimination laws have had a very positive effect on our society and I would support expanding them. What good argument is there against that?
I have no objection to anti-discrimination laws against things which should not be discriminated against. There is rightful discrimination,… and rightful WAYS in which that discrimination should be implemented.

The rightful “things” are those which violate God’s laws,… and the rightful “ways” are Christian ways of helping our brothers.
*The amazing fact that such a perverse trivial minority can affect such a massive change in society is absolutely amazing, and is GREAT motivation for normal people to do the Christian thing, in the Christian way, that would put the perverse back in it’s place. *
The previous sentence would probably be regarded by the “practicing homosexual” as an actual “fightin’ words” attack on them worthy of actual legal punishment.
No, it is not. And I don’t think any serious person, gay or straight, thinks it should be.

I just don’t see the great harm and list of calamaties coming to pass if laws ensuring the rights of gay people are passed. It hasn’t happened when any of the other civil rights laws were passed. Criticizing black people is still not a crime. Hating Jews is still legal. No one gets sued for saying women should stay at home and keep out of men’s business. These laws would be no different.
Any law which promotes the acceptability of homosexual-acts will harm society. That will only be “proved” by the existence of such laws over time, and that proof will come.

No law which undermines the dignity of any person, regardless of their choice of behavior, is legitimate, and should be fought vehemently.

“Practicing homosexuals” are not to be discriminated against as persons, but they must not be allowed to force the discrimination of others to make them unjustifiably “feel good”.

Being a woman is not a sin.

Being black is not a sin.

Being jewish is not a sin.

“Homosexual-sex-acts” are a sin.

Sin’s must be identified as such, and those doing them must be helped to see them as such,… to a Christian.

To accept that we must “be quiet” so as not to offend is not an acceptable excuse to commit the sin of uncharity, which is what not helping one’s neighbor see sin as sin is.

NEVER should we harm each other.

It is not harm to inform.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.
 
“Practicing homosexuals” are not to be discriminated against as persons, but they must not be allowed to force the discrimination of others to make them unjustifiably “feel good”.
You are really losing me here. Are you changing sides? You have been arguing against laws that would bar denying homosexuals access to housing, jobs, etc arguing that it is right to discriminate against them. Now you say it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. I am confused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
“Practicing homosexuals” are not to be discriminated against as persons, but they must not be allowed to force the discrimination of others to make them unjustifiably “feel good”.

You are really losing me here. Are you changing sides? You have been arguing against laws that would bar denying homosexuals access to housing, jobs, etc arguing that it is right to discriminate against them. Now you say it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. I am confused.
Your confusion is typical of those who can’t quite seem to differentiate the distinction between “person” and “behavior”.

As persons, no person (sorry for the redundancy) should be treated differently under the law.

But a person’s disordered behavior is allowed to be “discriminated against”, in a Christian way, in utmost charity, such that by that discrimination they are informed of their disorder.

“Discrimination” doesn’t simply mean, “You can’t buy a house.”

It means that discrimination is used in accepting a person’s behavior as acceptable (the “thing” being discriminated is the behavior, not the person).

But,… since neither the “belief system” nor the definitions of either “person” or “discrimination” will ever be agreed upon by those with more of an interest in making their disordered behavior “normal” than allowing “free speech” of religious conviction, it’s as it is with most things, which is that there will have to be a “free market battle of wills” to establish the societal “norm”.

And, as I’ve said before, I’m not really annoyed so much at those wanting “perversion” to become a norm, as you’d expect them to be annoying, but rather most annoyed at the vast majority who consider perversion to be so who allow a noisy minority to intimidate them.
 
Keikiolu - it seems we can agree on one thing, that this exchange stopped being of any value a while back. Maybe its me, but I can not understand what your point is. I think we disagree on this issue, but I’m not sure how much. So I think we should just leave it at that.
 
  1. No I’m not. But the folks at NARTH.com are. And their observations gel amazingly well with the (admittedly small) sample of 7-8 gay men I’ve known in my life. I sympathize with your pain. But I hope you will consider their point in the quiet times of your life. Will you REALLY be free of those naggging questions if your parents and the rest of society change and decide to endorse your lifestyle? Natural Law says you won’t. Sorry. Just like the societal mores against premarital sex that have pretty thoroughly crumbled away haven’t eliminated the damage that fornication does to hetero people. Notice the hetero divorce rates lately?
And “SLIGHT” increase over heteros? Please. You know better. EVERY ONE of the gay men I have known suffered at least one of the traits I described (sadly including two suicides). NARTH suggests that the incidence is rather more than slight.
Studies say different things on the issue. NARTH has a particular agenda (namely, that homosexuality is a sin) and tends to ignore evidence to the contrary. However, that said, yes, some studies even report gay men as being twice as likely as heterosexual men (that’s about the largest difference I’ve seen - and, by the way, it has one of the smallest sample sizes out of all the studies I have found on the issue - 73 - , though it is nonetheless statistically signficant, American Psychologist [Vol. 56, No. 11]). However, other studies say that there is no difference (one study I found actually found that lesbians had similiar levels of mental health and were more likely to have higher self-esteem; Psychological Science [Vol. 12, No. 1])

That said, just because you have higher levels of depression (even up to double the average rate), it doesn’t mean that homosexuality is wrong.

On the contrary, many other groups have higher rates of depression and today no one would claim it’s because they are the “lesser sex” or an “inferior race” or something similiar. For example, there are quite a few studies that say that, in the United States, women are about as twice as likely as men to be diagnosed and treated for major depression. And there are a couple studies that say that whites have significantly higher rates of depression than African-americans or Mexican-americans?

I mean, it seems like you’re fishing, you know?
 
On the contrary, many other groups have higher rates of depression and today no one would claim it’s because they are the “lesser sex” or an “inferior race” or something similiar. For example, there are quite a few studies that say that, in the United States, women are about as twice as likely as men to be diagnosed and treated for major depression. And there are a couple studies that say that whites have significantly higher rates of depression than African-americans or Mexican-americans?

I mean, it seems like you’re fishing, you know?
The problem with your analogy – your are trying compare two innate characteristics sex (i.e. being male or female), and race (i.e. being white, black, Asian, Native American, etc.) with behavior (i.e. homosexuality.) this makes your rebuttal meaningless.
Now if want to compare homosexual persons mental health with adulterers, or perhaps prostitutes, or rapist, or compulsive gamblers, and etc, well I think you get my drift.

Though same sex attraction may be well bedding and deep seated within a person, that in itself might be a symptom of poor mental health as a result being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, childhood neglect or psychological abuse by parents or parent, broken home, child of alcoholic or drug abuser or any number of other factors. People try to learn to cope in many different situations by escaping into many compulsive behaviors from alcohol and drug abuse, sexual addiction, co-dependency, love relationship addictions/disorders, eating disorders, and etc… Many that suffer with different compulsive behaviors appear to living well balanced lives to most of the people around them, i.e. co-workers and casual friends, even become successful in academics, business, and other vocations. most have problems that are compounded, more then one behavioral disorder. For instance a person that is a co-dependant might also have an eating disorder and suffer higher levels of depression then one that has sexual addiction to pornography. Well my point is people don’t have behavior problems just because they are black or white, male or female, for these are something people are **definitely **born with. Behavior disorders have other factors that push them and some are very complex such as homosexual sexual behavior. To me it doesn’t surprise me that persons that act out on SSA have higher rates of depression and alcoholism, etc. for I would expect that out of persons that were adulterers, or prostitutes, or porn addicts, or any other person that acted out compulsively on their sexual urges in a immoral manner. But of course prostitutes are probably more of a victim then the others with being manipulated into their behavior by threat, or force.
They are trying to find out why some people are possibly pre-dispossed to certain destructive behavoirs, but it appears there is always enviormental factors that go along with disorder behavoir, or very complex mental disorder. Though I have known a couple of homosexuals that were schizophrenic I’m not ready to put all homosexuals in that same class of mental/physological disorder, but as with all compulsive behavoirs homosexuality (unlike schizophrenia) can be controlled by the person with SSA by making a right choice of not acting out on thier compulsion or attraction.

Homosexaul behavoir is just that a very complex behavoir problem, persons that have SSA have different levels of deep seated attraction and compulsions. Those that act out on it more often will find themselves less likely to resist the behavoir, but no matter what the cause, or how hard people try to normalize the behavoir it is still disorder and creates more harm when acted upon then when resisted.
 
Did I say that they were? I merely said it is pretty hippocritical to complain about a gay activisit trying to convince you that there’s nothing wrong with being gay when your religion demands conversion (- at the risk of eternal suffering and damnation, I might add, though it’s irrelevant.)
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It’s not wrong to be gay. The person must be affirmed and loved. Homosexual sex is however a sin. The action can never be confirmed or affirmed. There is a difference between the person and the action. That is what the activists do not want Catholics to differentiate. They want the person and the action to be indestinguishable and inseperable. That is a phallacy. They are different. One…the gay person… is a being created and loved by God, and should be equally loved by all. The other… homosexual sex… is a sin and can not be affirmed and supported by Catholics.

If homosexuals cannot stay celibate they must enter into a Sacramental Marriage with some one of the opposite sex. If they are not willing to do that then they must stay celibate if they wish to live an upright sin free life before God.
 
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It’s not wrong to be gay. The person must be affirmed and loved. Homosexual sex is however a sin. The action can never be confirmed or affirmed. There is a difference between the person and the action.
This is what the Church teaches, but I fear this is not what many Catholics and other Christians believe. It used to be popular to claim sexual orientation was merely a choice. Now I see claims like the one above that homosexuality is a form of schizophrenia, or that it is caused by drug abuse.

Until Catholics can deal with the fact that God created homosexuals the way they are, the Church won’t be able to deal with this issue in a productive manner. The Church has taken great strides towards that understanding, but many lay Catholics have not. I believe the Church’s understanding of these issue will continue to grow and develop.
 
Studies say different things on the issue. NARTH has a particular agenda (namely, that homosexuality is a sin) and tends to ignore evidence to the contrary. However, that said, yes, some studies even report gay men as being twice as likely as heterosexual men (that’s about the largest difference I’ve seen - and, by the way, it has one of the smallest sample sizes out of all the studies I have found on the issue - 73 - , though it is nonetheless statistically signficant, American Psychologist [Vol. 56, No. 11]). However, other studies say that there is no difference (one study I found actually found that lesbians had similiar levels of mental health and were more likely to have higher self-esteem; Psychological Science [Vol. 12, No. 1])

That said, just because you have higher levels of depression (even up to double the average rate), it doesn’t mean that homosexuality is wrong.

On the contrary, many other groups have higher rates of depression and today no one would claim it’s because they are the “lesser sex” or an “inferior race” or something similiar. For example, there are quite a few studies that say that, in the United States, women are about as twice as likely as men to be diagnosed and treated for major depression. And there are a couple studies that say that whites have significantly higher rates of depression than African-americans or Mexican-americans?

I mean, it seems like you’re fishing, you know?
To you it seems like I am fishing because you already have a bedrock conviction that homosexuality is an imbedded fixed trait in gays/lesbians. I personally find the evidence for that nearly non-existant and often wishful. Unlike you, I am open to the possibility that homsexuality is an OUTCOME of experiences in childhood, possibly combined with some genetic predispositions (not predeterminations). As a result, I can’t help but wonder if the depression, relationship stability problems, etc aren’t related to the same experiences that lead to the SSA in the first place. This is why I don’t see it the same as you do. You see homosexuality as something inborn like race. I see it as potentially something that has its origins AFTER birth. Very different.

You dismiss the work of NARTH as being agenda based, but how about work done by homosexual researchers: is that automatically thrown out too? Don’t they have a STRONGER motive for monkeying with results? This IS one of those scientific issues that is heavily clouded by politics. But I hope you aren’t naive enough to believe that the shenanigans are all on one side! I won’t deny that there are people out there who merely detest homosexuals out of bigotry and that bigotry poisons their ability to do honest scientific work on the matter. I hope you are also honest enough to admit that there are homosexual researchers whose desire to justify their behavior has a similar affect. Both need to be weeded out if the science is to advance to the point of reliability. I don’t believe that is happening yet. Until it does, I can only judge articles based on looking for flaws in the underlying assumptions and gut checking with my own (limited) experiences knowing gay people.
 
To you it seems like I am fishing because you already have a bedrock conviction that homosexuality is an imbedded fixed trait in gays/lesbians. I personally find the evidence for that nearly non-existant and often wishful. Unlike you, I am open to the possibility that homsexuality is an OUTCOME of experiences in childhood, possibly combined with some genetic predispositions (not predeterminations). As a result, I can’t help but wonder if the depression, relationship stability problems, etc aren’t related to the same experiences that lead to the SSA in the first place. This is why I don’t see it the same as you do. You see homosexuality as something inborn like race. I see it as potentially something that has its origins AFTER birth. Very different.

You dismiss the work of NARTH as being agenda based, but how about work done by homosexual researchers: is that automatically thrown out too? Don’t they have a STRONGER motive for monkeying with results? This IS one of those scientific issues that is heavily clouded by politics. But I hope you aren’t naive enough to believe that the shenanigans are all on one side! I won’t deny that there are people out there who merely detest homosexuals out of bigotry and that bigotry poisons their ability to do honest scientific work on the matter. I hope you are also honest enough to admit that there are homosexual researchers whose desire to justify their behavior has a similar affect. Both need to be weeded out if the science is to advance to the point of reliability. I don’t believe that is happening yet. Until it does, I can only judge articles based on looking for flaws in the underlying assumptions and gut checking with my own (limited) experiences knowing gay people.
Did I dismiss the research they cite? No. I acknowledged it as viable and legitimate research. I do not, however, agree with thier conclusion.

The idea that homosexuality is immoral is not inspired from studies saying that homosexuals are prone to depression, but rather from unjustified prejudice or the Bible/Church teaching.

By the way, I’m not convinced that homosexuality is purely caused by genetics. Indeed, twin studies show that while having one gay twin means it’s much more likely that the other twin will be gay, it doesn’t happen all the time. If it was an issue of genes, the vast majority of twins would both be gay. I suspect enviornment plays a factor, though I’m not sure what exactly this role entails.

What if I took something else, like, say, playing football? Playing football carries with it a much higher risk for various types of injuries - especially head injuries. Some studies suggest that, though football players experience rates of depression similiar to society at large, the symptoms are much more severe than the general population. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, April 2007, Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 599-605

So, is playing football wrong?

My suspicion is “no” And I’m sure Benny P will call me ridiculous for citing it.

But if you’re going to say that homosexuality is wrong because people who are gay have higher rates of depression, you have to apply that to other behaviors as well.

But the truth is that you base your condemnation of homosexuality on the Bible and thousands of years of Church teaching and not objective evidence. Personally, I don’t think that’s acceptable. Not everyone believes in the Bible or in the Church. Why should they think homosexuality is wrong? Just because it carries a higher risk of depression? So what? All sorts of other behaviors and identities carry with them higher risks of all sorts of disorders, and it doesn’t make them wrong. It isn’t natural? Well, there are all sorts of unnatural things that people do that aren’t wrong either.

So what is it?
 
Until Catholics can deal with the fact that God created homosexuals the way they are, the Church won’t be able to deal with this issue in a productive manner. The Church has taken great strides towards that understanding, but many lay Catholics have not. I believe the Church’s understanding of these issue will continue to grow and develop.
Until Catholics can except and love homosexuals exactly the way they are how are we to ever win converts for Christ?

I feel for them, it’s a heavy cross to bear. We all have crosses but that one seems to be a particularly difficult one in light of the fact that God’s truth is unchanging, and homosexual sex is a sin.

I know there are probably many that think the concept of homosexual sex being sin is archaic and medieval, and it’s time for people to change their thinking, and get with the times. That’s why I believe that those with an agenda purposely try to inextricably link their person hood with their actions, and feel that anyone who condemns their actions are condemning and hating the person. That’s simply not true. So when the action isn’t accepted and condoned, the person bearing witness to the truth of God is automatically labeled a bigot… filled with hate… and a homophobe. Like I’ve heard stated it’s not charity to affirm people in sin. Nothing less than eternity is at stake.

It is also just not as ok for heterosexual couples to have sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage.
 
Ah I see your point. You’d be right in saying that it is not the incidence of depression that causes me to conclude that homosexual sex is immoral. I apologize if I gave that impression.

In reality, I believe homosexual sex is morally wrong because it is incompatible with Natural Law. If you reject Natural Law and its teleological view of the purpose of the universe, then I can surely see why you would object to the application of its implications in matters like sexuality. I cited the incidence of things such as depression, and so on not as proof, but as supporting evidence of my assertion that homosexual sex violates the Natural Law, not the main point. The main point is that NL gives clear and certain evidence of the proper and intended function of our sexuality - and sodomy is not it.

If you do not start from a worldview in which there are immutable rights and wrongs knowable from natural law, then I don’t know how to argue with you in the first place. I’m not sure where any of your convictions find their source, other than expediency.
 
This is what the Church teaches, but I fear this is not what many Catholics and other Christians believe. It used to be popular to claim sexual orientation was merely a choice. Now I see claims like the one above that homosexuality is a form of schizophrenia, or that it is caused by drug abuse.

Until Catholics can deal with the fact that God created homosexuals the way they are, the Church won’t be able to deal with this issue in a productive manner. The Church has taken great strides towards that understanding, but many lay Catholics have not. I believe the Church’s understanding of these issue will continue to grow and develop.
You do not have the ability to read and comprehend what you read. Nobody said homosexuality was a form of schizophrenia nor caused by drug abuse. That is the problem debating with "gay’ apologist they are so use to a twisted truth, they will twist anything and all things in order to promote their twisted ideas for thier twisted passions.:cool:
 
Did I dismiss the research they cite? No. I acknowledged it as viable and legitimate research. I do not, however, agree with thier conclusion.

The idea that homosexuality is immoral is not inspired from studies saying that homosexuals are prone to depression, but rather from unjustified prejudice or the Bible/Church teaching.

By the way, I’m not convinced that homosexuality is purely caused by genetics. Indeed, twin studies show that while having one gay twin means it’s much more likely that the other twin will be gay, it doesn’t happen all the time. If it was an issue of genes, the vast majority of twins would both be gay. I suspect enviornment plays a factor, though I’m not sure what exactly this role entails.

What if I took something else, like, say, playing football? Playing football carries with it a much higher risk for various types of injuries - especially head injuries. Some studies suggest that, though football players experience rates of depression similiar to society at large, the symptoms are much more severe than the general population. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, April 2007, Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 599-605

So, is playing football wrong?

My suspicion is “no” And I’m sure Benny P will call me ridiculous for citing it.

But if you’re going to say that homosexuality is wrong because people who are gay have higher rates of depression, you have to apply that to other behaviors as well.

But the truth is that you base your condemnation of homosexuality on the Bible and thousands of years of Church teaching and not objective evidence. Personally, I don’t think that’s acceptable. Not everyone believes in the Bible or in the Church. Why should they think homosexuality is wrong? Just because it carries a higher risk of depression? So what? All sorts of other behaviors and identities carry with them higher risks of all sorts of disorders, and it doesn’t make them wrong. It isn’t natural? Well, there are all sorts of unnatural things that people do that aren’t wrong either.

So what is it?
You got to be an idiot to play football. I think football should be outlawed. I HATE football, I like baseball, and it is along way before April.:rolleyes: Playing football is not only wrong, it is oulawed in my home!!! Go Tigers _ Detroit Tigers that is>>>>

Acting out on SSA is still the wrong thing to do, your continue use of very bad anologies still doesn’t make it the right to act out on SSA.🤷

By the I way I don’t think you are ridiculous, just confused.
 
Back to the origional post. this is a problem in general in America. If you do not agree with my position, you hate me, are biased against me, are small minded, or whatever. Just pick any issue at all and you can see this. I am not sure why, though I have my ideas.

As a Christian, I am to love my neighbor as myself and pray for those who hate me. Pretty hard duties, but they are the calling. I can accept that someone may live in a way that I, through my faith, see as sinful, but it does not change my calling to love them as myself. I may have the need to talk to them about that lifestyle, but I CAN NOT hate them.

Look at the word choice. If you disagree with the “pro-gay” agenda, you are called homophobic. The word means an irrational and illogical FEAR of homosexuality. I do not agree with ssm, or many other stances that these groups take, but I am not afraid of them.

I have heard it said that if the “pro-gay” movement really wants to accomplish what the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s did, they need to show us that they are normal, law-abiding folks who want to live their lives in peace. Once caucasions saw that they were not different in hopes, fears, dreams, and desires as the African-Americans, progress was made. Having the sorts of events like the one in San Francisco last month does not show us a homosexual community that is anything like the rest of us.

Thanks to the o.p. for starting this link and bucking the p.c. approach to talking about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top