Redstate

Neil

One point you made is only the view of a small part of the party (Avoiding any inflammatory adjectives here.)

"Civil Unions? No."

I don't think that position or the ban on adoptions by gay couples is a party plank right now at the CA state level or at the National level. Matter of fact, the Governor of the State of CA disagrees with you on this topic.

The positions you state were in a "Son of CA DOMA" being pushed by Gail Knight and could not even garner enough signatures to get on the ballot, let alone a majority view of Republicans in CA.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Read the subject of my post.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Neil

Missed the subtle distention of "How I think it should be".

Clearly my mistake.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I feel very strongly about this issue both personally and politically.

That being said, if we do not inform (or as the left prefers "educate") voters on the fact that we are at best/worst only 1-2 votes away on the Supreme Court from having homosexual marriage mandated on all 50 states, then we are doing a disservice to ourselves and the party. Of course Clinton and Obama will not discuss this fact pubicly (I am sure they make promises in "small gatherings"); but a President Clinton or Obama will absolutely, if given the opportunity to nominate a couple of members of SCOTUS who will mandate homosexual marriage. That has been my beef with the "federalist" amongst us; they seem to ignore the fact that at the least there are 3 votes for homosexual marriage (Souter, Ginsburg & Stevens) and most probably one more (Breyer), with Kennedy perhaps itching to write a Blackmun-like opinion. In short, we have no margin for error.

I have several gay Republican friends here in Maryland. They don't make a big deal about their relationships and they support the Party.

I would even go so far as saying at least one of these folks is very socially conservative. I do find gay Republicans to be more socially liberal in their views but VERY fiscally conservative as a group. YMMV

I say as long as we all agree on the need for the Big Tent and the foundations of the Party, welcome aboard!

One of the things that drew me to the Republican party from the start was the feeling that there an core agreement on the principals of freedom and limited government. I really don't care who you are -- if you feel strongly for the mission you are very welcome in my book.

Of course, in the last few years it has felt like the Party has forgotten a few of these values but I am sure if we work together - all of us - we can get back to where we should be.

Gay people that I've known don't accept their sexual orientation as being unnatural and they would say that society in fact is overwhelmingly trying to "shove its values" down their throats.

As something like 3-5 percent of the population, they will point to almost everything in this culture as evidence of heterosexism and say that it's not fair to them.

If you agree that that their sexual orientation is natural, they have a point.

The lifestyle is certainly natural but its not the norm. Its a good thing that isn't at that.(if it were the human race would be gone in 3->5 generations). They have a giant chip on their shoulders about that and more than a few feel the need to be in the rest of the world's face about it. This causes a negative counter reaction. Yes, you could argue till doomsday about chicken or the egg, but in the end something has to give. The majority has given its time for them to give up the attitude.

My baby sister is a lesbian so this is a tough issue for me. What I've told her about publicly endorsing her lifestyle is this:

"When the arguement was that we should mind our own business about what happens in the bedroom the Gay Rights movement had a point. Where they've gone off the rails is trying to force everyone to acknowledge and or celebrate the "lifestyle".

Is my sister evil? Absolutely not...no more so than anyone else who is a slave to their sin nature, (That includes all Christians this side of heaven), and I'll call anyone outside who would call her evil.

which include sex outside marriage.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

It's YOU that is both the "whiner" and the "aggressor".

Those people basically believe in a 'positive right' to have society at large endorse their lifestyle choices. People who beleive in 'positive rights' tend not to be Republicans anyway, so we won't miss them.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

think that the other 97 to 95 percent of the population are both whiner's and aggressor's and we should care why? I am really not trying to be snarky I just don't see how that argument is going to win the debate....because if that is how small their population is they are certainly enjoying widespread appeal on both television and print media...so much so that you would think they were at least half the population....there are more gay characters on tv than there are black characters or hispanic...how is that fair?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I don't see homosexuality as being a blip anymore. And I say that because I think within the next century we're going to be asking questions along the lines of:

"Do you think it's appropriate for my two-brained daughter to have one homosexual and one heterosexual personality? Or should she have just one?"

"How many wings should black people have if they want to become the world's best outfielders?"

"Boobs? How many are enough? Eight, or twelve?"

"Can anyone ever have too many legs when they work for Wal-Mart?"

In comparison to the things I really believe are going to happen to the human race in the next 200 years, this little thing that's been around since the dawn of time is *nothing*.

I absolutely agree (even if you are making a joke). For some people, permanently modifying their physical appearance is not a big deal. Tattoos, piercings, scarification, etc, go back to the roots of civilization. Now plastic surgery allows us to appear younger or of another sex.

Given the opportunity, I'm sure a sizable minority would embrace future advances in body modification. Some might opt for genetic treatments to speed their metabolism, become completely hairless, or glow in the dark.

Thus the argument would slide, pitting those who want to conserve their natural human genome (which includes defects and disease), against those who want to "optimize" their genome (removing defects and disease & adding rare genetic benefits), against those want the freedom to alter their genome in any way they see fit (growing a tail or fangs or some other "non-essential" change).

The two most controversial aspects of such a development will be: 1) the limits (if any) governments and/or adults can impose on themselves or their children; and 2) the controls (if any) on the sexual reproduction for those who have been altered.

In comparison, arguments over homosexuality will appear quaint, naive and old-fashioned.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

If someone's going to get his feelings hurt because a frank question was asked, independently of what the answer is, then that person is too emotionally fragile to be taken seriously in a political movement anyway.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Save or take 11D6 damage. (Yes I am first edition, I will always be first edition, I have the original hardbacks everything after is heresy)

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")

But not being a D&D guy, it whizzes right on by my head...

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

You have absolutely no proof to our implication that a serious set of questions with serious answers is going to drive serious people away from a political movement.

Not everyone is that stupid. And you know what? If one of *us* depicted homosexuals as being as stupid as you are [depicting them], you'd be taking out yet another one of your tiresome bits of sarcasm with one of your poorly thought-out word-substitution comparisons.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

It asked questions about religious doctrines that may or may not be near/dear to Redstate readers.

I abandoned it, however, as unnecessarily confrontational.

At this point in time, the main question in my mind is "Will we lose more Socon votes by appealing to homosexual voters than we will gain by having them tentatively vote for us here or there?"

The answer, it seems to me, is that you will lose more votes than you will gain.

The follow-up question, however, is "will the Republican Party lose more independent voters, in the long run, by asking without any apparent irony if homosexuals are evil than they will keep from the Social Conservatives by asking such questions?"

Dunno the answer to that one.

I suppose that there is another theoretical question that deals with the issue of principle when it comes to dealing with the Schrodingerian question of homosexual evil but it probably falls outside of the scope of this diary.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I really, really do not have time to get into an in-depth discussion of this question tonight, but I think that Kowalski's trying to make us follow a red herring with this diary (no offense, Alex, but this was hardly the product of well-reasoned thought). The question is not whether homosexuals are "evil" any more than the question is whether drug addicts are "evil" or robbers are "evil" or people who watch HGTV are "evil" - whether a person is "evil" or "not evil" is not an appropriate subject for politics or governmental action. The question rather is whether certain behaviors merit the approbation, indifference, or reprobation of the state. I think that if we move the discussion away from "gay people being evil" into an area that people are really and truly arguing about - at least insofar as "people" is defined as "everyone but the Fred Phelps freaks" - it will be more useful.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

A few more points:

1. We *don't* require Red Staters to be supportive of fantasy RPGs. In fact we have contributors raised to believe they're evil.

2. The fact that you yourself are trivializing the matter by comparing homosexual behavior with the choice of playing RPGs undermines your whole case that we should have to accept it, due to #1.

3. Consider pornography. We have at least one contributor who would support the death penalty for porngraphers. And yet we surely have many people on this site who are customers of pornographers.

We are tolerant of viewpoints, which is more important than being tolerant of 'lifestyles.' Ideas matter. Identity politics are for the left.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Is that I read the original diary as wrestling with the question of "how much ought we reach out to homosexuals?"

In my opinion, homosexuals have a great deal of upside for the Republican party.

Double-income, no kids. This leads to all kinds of fiscal conservative intuitions ("We paid *HOW* much in taxes?!?") and that is a great foot in the door.

But the very phrasing of the questions in the diary made me sadly shake my head and think that any outreach is doomed from the start.

I think the diary is a very, very good sign, mind. But it's a good sign because of the vector.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

As I see it, the biggest difference between the conservative and liberal viewpoints is the question of whether the population needs to be protected BY the government or FROM the government. Republicans fight for Abolition, Civil Rights, and tax cuts while Democrats fight for handouts, regulations, and (in earlier generations) Jim Crow and slavery.

In the short term, being protected by the government may look attractive to any minority group. But if the government is can provide an identity group with extraordinary protections, it's also possible for that government to act to oppress that group.

I know that many people will accuse me of "slippery slope" thinking, but consider this: The legal framework that made special protections for black people possible under reconstruction were essentially the same ones that made slavery legal, and were used after reconstruction to make several generations of Jim Crow laws possible. Every Muslim I’ve ever heard argue for the "separate but equal" treatment women receive in the Islamic world has couched his argument terms of women needing "special protection". And there's more than a few Native Americans who can tell you that being a ward of the State isn't all that attractive after a few generations.

I would think that there are a lot of gay people who realize they have more to fear from a well-meaning Uncle Sam than they do from a homophobic Bobby Ray hanging out in front of the Pump-N-Munch. I would think that that makes them much more likely Republicans than "HOW MUCH are we paying in taxes?!!!".
______________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

Well argued.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm sorry, but no, it wasn't. It's simply a straw man to pretend that anyone is claiming that, "all sexual [choices] are morally neutral and are a matter of no concern to society at large." The argument conflates homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia and whatever else you want to throw in, when in reality you would be hard-pressed to find a sensible gay rights advocate who believes sex with minors, animals or the dead should be socially (or legally) acceptable.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

has made many immoral sexual choices that also recognizes same should be a concern for society. Must be. And upholding a standard lessens the frequency of wrong choices.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

“Many Pro-choice republicans no longer feel comfortable” You think that’s bad? Trying running in the democrat party as a pro-lifer. The republican party should only be a big tent in so far as we narrow our core principles and leave all else up for debate. Once we decide as a party that we will advocate a particular position (like the pro-life position), any more expanding of the party numbers should be done by converting people to our point of view or at least convincing them that what we have in common is more important than what we disagree on. You wouldn’t accept a high-taxes, military dismantling demographic into the party and tell them that we’ll represent that point of view, would you? I’d tell them that whatever we have in common (and there are some socons that fit that demographic) is what we’ll represent, and that’s it. If we start pandering to everyone, we will lose even when we win. How many more Chafees do we need in this party?

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Being pro choice should not come easy to anyone. Just turn the phrase into being pro baby killing. If that doesn't make you uncomfortable its not the party that has a problem.

and pro-choicers to the party is problematic as I said. These are hot button issues unlike say tax-reform or strengthening the military. If you say "I think it's irresponsible to call for tax cuts right now but I agree with everything else in the Republican platform" people might call you foolish but there isnt the same level of emotion towards that position as say homosexual rights or choice.

People in the GOP can take someone who disagrees with them on tax-cuts or other issues and say "you're wrong on this but you're still a republican" but not quite so much on social issues like abortion and gay rights.

I'm not saying that the Republican party should not be the Pro-life party, and I'm not saying that the party should not stand against homosexual marriage. All I am saying is that attracting voters who are pro-choice or pro-gay marriage is problematic because those issues are much more emotional and a large segment of the party does not want to engage in the kind of respectful debate over it that would be required to put people who support those position at ease in the Republican party.

They endorse the murder of children. It takes much for me to overlook that.

You are wrong in trying to ascribe this as a single issue deal. I have trouble with people that want to expand the role of government, raise taxes, or expand entitlements. Conservatism is about the whole philosophy. If you think you can compromise portions of it without compromising the whole you are wrong. By the reverse token if you advance part of the philosophy you tend to advance the whole.

Encouraging personal responsibility promotes an understanding of the importance of life and the need to defend freedom. Promoting a strong defense, creates an environment where people are free and can develop conservative values. Promoting a stable social structure encourages people to understand the appropriate role of liberty and why our society must be defended.

You can't have people that are actively out to hurt any one of these things and expect the rest won't be harmed.

There are numerous examples of failed states that were done in by their missing pieces of the puzzle. Wealth and power have never been guarantors of a nations survival. History is littered with great empires brought low by moral failings.

I can understand your distaste for people who hold the pro-choice view point, but you can see how that type of response is exactly why most people who share a pro-choice point of view do not feel comfortable in the party, they're usually not tolerated well. With an issue such as abortion I can somewhat understand that, if you see abortion as murder (as many do) then it takes a lot to accept the presence of murderers in your midst. Homosexuals however generally get a similarly cool reception usually and thats the reason why many don't feel comfortable in the party. It's not so much the rejection of their issues as the way they get rejected.

Look Jack Ryan got rejected for being obnoxiously heterosexual. I would hold anyone who is obnoxiously forthcoming in their sexuality isn't going to find a warm welcome at the local Republican club.

This really should not be a shocker either.

You're right it is absolutely worse in the Democratic party, and their outright exclusion of Pro-Life democrats I think is one of the major reasons that they've never won a Presidency with a majority share of the vote.

And you're right, once the party takes a specific stand on an issue you effectively decide that youre going to try to persuade people to your point of view. The question I was positing is the way its done. Do you shout out people like the Republican Majority for Choicers, call them Baby Killers and tell them their not welcome? Or do you say "You're wrong, theres nothing you can say to convince me otherwise, but I want you in the party and I think that, while misguided youre not an evil person."

Its the same way for homosexuals, if the GOP party platform is "Anti-Gay Marriage" and thats a line in the sand that the GOP will never support Gay marriage, fine, but if you want homosexuals to vote for GOP candidates you have to say "these are the reasons I disagree with your position on this issue, but I don't think you're a sinister radical homosexual lobby that wants to destroy democracy. I give your point of view enough respect to debate it and vote on it in the party platform but this is how the majority of our party feels.

THAT is the main problem.

I think it's been mentioned above my post, but I got no problem welcoming in "Pro-Choicers" and "Gays" if they come in because they agree with some conservative values. It's when they make it their identity I begin to realize they have every intention of pushing issue. I imagine there are plenty of people on this site who are pro-choice and wanted to push for their candidate during the primary, but I doubt anyone here was pushing for Rudy because of his pro-choice connections. Most conservative pro-choicers kept it to themselves and focused on the issue more important to them, national defense. Usually it went something like "I don't think we should vote for Rudy because of pro-life reason X" vs "I think we should because of national security reason Y". That is the kind of debate I accept (love) in this party. A debate like "I don't think we should vote for Chafee because of pro-life reason X" vs "We need to expand the tent" is not what I want to hear, and that is what I think we risk with people who don't keep their liberal leanings to themselves and focus on the conservative stuff we agree on.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Please, no flak here. I'm trying to just make a point. I don't hold any grudges about the primary and Rudy wasn't my last choice nor would I have ever campaigned for the other side if he was the candidate.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Nice idea but the issue cuts many different ways doesn't it?

From your post you seem to say the majority of the Party should give up on the Pro Life plank so Pro-Abortionists won't feel abused or stop pushing for DOMA so we can attract Gay independents. I doubt very seriously if you would give up on the lower tax, or stronger national security, Or smaller government planks of the platform if a vocal minority of the Party demanded that you do so! At least I hope you wouldn't!

If we are going to just divorce ourselves from any principles whatsoever just se we can win...Why go through the convention process or even have a platform. Why not just throw the whole kit a kaboodle out the window and vote with he Democrats?!

I have no interest in cutting the pro life plank or cutting doma. But its the way that such things are advocated that is problematic. Like I said, when you have people in the Party shouting "baby-killer" pro-choicers wont feel comfortable, just like pro-lifers dont feel comfortable in the Democratic party because they're shouted out as mysoginistic woman oppressors.

Homosexuals don't feel comfortable in a party that rails against a "homosexual lobby" and in a party where some politicians feel the way to get elected is to go overboard on the whole anti-gay agenda ship. I'm not advocating changing the platform all I am saying is that the nature of these issues causes emotional levels to rise which causes people to feel uncomfortable. Thats all.

Makes sense and I agree with your second post. The problem is there is a large block in the Party who would change the platform to pander to these constituencies and attemt to force the majority of us to to the Party line.

LOL

It's easier to change your sex than your sexual orientation.

Religion has nothing to do with it, except its role in the condemnation of gays.

There are countless things/acts in this world that are far more "evil" than sex acts between consenting adults.
I would advise you to just get over it.

After all if you changed someones sex without changing the nature of their orientation you would de facto change the nature of their orientation.

You know, after media hyped the story of pregnant man, the truth is that this pregnant man was in fact a woman who has her reproductive organs intact. So in reality, pregnant man is still a woman! Therefore, it's not easy changing sex as you wish to believe. After all, if men were castrated, did that mean they were now women? Of course not. If women had their breasts gotten rid of, did that mean they were now men as well? No way.

Having said that, changing sexual orientation isn't easy either, but it isn't difficult as sex change is.

The condemnation of gay people isn't the only thing that's in Christian religion. Far from it, God's invitation to accept Jesus as Savior is open to all people regardless of race, sex, religion, lifestyles, etc.

Rom 5:18-19 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Since the Bible is divinely inspired by God, above is the saying tht comes directly from God. It proves that God has abundant love for all people.

And as for your third paragraph on evilness of homosexuality, The Bible views every imaginable sin as evil, period. No exceptions. Yes, of course, the degree of every sin varies, but in the end, all and every act of sin is evil, period.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

I wonder if you have considered the place of (46,XY) persons within the traditional definitions of man and woman? I'm referring to those afflicted with the Complete form of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (a.k.a. Classical Testicular Feminization Syndrome). Although individuals with CAIS appear to be normal females, they do not have ovaries, fallopian tubes or a uterus. Instead, they have internalized testes and male XY sex chromosomes. Thankfully this rare, affecting only 1 in 20,000 people. But in a country of 300 million, that means there are 15,000 CAIS women.

Undoubtedly some have been married within traditional Christian churches, but are they women with testes or men with vaginas? I genuinely wonder what is God's plan for these people? Does he want them to marry and have families? If so, which sex may they marry? What lessons are we to learn from these male/female hybrids?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

gender that they're happy with.

Having said that, let me ask you a question, if a person had CAIS, and his body looked like a female body with lots of chemicals that are usually found only in females, doesn't it make sense for that person to stay as a woman? It would be the same thing with a person with a manlike body.

Truly, I don't know, and with all due respect, I don't think I wouuld want to be in that position to find out.

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

Well this is where having a simplistic theological world view is problematic. If you truly believe there should only be the traditional definitions and roles for men and women, then what do you do about CAIS "women"?

Although not possible now, in a decade or so it may be possible for a person with CAIS to have their primitive sperm (spermatogonium) extracted from their testes and used to fertilize an egg. In which case, this CAIS woman would be the father of a child.

I know that some social conservatives reject the idea of a third classification for sex (intersex), but if you want to uphold tradition, what else could a CAIS woman be?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

You are off on your theology. There are not varying degrees of sin. a blasphemer is no better than a murderer who is no better than a homosexual etc.

"If a man should keep the whole law yet stumble in one point he is guilty of all."

One single sin is enough for condemnation no matter how minor you wish to say that sin is!

My theologians disagree with your theologians. No reason we can't go have a Mikes Hard Lemonade though.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I guess my bigger point is that no matter what the sin...outside salvation in Crist.....the punishment is the same...eternal separation from God and punishment in the lake of fire!

At least that's my reading of it

Your well-reasoned points have carried the day here, MrSyHastings.

I would also "advise" you to put your Pointy Sticks away, posthaste.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

they can. There are numerous support groups, according to this website, dedicated to helping those who wish to change their sexual orientation.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

The belief that homosexuality is an irrevocable genetic trait about which a person has no choice whatsoever is believed by a certain cadre of persons with more ferocious conviction than Billy Graham's belief that there is a God.

------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.

When I was growing up it flipped between being a choice (as in "It's my choice and you can't tell me what to do") and being a genetic condition/trait/whatever. Of course this was back in the unenlightened days when Bill and Ted could use the new "f" word and didn't require public condemnation and sensitivity training. So frankly I, like South Park's Butters, am a little confused.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Chromosomes don't change Women have XX Chromosomes and man have XY. If you give a woman a penis she is still a woman the same as a man with a Vagina is still a man!

There are several ministries lead by and made up of tens of thousands of ex-Gays that provide outreach and counseling services for Gays who wish to leave the lifestyle.

Exodus is one of these ministries that I can think of off the top of my head. Botom line? It is possible for Gays to not be Gay and these ministries have proved it over and over.

Would you like a group of people castigating you, talking about you, always questioning the way you live? That might get a bit old after the age of 25. Not to mention there is a difference between being gay and being sexually confused because of abuse. This idea that you can force people to change if you can just get them to read the Bible a bit more and understand what bad people they are hasn't worked and just leads people to be covertly gay-probably more likely seeking out gay unprotected sex rather than openly entering into loving relationships. And not to mention the high amount of depression and suicde rates that affect the teens especially who are forced into being "fixed" in camps-those things are more like Soviet Union brainwashing gulags.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

They interviewed one of the guys who went through one of them and he talked about what happened to him, the various retreats, the sermons, the rehabilitation...

At one point, the interviewer asked "Did you go on any dates with women?" and the guy haltingly said "yes". "What was that like?"

The man started sobbing and saying "it was awful."

I said "I hear ya, pal" and my wife punched me in the arm and wouldn't talk to me for 20 minutes.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

My perspective is one where I see nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with homosexuality qua homosexuality.

Now, do I have a problem with infidelity? Of course I do.
Do I have a problem with people having sex casually rather than as part of a lifetime commitment? I waver a bit here but, at the end of the day, I'd agree with the argument that sex is best when it's part of a lifetime partnership.
Do I think that sodomy is a good way to get a UTI? Of course it is.

But, homosexuality qua homosexuality, is not a big deal according to my world view.

I would analogize to the eating of lobster. Imagine a small group of people who argued that the eating of lobster was unnatural and communities should be allowed to shun the eating of lobster. Imagine serious discussions of whether this city or that city should be allowed to say "you can't eat lobster in city limits". Imagine serious discussion of whether this city or that city should be allowed to say "you can eat lobster but you can't buy or sell it within city limits".

Imagine a joke about NPR talking about camps that have been specifically set up to get people who enjoy lobster to stop eating lobster. Imagine diaries sprouting up asking "Are people who eat lobster evil?"

If you can imagine these things, then you can imagine my perspective as I look on the debate with regards to homosexuality.

I understand that there are perspectives out there where homosexuality is akin to abortion. I disagree with these perspectives and am trying to engage with them.

But please understand that, in my perspective, it's as silly as arguing about whether lobster is an abomination.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I'm in the same boat as you. More so, I never really understood why so many people cared about others personal lives. Sure you might feel it's a sin, sure you might be repulsed by it, but it's not you or your family doing it. I care about as much about other people's sexuality as I do for their taste in food.

homosexuality can not be minimized to the eating of food. There are many who view it, along with the many other social ills of our society, as seen from both a biblical and historical perspective to be a sign of how erroded the foundation of our society has become.

I don't believe it should be punished, but I also believe it should not be condoned nor should we extend rights to the people who choose to live in this way.

I know that sounds harsh (it's not meant to be), but from my perspective this lifestyle is extremely lethal to the future of our society.

it invites questions such as "why do you pay attention to this verse that says that X is an abomination but ignore the verse that says Y is an abomination?"

If we don't want to get into that discussion (and, as far as I can tell, people usually don't), it's best not to bring it up in the first place.

But maybe that's an interesting point as well. Is it possible to discuss whether homosexuality is immoral with an appeal to Scripture?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

homosexuality is immoral without an appeal to scripture than I since my belief system is drawn mainly from the truth that I find in the Bible. I could not offer an unbiased opinion on the subject.

As far as my appeal to the Bible please explain to me why I wouldn't want to get into the discussion about "why do you pay attention to this verse that says that X is an abomination but ignore the verse that says Y is an abomination?"

Lobster is an abomination?

Leviticus 11:9-12 has The Lord explain that "whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters" is to be regarded as an "abomination".

The Lord says this three times. Like He totally wanted to hammer it home how abominable these creatures were to Him.

This is the same word used in Leviticus 20:13 that describes homosexuality. The word "abomination" was only used once, though.

I assume that people don't want to get into this discussion because they feel silly explaining how this abomination is only an abomination for Jews but it's not an abomination for Gentiles but that abomination is totally an abomination for everybody.

Or explaining how dietary laws did not come from the mouth of The Lord but were thrown together by a bunch of Type-A Hebrews but the homosexuality thing is totally still operative.

Or explaining how they prayed and prayed and came to an understanding with The Lord how Red Lobster is totally okay but homosexuals remain an abomination because they have worked it out through their own personal relationship with God.

Or explaining how Paul totally revoked that rule and so lobster is unabominated but homosexuality hasn't been unabominated and Revelations says that the Bible ends there so there are no more unabominations to come in under the wire.

Normally people don't like to have these conversations because these explanations stink of "the stuff I like isn't an abomination but the stuff those other people like still is" and it becomes obviously arbitrary when said out loud.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Paul mentions food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8. The nature of this food is not specified. "ειδωλοθυτον" is the word. "Food sacrificed to idols."

He does not say "it's okay to eat food which The Lord has pronounced to be an abomination" but "hey, food that has been offered to idols hasn't really had anything happen to it so it's not bad to eat it but don't do it if it'll make your weaker brothers stumble."

To interpret 1 Corinthians to say "it's okay to eat lobster" takes liberties to the point where you could point out that it's okay to be gay... so long as it doesn't make a weaker brother stumble.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

doesn't cause a brother to stumble. The abomination of homosexual sex is not about a brother stumbling. Its about YOU stumbling.

Your abomination focused blinders is a cute device.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Because, you know, in Acts 15:29 Paul also says that we should avoid eating meats offered to idols and mentions, oh, I'll just quote him.

απεχεσθαι ειδωλοθυτων και αιματος και πνικτων και πορνειας εξ ων διατηρουντες εαυτους ευ πραξετε ερρωσθε

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Far from me to say that Paul equivocates! I merely point out that the interpretation that says that Paul is totally 100% cool with whatever you want to put in your body, so long as it's food, is one that fails to take into account other things that Paul has said.

And, of course, that if there is *ANY* doubt on this rule vs. that one... better to stick with what God said. Did The Lord use the word "Abomination" in Leviticus with regards to shellfish?

Is that really something so easily swept aside by a verse where Paul talks about meats offered to idols?

Does taking other verses in which Paul discusses meats offered to idols make it more, or less, likely that it's cool to eat whatever?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

you want to be your own God. The words of the Bible are clear on sex outside marriage.

you can yak all you want periodically to try and talk yourself into ignoring the obvious.

Do it with someone else starting now.

I have declared the truth. You refuse to accept it.

bye

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

This is what I was talking about when I said that people tend to not want to discuss this.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

You didn't like mine either.

That's where discussion comes into play.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

you are stuck on the supposed abomination equivalence

in isolation

w/o regard to numerous teachings against all sexual immorality incl homosexual sex and the stark differences between that and food

happy

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

That Paul's teachings make it okay for us to eat Lobster.

And I quoted scripture to point out that this was not the case, at least, that is *NOT* what Paul was teaching.

And then you compared me to Satan.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Paul is in a trance and the following happens:

Act 10:10-15 NASB
(10) But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance;
(11) and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground,
(12) and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.
(13) A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!"
(14) But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean."
(15) Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."

Two points:
1) The animals shown were unclean/not 'kosher' (Verse 14)
2) God said it was OK! (Verse 15)

BTW: Lobster is properly steamed, not boiled (horrors!) and served with drawn creamery butter. Just ask any real Mainer, ayuh!

was the demonstration that Jesus had made the Gentiles kosher.

And Rightly So!

that following this Paul actually went to a 'Gentile' home and preached the gospel be he also ate with them. I don't see it written anywhere that Cornelius's dietary habits suddenly changed upon his conversion.

Try this: Act 15:28-29 NASB
(28) "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials:
(29) that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

This message was sent to "the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles" by the apostles, brethren and elders of the church in Judea. Please note the absence of the dietary requirements of the Jewish faith! Many Hebrew converts maintained the dietary habits and some didn't. Some felt that the dietary laws needed to be maintained only by those of Hebraic descent and some didn't.

The point is that the early church did not see the need to force dietary laws on anyone! They interpreted Paul's vision as the complete package, food and people. Considering that the some of the apostles in Judea were "THE Apostles" I hold their take on it very highly!

This I do know:

(Mat 16:19 NASB) "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Since the decision by the church authorities on earth OK'd it 2000 yrs ago, I'm gonna eat bacon! OK???

It wasn't Paul, it was Peter.

Dude. It even says that in 13.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I stand corrected. Heat of the moment thing! I'm currently studying 1st & 2nd Thessalonians and have 'Paul' on the brain! I've typed it so often it's automatic!
Mea culpa! I apologize!

understand my perspective. I believe there is a moral authority that says homosexuality is immoral. What is your moral authority that says homosexuality isn't immoral?

It comes from a sincere belief that all human beings are capable of moral agency and the exercise of that moral agency that results in a strengthening of the virtues (such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control) is Good.

And homosexuals, so long as they are freely interacting with each other (and, preferably, in a life-partnership) are contributing toward the Good.

On the contrary, those who would stamp out such things are detracting. And certainly if they do such things and hide behind the excuse that they have been told by Authority to do such things.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Galatians 5:22 would you not also agree that the following are evil in Galations 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresis, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Strong's concordance defines this word to be translated from the greek word "porneia" which has the following meaning:
1) illicit sexual intercourse

a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12

2) metaph. the worship of idols

a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

I pretty much think that that will provide a clean out for the whole "fornication" part of homosexual sex.

Will there still be sex outside of marriage? Sure.

But we'll be able to yell "put a dang ring on his finger!" at two guys living in sin. We'll be able to pull one of them aside and say "you guys are going to get married, right?" when one of them makes an off-color sex joke. Mothers will be able to hound their gay children with talk of weddings and receptions and floral arrangements.

This will have so many upsides I can't believe it.

Including, of course, giving a lifetime commitment avenue for gay couples for whom bed death has not yet occured.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

a moral authority. You defined good and I asked you based on your definition of good if the following acts were evil in Galatians. Our discussion has nothing to do with gay marriage and your support of it. The discussion is about the morality of homosexuality.

By the way I have never advocated doing anything from a legal sense against homosexuality. I believe the best we can do as a society is simply say it's immoral behavior and leave it at that. Otherwise we open the door for all other immoral behavior to have a seat at the discussion table.

Is that we have both set ourselves up as moral authorities.

It's just that you point to the Bible and say "oh, yeah, I follow what that says" and I say "I forge out my own way".

When we start discussing the Bible, and I ask "well, do you follow this rule here, how about this one? How about this one?" you ask me to stop talking about your scriptures.

Seriously, dude. You asked me to stop talking about your scriptures. That thing that you base your moral authority upon?

You asked me to stop talking about them.

Do you not see the problem here?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

find it interesting that you have no other arguement.

But you misunderstand the dynamic.

You say that homosexuality is wrong. I ask "why do you say it's wrong?" and you say "scripture".

We then get into the nitty-gritty of discussing scripture.

At which point you ask me to not quote scripture anymore.

And then tell me that I have no other arguments.

You are the one saying homosexuality is evil.

I say it's about as evil as eating lobster.

If you want to discuss why homosexuality is evil without resorting to scripture, I'd love to do that.

But you don't get to say "I get to use scripture and no one else does unless they agree with me". If you wish to drop it, I'll drop it. But you don't get to use a text that I don't get to use.

Seriously.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Please note in particular Romans 1:19-20,26-32

Romans
18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

We can totally break down what Paul was doing in Romans, how he was building up to a rhetorical point, and how the stuff in Romans 14:4,10-12 (to quote separate verses as if they were all put together) is closer to the point he was building up to rather than the stuff in chapter 1.

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

In my estimation, there are bigger fish to fry out there than homosexuality. Moreover, in their zeal to condemn homosexuality, many Christians cease to demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control.

Attack murder, theft. Attack hunger. Attack terrorism! But homosexuality? Consensual homosexuality? Between adults? That is so far down the list that I don't understand how it's an election issue at all.

But, keep in mind, I say that as one of those folks who sees about as much wrong with homosexuality as I see with long-term cohabitation. "Dude. Put a ring on his/her finger."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Romans 1 does not refute the truth that it contains. Paul is teaching us to judge from the standpoint of humility in the fear of God as opposed to from the stanpoint of pride and condescension. Who am I to look down on another man finding myself in the same position. The ultimate act of love is to tell an individual (in humility) that what they are doing is wrong, especially in the light of the judgement seat of God.

Illicit sexual activity, which includes homosexuality, along with all other immorality is at the heart of all the big fish that need to be fried. Instead of dealing with the heart of all the issues that our country faces we are attempting to deal with them with external means (through money/legislation at it and hopefully we'll fix it).

Is best found in the conclusion of the argument.

Romans is a wonderful book of Rhetoric written to Jews in Rome who have a problem with their Gentile brethren. Romans 1 is saying "oh, yeah, they do this, this, this, this, and this!" getting the Roman Jews to lean in and nod their heads and say "oh yeah!" and *THEN* Paul hits them with "But you do THAT! THAT! THAT! THAT! THAT! And THAT!!!"

And *FINISHES* with the verses I quoted above.

And you're focusing on the verse where Paul is talking about how they break the Levitical laws... and when we get into the nitty gritty of discussing these things... you ask me to stop quoting "your" scriptures.

My argument is that marriage will make this illicit sexual activity significantly more licit.

Maybe sex isn't unitive *AND* procreative for homosexual couples.

My opinion is that the unitive portion is the good part and ought to be cultivated. The "airport stall" thing is obscene and, yes, an abomination. Lifetime commitment between two people is something that is Good.

And I'd be interested in your argument that a lifetime commitment between two people is other than good. (It's based on Scripture and Scripture alone, right?)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

all inclusive.

"Lifetime commitment between two people is something that is Good." if it is not explicitly condemned (Ref Gal 5 above). Homosexuality is explicitly stated as a work of the flesh. Works of the flesh are as filthy rags before God. Does God according to scripture allow people to live such lives? The answer is yes! Because God allows it does that mean that He condons it? The answer is no!

Our nation is also accountable to God as a whole. By condoning that which God says is wrong our nation invites upon itself the curse of God. Do not mistake God's longsuffering with His mercy and His judgement. God will not be mocked!

In your efforts to achieve righteousness, do not be a whited sepulchre.

The fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

When one starts discussing whether homosexuals are evil... what fruits are observed?

Can you tell a tree by its fruit?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

it a work of the flesh. I asked you if the works of the flesh were evil if the fruit (it's fruit not fruits) of the Spirit is good. It would appear that that is the context that Paul would infer. Therefore if works of the flesh are evil, one can conclude that committing just one of those acts would mean that evil exist in me. So, if evil is present with me when I stand at the judgement seat of God what punishment do you think will be executed by God?

The only way to have this fruit not fruits that Pauls is talking about is to have its source the Spirit of God, and the only way to have the Spirit is through the salvation work of Jesus. Then I can stand at the judgement seat of God without fear of punishment having my sins completly erased as if I had never done them because greater is He (Spirit of God) that is in me than he (that is this flesh) that is in the world. Paul calls this grace (the righteousness of God extended to my account at Christ expense) and it can only be found in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

But I think that you'll find this one more interesting and/or authoritative.

Matthew 7. Verses 21-23 are very interesting indeed.

When standing and being judged, be sure to point out that you made sure that folks like me had no doubt about how wicked you find homosexuality.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"The truth contained is best found in the conclusion of the argument."

ask that you refrain from using it to support your position (since you are biased) and find some other means to refute the truth that I find in it.

I politely decline.

If you would like to drop the scriptural argument entirely, I would be down with that...

But this is what I was talking about when I said that people generally do not wish to discuss this.

We can go back to that, if you'd like.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

because we were created in the image of God, the ultimate moral authority over all things.

Our moral agency is an emergent property from free will (if it exists).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Though I suppose I could explore the whole "asking people to stop talking about it even though I brought it up" and getting offended when they don't thing.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Bue people can say "Oh, this book here! This book here contains absolute truth!"

And then when other people say "what about the other stuff the book contains?" the first person can say "I'll politely ask you to stop quoting this book because it's very important to me."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

You don't need to answer if you don't want to and if you do answer it I won't beat you with my Bible (the Bibles I use the most reside on my notebook computer and I can't afford to replace it!). It'll just clue me as to how to approach any questions I have for you or any answers I have for your questions. Discussions with people who unquestioningly agree with you are boring and induce stupor. Without a differing viewpoint it is truly difficult to explore your own beliefs!
The questions:
Are you a Atheist or Theist?
If Theist, what is your denomination? I am former Roman Catholic and currently describe myself loosely as "Christian Evangelical".

the death penalty for gay sex and incest

no death penalty for lobster

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Personally, I do not think that homosexuals ought to be killed.

I mean, like, not even "in theory but I understand that we have to give Caesar what is Caesar's".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and btw, that death penalty was only for a time, when the jews were under seige when the nation was all living under essentially army rules demanding no deviations for the sake of unity.

And of couse, the new testament does not demand same.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Unabominated like Lobster was when it was established that we no longer had to follow Levitical Law?

Or did it become something like sitting on a chair that you later found out a woman suffering from her moon sickness sat on a few hours earlier (Leviticus 15:23)?

Because this totally smacks of picking and choosing the rules that are easy and explaining away the rules that are hard as being part of The Old Covenant That We Totally Don't Have To Follow Anymore.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

a fool.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I do suspect that this will trail off like it did the last time you and I discussed this, though.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Abominations.
Lobster.
Paul.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Well, more accurately, chore time.

βδελυγμα

That's the Greek word that is used in both the Septuagint and New Testament. It's used for homosexuality, lobsters, and general wickedness. Proverbs 20:23 uses the word with regards to "differing weights".

You know. Cheating when using a scale.

Romans 3:31 is of use here.
Romans 6:15 is of use here.
Romans 7:12 is of use here.

With the final discussion of 1 Corinthians 10:28.

But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

Paul knows that meat offered to idols is just meat and, at the end of the day, is just meat. This is why in 1 Cor 10:27 he says it's cool if you sit down and eat without asking if the food had first been offered to idols.

But there are verses and verses and verses and verses where Paul comes out and says "yeah, keep these rules" and to get to the point where you can argue that Paul says, naw, it's cool to eat whateva... well you have to use differing weights.

And I point you back to Proverbs 20:23.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

you need to settle down on this one

I think you and bird need to agree to disagree before you start saying things that you will regret tomorrow.

The above should come close to it. Especially since it sounds to me like you are calling bird Satan.

Can you explain how it's "extremely lethal to the future of our society"? I've heard this argument a lot, but never what it's lethal to.

thirty years of our nations history and tell me where you think we're heading.

Looks like the right direction, to me:

Nearly every social indicator is trending in a direction most of us would consider positive.

Here are just a few examples, culled from government agencies and advocacy groups: Teen pregnancy is at its lowest point since government researchers have been keeping statistics. Juvenile crime has been falling for 20 years (though there was, admittedly, a slight uptick last year). Crimes against children are down. The number of reported rapes has dropped dramatically over the last two decades, even as social stigma against rape victims has subsided. Despite a negligible increase last year, overall crime in the United States has also been in decline for 15 years.

There’s more: Divorce is down. Teens are waiting longer to have sex. High school dropout rates are down. Unemployment remains low. And over the past decade, the overall abortion rate has dropped significantly. [cite]

Most Americans “Very Satisfied” With Their Personal Lives

Most Americans say they are generally happy, with a slim majority saying they are "very happy." More than 8 in 10 Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives at this time, including a solid majority who say they are "very satisfied."
[...]
According to the Dec. 6-9, 2007, poll, 84% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal life at this time, while 14% are dissatisfied. These results have been fairly stable since Gallup first started tracking Americans' personal life satisfaction in 1979. The percentage of Americans who say they are satisfied with their personal life has averaged 82% over this period, with a low of 73% in July 1979 and a high of 88% in December 2004.
[...]
Of the 84% of Americans who are satisfied with their personal life, 59% say they are "very" satisfied, while 25% say they are "somewhat" satisfied. The percentage of Americans who are very satisfied is up slightly from 55% last year, and while similar to other ratings going back to 2001 (when Gallup began asking this question annually), this 2007 percentage is the highest since that time.
[...]
Republicans are more likely than independents or Democrats to say they are very satisfied with their personal lives and that they are very happy.

America and American citizens appear to be doing just fine with regards to happiness and satisfaction.

Why are you so dissatisfied?

their jobs and government?

You've made two unsubstantiated implications - that American society is sliding downhill and that Americans are dissatisfied - and I've corrected you on those.

If you want to keep discussing, bring me some data to discuss.

I said in my first reply...that this is a tough and personal issue for me because my sister is a lesbian...she has a Partner who she's supposedly married to.

I do believe it's a sin the same way I believe as Jesus said in the beatitudes that if you look at a woman so as to lust after her you have committed adultery, (Which is a sin according to the Bible)and it is a sin that will be judged not by our standards but by God's.

That having been said...I don't believe the Government has a place in the bedroom. I don't think the Government should be involved in condemning or condoning Homosexuality. As my tag shows, I'm not one who believes salvation or belief in God or the things of the Bible can be forced.

I'll say again, my mention of Exodus and other ministries that have an outreach to the Gay community was restricted only to the earlier comment that Homosexuals can't change since there are tens of thousands of members of these organizations who can testify to the fact that it is possible to renounce the "lifestyle"

As for NPR...I have no doubt there are some who have attended Exodus "camps" and were traumatized by the experience...but I doubt there are many and I seriously doubt NPR was honest about how effective these programs are. And I have no doubt NPR made it look worse than it really is for 2 reasons:

1) These programs are voluntary and if it's so bad how many gays would subject themselves to the program.

2) NPR's agenda is always suspect when they discuss anything having to do with Christianity and anything having to do with it! The history of distortion and open hostility to Christians on NPR is beyond question at this point!

NPR is a credible source? So they found one guy that tried it and didn't like it...is he representative of everybody that has tried the program or is he a minority that NPR chose to forward their left wing agenda?

Don't get me wrong...these ministries aren't for everybody and I wouldn't advocate it for anyone let alone force anyone into it...my post is restricted to addressing the false statement at the beginning of this thread that it's impossible for Gays to leave the lifestyle. clearly some have done so.

Black...I never said anything about force!

My post is a reply to the assertion that someone can't change the fact that they are Gay...This can be proven to be false using the organization I mentioned as an example.

We've debated a lot and you know my Libertarian leanings. The last think I would advocate is the Government or anyone else forcing gays to join these organizations!

But the process of forced conversion really amounts to mostly brainwashing. Some have left the lifestyle outwardly only to be seeking adulturous gay sex while in a straight relationship. Some have committed suicide and falleninto depression because they get into these places and see that they can't just listen to a bit of preaching, read scriptures, and voila, you're straight. I would never send anyone I love to these kinds of places-if my kid is gay, he can be gay and I'd love him just the same. I think its borderline abuse to force people into being something they aren't.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

I don't doubt the cases you reference as you say...my only point is it's not genetic and there are people who left the life style...even you say some were brainwashed...if Gayness is genetic suggesting a physical source...how can it be brainwashed away which is a psychological process?

I don't doubt the cases you reference as you say...my only point is it's not genetic and there are people who left the life style...even you say some were brainwashed...if Gayness is genetic suggesting a physical source... how can it be brainwashed away which is a psychological process?

More specifically....

I should have said aphysical source which can not be overcome

And I think that no matter what some people do outwardly, it is more suppression that being who they are. Which is why there is a lot of gay adultery, sex, depression and suicide-because you can't be someinth you aren't. And I think as I said, that there is a difference between people who were abused and thus sexually confused and people who are just simply gay naturally.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

That's an arguement we'll never be able to answer to anyone's satisfaction because there are credible arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether sexual preferences are genetic or psychological unless or until a gene can be isolated and found that proves a genetic link. I would add on this point that there are those in the Gay community that would say there is no genetic link and or do not wish there to be because if such a gene could be isolated, a genetic treatment could be devised to eliminate the gene...or worse...it could be tested for and Mom could abort to avoid having a gay child.

Whether it is physical or genetic is irrelevant in my opinion since we all have different things that turn us on, with some it's tall blonds, with some it's sultry brunettes, with some it's skinny women...with others is fat women...Some people are into pornography, S&M, etc...does there have to be a gene that governs all these preferences...or are they just that...preferences!

Pro-life groups will suddenly have thousands of new advocates!

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

My personal opinion from a biblical perspective. Sexual orientation is based on desires, our desires are based in our thoughts, and our thoughts flow out of our hearts. We are all fully capable of allowing our hearts to desire the same sex. This particular desire like all others is developed over time, a person doesn't just wake up one day and say I'm gay.

So I am capable of having unfettered desires for men if I think really, really hard for a long time?

and enticed. Then lust when it have conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin when it is finished, bringeth forth death." James 1:14-15

A person can not be tempted by something for which they have no desire.

Because that's my name as well...

Oh well...

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

nt

Then there was the story of the adulteress caught in the act of adultery and was brought before Jesus to be stoned. Jesus calmly responded by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." [sound of stones falling to the ground followed by crickets]

He asked her where her accusers were and told her to go and "sin no more"!

You can be forgiven your sins but that doesn't change the fact that you sinned.

In any conversation about sin someone will always mention Jesus and the woman caught in adultery ....

But rarely do hear people mention the punchline

Jesus said .. he would not judge her, but GO AND SIN NO MORE!!

Jesus did not say -- there ya go babe everyone is a sinner so have at it sin away -- you are off the hook to behave any sinful way you want.

So don't forget the punchline ----

GO AND SIN NO MORE!

So Jesus said the woman was sinning and told her to stop.

M Penny

I'm down with that reasoning. I think the use of "evil" was looking for conflict.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

But this is Alex, I seriously don't think he's trolling for anything like trouble. I assume he's just speaking to what's in his heart.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

word could have been used...or not. It's an overall legit question as to the inclusion in the party...I'm sure there are many different groups or pockets of people that do wonder where they fit..if they do at all.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

EPU

That's a great answer, and one that recognizes your personal beliefs without loosing site that when it comes to the rights of any citizen of the United States, it's the Constitution that counts.

The argument of rights, or special rights as some would put it, when it comes to gays is a matter of public policy debate at it's core, not one about religious beliefs.

I'm pretty Federalist on the issue of gay marriage (the hot button issue), and would like to see decisions on that contentious issue come down to the what the people of the state think, but the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution gets in the way of that.

Evil gays, no I don't think so, but at times it is easy to see why the issue is so very contentious.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I'd prefer it at the state level too, in accordance with Amendment 10 IMHO - with the understanding, as I think you are noting WRT the "full faith and credit" clause, that Texas (for example), as a no-gay-marriage state, would not be forced to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts (for example).

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Fred didn't make the cut. Nobody else talked about giving rights back to the states to decide. And that is where so much of the stuff like this and abortion belong--in the hands of the people to decide.

Spilled milk. DANG IT, I hate spilled milk!

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

with you.

EPU, that is a great post.

My opinion on the issue is that homosexuality is wrong, but it isn't my place to make everyone do what is right. That perogative belongs to God. As long as homosexuals generally agree with principles that fit in the Republican party, I'm all for them playing a part.

It took me about 5 paragraphs to say exactly that.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I agree that Marriage...Gay or Straight is best handled at the state level. I also agree that the full faith and credit clause as it's been wrongly interpreted is a problem for those of us who would prefer to let the individual states decide the matter.

My problem with Log Cabins and Radical Gay's in the Dem Party is that they won't leave it at that...they'll keep pushing and agitating to force every state in the union to accept Gay marriages in Mass and when they fail they'll push to have the matter imposed by the SCOTUS.

As I've said...this is an extremely difficult position for me because of my baby sister and my Christian faith but it is what it is.

Haha, I've done a Kowalski in a Kowalski diary! Who knew!

I didn't notice the corollary questions, which are more difficult to grapple with. But here as elsewhere, I rely on core conservative principles to guide me, being as how I'm a Russell Kirk groupie and all.

(1) if we embrace open gays in the Republican party, do we also endorse their desire to get married?

Absolutely, if a gay person wants to marry a person of the opposite gender. OK, that was snippy, but it has two points to it. First, homosexuals are not being deprived of some fundamental right. They have the same rights, exactly, as I, a heterosexual, do. I can marry a woman. I can't marry a man. Ditto for homosexuals, arc welders, accountants, truck drivers, and . The second point is this: a fundamental, core conservative principle is (paraphrased from Russell Kirks' principles 2,3, and 4) that there is wisdom in the ages, and time-honored principles are NOT to be frivolously trampled on, ESPECIALLY for the sake of social engineering fads which give no heed to long-term consequences of breaking down the existing moral order.

In short, conservatism would argue vehemently that marriage shall remain between one man and one woman, unless there is some seriously compelling argument otherwise, that is contemplated and debated for years before enacting. I have heard no such argument put forth. Now, acknowledging that the GOP is not exactly *conservative*, I leave it to you as to what to do.

(2) Or do we just endorse civil unions?
Considering the ideas in #1, I would put it this way: do homosexual civil unions disrupt the long-held traditions and principles of American culture? Probably a worthy debate. I lean toward allowing civil unions personally.

(3) Are we willing to say that AIDS is "everyone's responsibility" even though the overwhelming evidence is that homosexuals first contracted AIDS and spread it preferentially?
Hard to say. At this stage in the AIDS epidemic, I'm not sure how much it accomplishes to assign blame for how we got where we are. But if you mean by "responsibility" the need to conduct oneself in such a way that you don't recklessly endanger society, then sure. I don't think we IGNORE what needs to be said and done, and by no means do we water down the message in order to be politically correct. But I'm not entirely sure what *are* the right things to say and do.
(4) Is there a moral obligation to ignore that?

Absolutely not. This age is being poisoned by political correctness. If there is a need to address homosexual communities in regards to fighting the AIDS epidemic, we do much more harm than good if we temper what needs to be said in order not to offend somebody.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

and in funding than just about any other disease short of cancer, and I'm not too sure about cancer either. I know the data shows that AIDS funding completely overshadows the funding for breast cancer, as an example. And AIDS is almost completely a disease that is caused by lifestyle choice at this point. As a Christian, it's our calling to help those in pain and to alleviate suffering, but it is not our duty to excuse those who perpetuate this disease by their own carelessness and lack of self-control.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

EPU-well said, my friend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

There really is harmony for the most part. When is the last time you've heard of someone being arrested for being gay? It's pretty rare that abuses like that happen in today's western society. The problem arrises I think when people re-interpret tolerance to mean acceptance and then demmand it. It is not right when someone tries to force by law a religious group to violate their beliefs and do something like let a gay couple adopt one of their orphans. Tolerance is a two way street here.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Romney/Pace 2008

I'm not sure how you put up with some of the blatant Muslim bashing that goes on on this site.

I think the questions (evil = gay or evil = Muslim) are similar since many of the answers given and the questions themselves are Christo-centric rather than political. The same can be said of Jews and Hindus.

The GOP either commits to a conservative evangelical Christian theology and aswer NO to the question of the incusion of gays, muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, some Protestants, etc. OR we must broaden our social policy to allow for differing opinions. We cannot have it both ways... "We'll take your votes but not take your concerns seriously." The GOP is a political party after all; not a religious institution that votes as a political block.

We must have basic principles on which to base our party. Some people will disagree with parts - the GOP certainly doesn't agree with me on some issues, but I support them anyway because they are the best choice. If the party takes no position on the important subjects of our day, what good are they? No one is going to be happy with every stance the party makes, that is why politics is always the lesser of two evils. Homosexuals may not like the marriage stance, pro-abortion folks won't care for the pro-life position, I don't like the WoD support and big government position of many Republicans.

I usually hate the term "pander" but in this case, your solution would be to pander to everyone's opinions. I guess in a big tent, there is some room for that, as long as it isn't passed off as "conservatism".

I am not asking for an ever broadening tent that becomes so big and so unwieldy that it collapses from its own opposing positions... I do wish however that as a political party we need to phrase our positions in political terms and not “pander” to a specific ideology, even if it is the current majority (or plurality). I simply find our Party’s use of terms such as “sinful” or “evil” to be unproductive. If you remove the sectarian language – then others can make a reasoned and candid choice as to whether this is the Party for them. I have no doubt that gays and Muslims can have a place in the GOP, but in order for them to parse out which of the overriding issues speak to them, they need to peek in without being overwhelmed by a sense that if you are not an Evangelical Christian, you’re not welcome.

I have no doubt that gays and Muslims can have a place in the GOP, but in order for them to parse out which of the overriding issues speak to them, they need to peek in without being overwhelmed by a sense that if you are not an Evangelical Christian, you’re not welcome.

Why does it always com down to that? Why don't we ever hear that FisCons should tame their rhetoric about how evil it is to raise taxes, or the evils of socialist economic policy, or the evils of redistribution of wealth? Why aren't SecCons asked to calm their rhetoric when it comes to discussing the evils of the anti war movement or the evils of reduced military and inteligence spending or the evils of Communism and the evils of radical Islam? Why is it that the only leg of the three legged stool constantly threatened with the end of a whip for daring to stand for it's belief is the SoCon leg of the stool?

This party is built on a democratic model which means Majority rule...I don't have a problem with Gays joining us in the tent, or fiscal liberals, or military anti-hawks so long as they understand that we will stand for what the majority of the party says we will stand on and not pander to a nit picking minority bent on having it's way!

As to "what is a Conservative?" try reading the Party Platform. It's the statement of principles that lays out our governing philosophy as a Party. It's time we stopped trying to kill the message and governing philosophy of Reagan decide if our platform means anything!

What moral standard do we wish to use to define these terms? From my Christian perspective "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". From this premise I conclude that I am just as evil as a homosexual, a murderer, or a pedophile in the eyes of God. From a humanistic viewpoint the collective will of society determines the moral standards for what is good and what is evil. In this case there are some of us who are good and some of us who are evil as defined by our society: currently the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable to the majority in our country.

There is a danger in the moral relativism you suggest. German society decided it was OK to take business and properties away from the Jews, crowd them into slums, put them in death camps with gypsies, the Homeless, the mentally retarded etc. and gas them.

There is a Moral Standard and there is right and wrong starting with the Golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and "Love your neighbors as yourself".

In America the moral order was set in the constitution as described in the declaration of independence on the concept of "Natural Law". One of the founders, (I don't remember which, I think Adams), said of the Constitution and the limited government it set up:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

I forgot to delete "(I don't remember which, I think Adams)" after I found the quote

I agree with you whole heartily about the danger of moral relativism, however, it appears that it is what our society is most influenced by at the moment.

You say "Paul releases Christians to eat anything so long as what they eat does not cause another to stumble."

I quoted scripture that did not use the phrase "anything" but specifically mentioned food that was offered to idols.

Again. The scripture did not say "you can eat anything". It specifically used the word that meant "food offered to idols".

You use scripture to your own ends, explaining away that the beam in your eye isn't a beam while focusing on the mote in the eyes of others.

The "Bibel" talks about this too.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and spelling is the hobgoblin of small minds

paul makes it clear that gentiles need not be jews

he argued this with peter and won

the bible is clear that sex outside marriage is sin

your persistence in mis-using and falsly quoting scripture, on matters that have been settled for thousands of years by scholars well above you or I

is akin to satan's tactics

see the tempting of jesus
see cs lewis screwtape letters

you delight in playing games with scripture
scripture is there to speak to you

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Does my interpretation of Scripture make demands on me?

Because if your interpretation of Scripture is one that makes your life easier, I humbly suggest that your interpretation of Scripture is a convenient one rather than one that is based on the text.

I'd compare to a reading of the 2nd Amendment that says "look, it's obvious that it refers to a well-regulated militia so of course handguns can be banned".

When you ignore the text and focus on this or that phrase rather than the whole sentence, you will be misled.

Once again. You quote a single verse, out of context to demonstrate that you can eat whatever you want.

I quoted that verse in context, along with other verses by the same man where, out of context, it appears that he contradicts himself but within context clarifies that *NO* you cannot eat whatever you feel like (including animals that The Lord called an abomination).

And, for the record, I'm in an "abomination loop" because I make distinctions between the parts of the Bible said by The Lord, the parts of the Bible said by Jesus, and the parts of the Bible said by everybody else.

Paul falls in the "everybody else" category and if you want to explain to me why Paul's words trump those of The Lord and have me *NOT* notice that the results are you doing things like "eat whatever I want", you're going to have to do a better job than merely pointing out to me that Satan knows the Scriptures as well.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

and I have to say I'm with birdmojo, but this comment by gamecock just made me laugh:

see the tempting of jesus
see cs lewis screwtape letters

I did not realize that C.S. Lewis' writings were akin to scripture, I thought they were allegorical morality plays.

"Congregation, let us turn today to the book of Caspian, Chapter 4, verse 9. 'And yea, verily, did Susan draweth back her arrow toward the apple, whilst Trumpkin didst watch most eagerly.'"

scripture but not a former agnostic turned one of the greatest apologetical biblical scholars of all time.

right

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

CS Lewis is among the last century's greatest theological minds. He brilliantly related theology and philosophy to us lay men in a way that we could grasp, allegory and metaphor. There is so much Truth in Screwtape Letters, you have to read it more than once to get it all. (I probably still don't have it all).

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

homosexual sex and beastiality are described as abominable at all times and places past and present

I hope you read my posts on CAIS "women" earlier in this thread, because it's relevant to the point I make. Since CAIS women contain male reproductive organs within a sterile female form, they are essentially a male/female hybrid.

For a CAIS woman to faithfully follow biblical scripture (as per your understanding), there are two possible options: 1) they must remain a virgin for their entire life, for sex with either man or woman would be a partially homosexual coupling; or 2) they have license to be "bi-sexual", for sex with either man or woman would be partially heterosexual coupling.

Since you believe in unequivocal absolutes, what then must a CAIS woman believe in order to understand sin as it effects "her" situation? Should CAIS women be allowed to marry? If so, should they marry only men, only women, or be allowed to choose?

Also, churches must also protect themselves from performing gay marriages. Does this mean sex tests should be a requirement for all women to be married within their house - to screen out CAIS women?

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

I'm not getting into the topic of this thread, but I want to respond to one point you made.

"a president who said he doesn't know much about the economy in an economic criss"

Much to my surprise, McCain is doing very well in polls that ask "who do you trust more on the economy?" Usually Rs don't do well on that question, especially in recessions. But he's ahead in many of them and close in others. I don't understand it but I'll take it. I also want to note that you are taking his comment and twisting it, but I expect the Ds will do the same thing. McCain said it was a relative weakness compared to his knowledge of the military and foreign affairs. He has been on an economics committee for decades and thus has more governmental economics policy experience than either D.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

He might be Steve Frobes and Phil Gramm reincarnated-but that doesn't mean there aren't youtube recordings of him saying I don't know much about the economy. Bad poltical move-and one that Romney hammered at him with and one that I expect the Democrats to hammer him with in the fall. Right now we are in the position of they are too busy attacking each other to define McCain economically. I think his maverick reputation may be helping him here for now, because a lot of people fit McCain to whatever they want to believe. Having said that-the fact that the Democrats are in this nasty infight and McCain can't pull away heavily shows how bad its going to be in November. Obama is going to clean his clock, I'm believeing more and more, and he'll pick either Jim Webb or the governor of Kansas and we're gong to be sitting here with our head in our hands wondering what happened again.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

I agree with you on that, BlackRepub, the Vice Presidential picks are going to very important to both sides in this election. McCain needs somebody younger, and both need somebody more conservative. If Obama can find a running mate that appeals to the while male vote, McCain's lead could tighten up pretty quickly.

Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney

maybe you can explain why we need a health care plan (with the exception of eliminating government programs that have caused a lot of the problem) and why talking will make us any more excited about McCain or help him gain knowledge of economics that he doesn't already have.

There ain't one thing we can do about most of what you said, except vote, campaign, and pray. If this discussion keeps you from doing any of the above (or at least voting and campaigning), then by all means, abstain.

As far as Huckabee, you are twisting him and twisting him badly, but I know you aren't trying to be fair to him. We know you don't care much for socons, but using the argument of the left just rubs me the wrong way.

It's to implement Mitt Romney's plan nationally. It's an insurance mandate, very similar to the fact that everyone has to buy car insurance. It allows people to pick their own plan that tailors to them, rather than one big socialized system. It also allows people like me who are working as substitute teachers or not on full time jobs to have health care, since right now health care is tied to your job, which is retarded to put it kindly.

On Social Security, McCain could be different than all the rest of the cranky old people who insist that my generation pays for their Social Security that we'll never get ourselves and allow everyone 30 and under to stop paying SS taxes and divert our money into our own private accounts, or even better, cut payroll and SS taxes completely and stop nannystating people and assuming none of us are competent enough to save for our own retirement.

What McCain could do to save his lack of knowledge on the economy is to pick a VP who knows a lot about the economy, has experience in the private sector, and could stand up to anyones attacks on the economy because he's governed as fiscal conservative and people trust someone like him in an economic crisis. Yes, I did indeed just pimp Mitt Romney for VP, thank you for asking.

Which gets to my final point about Mike "Don't Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers" Huckabee. No I don't like him, I don't trust him, and I will vote for Obama if he's anywhere near the top of the ticket. The reason we're in this position we're in now as a party is because we got a big government SoCon heading our ticket being the standard bearer for our party. Huckabee is more of the same big government, big spending right win anny state that we just had for the last 8 years. Other than the War and that is a big thing, Bush didn't really do a whole lot for the causes I care about. And if we aren't going to discuss things like spending, pork, corruption, health care-things that are at the top of most American's priorities, than perhaps this sin't the party for me. And I certainly ahve the right to stop my feet and withold my vote, since SoCons have been having that temper tantrum this whole election season.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

But theres nothing we can do directly about those issues except to introduce and defend them to people, campaign, and vote. McCain certainly isn't going to ask my opinion about the issues, or care what I think. I agree with most of what you said, but I didn't ask what should be done. I wanted to know what we could do by talking about those issues more.

We agree on the big government socon issue. Bush appointed Bolton and got Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS. Apart from that, I agree - there wasn't much there. I'm not here to defend President Bush or Huckabee, though, since I'm not crazy about either one. I don't care who you vote for, although I can't see how anyone who claims to be small-government could vote for Obama under any circumstances. I can understand not voting at all, but not for a Dem. Cuttin off your nose to spite your face comes to mind. I don't remember any of those who were anti-Rudy planning to vote for a Democrat - they just weren't going to vote, which is a reasonable position. You have been having a bigger temper tantrum over Huck than I ever had over Giuliani - your right, but stop blaming us.

It's to implement Mitt Romney's plan nationally. It's an insurance mandate, very similar to the fact that everyone has to buy car insurance. It allows people to pick their own plan that tailors to them, rather than one big socialized system. It also allows people like me who are working as substitute teachers or not on full time jobs to have health care, since right now health care is tied to your job, which is retarded to put it kindly.

How's that going BR? How's the signature legislation signed by that fiscal genius Romney going?

Let me tell ya. Based on a a recent article; "Costs of Massachusetts socialized medicine soaring", the answer seems to be, "not so well.

BOSTON - Two years after the state's landmark health law was signed, the cracks are starting to show.

Costs are soaring and Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a dollar-a-pack hike in the state's cigarette tax to help pay for a larger-than-expected enrollment in the law's subsidized insurance plans.

In 2006, a legislative committee estimated the law would cost about $725 million in the fiscal year starting in July. In his budget, Governor Deval Patrick set aside $869 million, but those overseeing the law have already acknowledged costs will rise even higher.

Lawmakers are hoping the proposed cigarette tax expected will generate about $154 million a year to help close the gap.

But despite the growing financial woes, some of the Massachusetts lawmakers are trying to put a positive spin on the program. They boast that in the two years since former Gov. Mitt Romney signed the law with a choreographed flourish at historic Faneuil Hall, the number of insured residents has soared by nearly 350,000.

As for Social Security: McCain could do the things you say and I would support him in it because I think you are dead on. But I wouldn't hold my breath. We need to have a "civil" debate don't you know? We can't risk scaring away all those principled Moderates and Independents by standing for what's right now would we?

I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today cause I'm cranky...Oh well...Hook Em dude. I know you can take my punches as I am surely about to do yours...but that's my two cents.

mocking it

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

And his ideas come from Goldwater, who was not a SoCon, by any stretch. Goldwater was a libertarian. It's no strawman either-just finding its interesting that in all the priorities of the American people, we choose to spend our time reflecting on moral values-last time I checked we were a poltical party with a religious block, not a religious party with a political bent.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
Rudy/Romney for VP-because someone's got to punch the hippies.

what matters. Reagan was a social conservative that was pro-life, insisted it be in the platform, wrote a book against abortion while president and was the man that brought social cons into the party.

He was no goldwater. He was Reagan. And he was most definiently a social conservative. I was dem at the time that waved goodby to soc con dems that went to the GOP as the MSM vilified them all as right wing religious kooks. Reagan was regularly mocked by the same people and on the same terms that Falwell and so-cons today are mocked.

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

You are wrong BR. I was a witness and anyone that reads Reagan's letters, speeches, studies the campaigns and looks at Reagans words and deeds in office knows.

read the evil empire speech and listen

audio

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganevilempire.htm

dirty little secret
he gave it to the evangelical association
talks about MUCH more than the evil empire

BR, you need to disabuse yourself of the fiction that Reagan was no so-con. Yes, he was also a war hawk and a fi-con. He was ALLLLLLL 3!

"Evil Empire"
The National Association of Evangelicals Annual Convention
Orlando, Florida on March 8, 1983

Reverend Clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional delegation, and all of you:

I can't tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome. I'm delighted to be here today.

Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for you spiritual and humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn't discharge right now one personal debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in many years. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference.

The other day in the East Room of the White House at a meeting there, someone asked me whether I was aware of all the people out there who were praying for the President. And I had to say, "Yes, I am. I've felt it. I believe in intercessionary prayer." But I couldn't help but say to that questioner after he'd asked the question that - or at least say to them that if sometimes when he was praying he got a busy signal, it was just me in there ahead of him. [Laughter] I think I understand how Abraham Lincoln felt when he said, "I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go." From the joy and the good feeling of this conference, I go to a political reception. [Laughter] Now, I don't know why, but that bit of scheduling reminds me of a story - [Laughter] - which I'll share with you.

An evangelical minister and a politician arrived at Heaven's gate one day together. And St. Peter, after doing all the necessary formalities, took them in hand to show them where their quarters would be. And he took them to a small, single room with a bed, a chair, and a table and said this was for the clergyman. And the politician was a little worried about what might be in store for him. And he couldn't believe it then when St. Peter stopped in front of a beautiful mansion with lovely grounds, many servants, and told him that these would be his quarters.

And he couldn't help but ask, he said, "But wait, how-there's something wrong - how do I get this mansion while that good and holy man only gets a single room?" And St. Peter said, "You have to understand how things are up here. We've got thousands and thousands of clergy. You're the first politician who ever made it." [Laughter]

But I don't want to contribute to a stereotype. [Laughter] So I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in public life, present company included. And yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: "If we will not be governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants." Explaining the inalienable rights of men, Jefferson said, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." And it was George Washington who said that "of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supporters."

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius - and he said: "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others cans we hope to survive this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, here people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities - the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God.

Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority.

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in Washington. And since I'm involved I've been waiting to hear from the parents of young America. How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving girls well below the age of consent, some time ago established a nationwide network of clinics to offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the federal government has helped with funds to subsidize these clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed "sexually active" - and that has replaced the word "promiscuous" - are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving federal funds to notify the parents such help has been given. One of the nation's leading newspapers has created the term "squeal rule" in editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched TV panel shows discuss the issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm? And isn't it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making mistakes that may affect their entire lives?

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in their family by government. We're going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy. Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.

The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. "In God We Trust" is engraved on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court justices and congressmen.

Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public schools. Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray.

Perhaps some of you read recently about the Lubbock school case, where a judge actually ruled that it was unconstitutional for a school district to give equal treatment to religious and nonreligious student groups, even when the group meetings were being held during the students' own time. The First Amendment never intended to require government to discriminate against religious speech.

Senators Denton and Hatfield have proposed legislation in the Congress on the whole question of prohibiting discrimination against religious forms of student speech. Such legislation could go far to restore freedom of religious speech for public school students. And I hope the Congress considers these bills quickly. And with you help, I think it's possible we could also get the constitutional amendment through the Congress this year.

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I'm sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life - infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.

I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that "discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by federal law." It also lists a twenty-four-hour, toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant's life.

In addition, recent legislation introduced in the Congress by Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois not only increases restrictions on publicly financed abortions, it also addresses this whole problem of infanticide. I urge the Congress to begin hearings and to adopt legislation that will protect the right of life to all children, including the disabled or handicapped.

Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you know, perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values that have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness.

One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery, teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence for the importance of family ties and religious belief.

I think the items that we've discussed here today must be a key part of the nation's political agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer and abortion issues - and that's enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your biblical keynote, I say today, "Yes, let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."

Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is based on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's accomplishments and record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.

I know that you've been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given us is clear and simple: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for ourselves but for millions of others around the world.

And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as president, in answer to a direct question, I point out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas - that's their name for religion - or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates a historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930s. We see it too often today.

This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes a 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

I would agree to freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.

A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions.

A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of the cold war, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people's minds. And he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, "I love my little girls more than anything -" And I said to myself, "Oh, no, don't. You can't - don't say that." But I had underestimated him. He went on: "I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God."

There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the physical and the soul and what was truly important.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness - pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable Screwtape Letters, wrote: "The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid 'dens of rime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do no need to raise their voice."

Well, because these "quiet men" do no "raise their voices," because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace, because, like other dictators before them, they're always making "their final territorial demand," some would have us accept them as their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simpleminded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

So, I urge you to speak our against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.

I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.

While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own religious conversation made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western world exists to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it collaborates in communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second-oldest faith, first proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, "Ye shall be as gods."

The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, "but only provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as communism's faith in Man."

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: "He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might He increased strength . . . But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary..."

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, "We have it within our power to begin the world over again." We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.

God bless you, and thank you very much.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Hey, we are arguing the matter. Who said we were letting it dominate the issues list this cycle? Nothing wrong with arguing a little politics and religion.

Also, what makes you think that the other two wings are so massivly unifying? We got flat taxes vs fair taxes vs just lower the taxes. We got invade Iran vs contain Iran. We got plenty to debate all over the place. If the socons can't have a good argument about socon issues, then why should anybody else? Because of your opinion (and mine*) of what govt should be involved in? Lame.

*I don't want any federal law at all related to homosexual issues (for or against!). I can't think of a local law I'd want either.... but I'm open for suggestions...which I'll probably then disagree with...

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I don't think any leg of the conservative stool should lead/dominate/whatever the party. The party is pretty lame without all three leading the way together.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

All three legs need to be in order. Big government ideas from a socon or defcon is no better than big government put in by leftists. A fiscon who doesn't care about defense and social issues at all isn't a conservative, same for a defcon under similar circumstances. We need all of them, and they need to be equal.

Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

There's nothing wrong with the discussion of other this or other things so long as we are focusing on the issues at hand. Obviously the WOT is priority one followed by the economy, SS, etc.

Also, I may be wrong but the person who asked if gays were evil is the OP in not a SoCon. If you look at the posts of the SoCons in this thread the answer has been universally no. We have all said we consider the Gay lifestyle Evil, not those who practice it. Most SoCons have never said Gays as people are evil, that's a tag used to label us as intolerant. I do reserve the right to refer to those in the militant homosexual movement as evil because invading churches for the purpose of throwing condoms on Parishioners, or dressing as Nuns with bras on their heads and invading a church to take communion in such a way as to deliberately offend parishioners, and having a hunky Jesus contest where half clad gay men gyrate provocatively dressed as my Lord, or posing in a picture of the last Supper dressed in sexually suggestive clothing and displaying sexual toys, or those who engage in public nudity and perform sexual acts upon one another in gay parades in front of Children is evil and those who do it are evil.

This is the SoCon position on Homosexuality where it pertains to public policy as I see it.

1) Marriage as it has traditionally been understood is a standard set by society as the optimal atmosphere for the rearing of Children. Obviously a homosexual couple can raise a child but there is plenty of evidence that children, (especially boys) develop best when there is a mother and father in the home. This is why many Christians are so opposed to no fault divorce because of the psychological damage that is done to children in broken marriages.
2) Families ordered on the concept of traditional values have significantly higher incomes and as such are much less likely to live below the poverty line.
3) The bible says, and one of the reasons God gives for his laws and classification of sin is written “Do these things that you might live longer in the land.” The health repercussions and costs to society because of disease spread through not only Homosexual Sex (i.e. sticking things in unsanitary places), but promiscuity in all its forms be they Homosexual or just casual sex beyond a monogamous relationship. It is a proven fact that Homosexuals life expectancy is considerably shorter than for those who live an a Monogamous Heterosexual marriage.

These are legitimate policy issues that have as much value in being discussed as any other.

Given these factors, Society has set marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as a standard for society as a matter of public policy to promote the most effective way to order society and ensure not only the health of our population but the best way to instill moral values in our children as a way to govern our passions without need for government intervention.

As far as why “SoCons” can’t lead the Party”, I’d say we’ve got as much right to “lead” the as any other faction. The big difference I see between SoCons and the other legs of the stool is that SoCons aren’t trying to shove the other two legs out of the tent!

2)

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Got carried away.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

And because I've been following the whole thing. Good news on RedState 3.0 - the indentations are smaller.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

Your opinions are great. It takes diff'rent strokes to move the world and all that.

My problem is not even that you focus on the verses in your Scriptures that tell you that homosexuality is immoral.

I'm just pointing out that those of us who do not share your opinions on the Sublime Nature of the Scriptures see your interpretation as self-serving (the verses that tell me how to live... stuff about lobster and public benches and whatnot... those aren't operative any more... the verses that tell other people how to live? Oh, yeah. Those are totally important and we need to have our legislation reflect them).

You also may want to know that the echoes we're hearing are not the words of Jesus in the Gospels, but the words of the Pharisees and Scribes he railed against.

The fact that it's awfully easy for those in similar situations to say "I don't need to change my life, that's something that Satan would say!" may be another thing that appears as a red flag to those who do not share your opinion on the Sublime Nature of Scripture.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"You also may want to know that the echoes we're hearing are not the words of Jesus in the Gospels, but the words of the Pharisees and Scribes he railed against."

Don't forget Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to distruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I don't have the reference handed, but Jesus also claimed that "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the Father except by me."

Interesting Rabbi, not the Messiah, not the Son of God (in any interesting sense).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

what does "interesting" mean? When I say your wife's hair is "interesting", I usually don't get a good response.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I disagree with this false trichotomy that Josh McDowell has set up.

Martin Luther, that Protestant Guy, was asked about the Heliocentric Universe.

Here is what he said in response:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.

Now I ask you. Was Luther lying? Was he a lunatic? Or was he right?

My answer to the above question is: "He was merely wrong."

As for your question about "interesting", I use it philosophically. If you believe in a God, and if you believe that Jesus taught us to pray by refering to The Lord as "Father", then we are the children of God. You and I are the sons of God in this scenario. Our wives are the daughters of God. We Are The Children Of God.

And yet, when we say "Jesus was the Son of God", we mean something different than when we say "You and I are the sons of God".

When someone says "Jesus was the Son of God in an interesting sense of the term", this is what they mean. They are making a distinction between the ability for any man to call himself a son of God and what we mean when we say it about Jesus.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

There is a difference in saying "the world is flat" and "I am God". One you can be just mistaken. The other you can't simply be mistaken, you must be nuts if you actually mean it.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Sorry. There are just too many buttons.

We're no longer talking about interpretation of Scripture at this point, we're talking about whether we can trust the authors of the various Gospels to accurately transmit was was said about 40 years prior.

Declare victory if you'd like, but I ain't touching this one.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy which were written by Moses while the Israelites were still in the wilderness. In the opening verses of Leviticus Moses states that the laws he is listing are the words of God:

Lev 1:1-2 NASB
(1) Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,
(2) "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock.

The same for Numbers:

(Num 1:1 NASB) Then the LORD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

And in Deuteronomy beginning in chapter 4 Moses continues to record the laws which were given to him by the LORD God:

Deu 4:1-2 NASB (Moses speaking)
(1) "Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.
(2) "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus rails against the Pharisees, Sadduccees and the Scribes for not seeing what the laws were meant to accomplish. Instead, their practices devolved into mindless rituals and being overly attentive to minutiae that added nothing. For example: Christ taught that the fact you were praying and not how you were praying was more important.

As to their current validity, I again point out:

(Mat 16:19 NASB) "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Jesus gave the apostles the 'car keys' and let them drive. There weren't any restrictions just the principles He taught them!

I am 100% down with this interpretation.

So why is homosexuality still an abomination according to The Lord, then?

Because, you know, that's sorta where homosexuality is called an abomination.

Is this one of those things that I would totally understand if I only had a reasonable interpretation informed by Faith In God?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

is try to refute the authority of scripture and make the age old arguement of "well they're not really hurting anyone in the privacy of their homes." From my standpoint they are hurting both themselves by living life apart from grace/under the judgement of God and others by promoting their immorality as an acceptable lifestyle.

I will ask again for you to define immorality for me? Is it simply to not be loving, joyful, peaceful, gentle, kind, self-controlled?

Is, for me, on par with the authority of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings of Confucius, or the Norse Eddas.

In the same way that you do not recognize the authority of the Norse Eddas, I do not recognize the authority of Scripture.

And so we're stuck with my original question of "Why is homosexuality wicked?"

And you are stuck with pointing to the authority of a book that I do not recognize as authoritative. Moreover, your book contains many admonitions and laws and prohibitions that you yourself do not recognize bringing, to my mind, the question of whether you recognize the authority of that book or whether it's a convenient text that you are using to back up your arguments when it fits...

And then abandon when it is no longer convenient.

And I hope you can recognize that the whole "I pay attention to this book when it's convenient for me!" situation predates our conversation here today and is, in fact, a situation railed against for millennia... including in the book that you claim is authoritative.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

debates to mock scripture. You are your authority.

But if it makes you feel better, by all means, don't eat lobster!

I don't either. It has no taste and cost more than air, which also has no taste. For taste, put butter on air and eat it.

smile

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I do not mock it.

Any more than I mock the other works I mentioned.

I believe that it contains great Wisdom (Ecclesiastes is unmatched in its insights. The Song of Songs is some of the best poetry ever... read some of it to your wife tonight. You'll both be better off for it. The Sermon on the Mount has some exceptionally spectacular high notes. The Prophets themselves have scalpel-sharp criticisms of Government. I could go on like this all day) but is not, in itself, Sublime.

And any question that I ask "why is this thing X wicked?" that relies upon that work but not even on a Thomistic argument based on Natural Law *INVITES* questions of why you pay tribute to this verse but ignore that one.

Gamecock, I assure you that I know why I think it's fine to eat lobster even though the Bible calls it an abomination.

It's because I do not see the Scriptures as Inspired.

I don't see homosexuality as an abomination either.

And I'm going to need more than a pointer to Leviticus or Paul to explain to me why it is.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

think you have found flaws in its writings and thus conclude that it can not be authoritative in your life.

I don't believe in a deity.

That is the predicate for my not believing that the Bible is the Authoritative Word Of God.

The analogy I'd make for you is if someone told you that the Heimskringla was written at the behest of Odin.

This is not to say that the Heimskringla is not a wonderful work. Just that it's not Authoritative.

Interpretation has very little to do with why I don't think that it's not authoritative.

But, if you'd like, we can both agree that we don't have to pay attention to Levitical dietary laws as those aren't meant for folks like you or me!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and quite sad

you are in my prayers

but I no more will persist in a circular argument with you than with a bait and switch with others

both bore me and after a while of my good faith in addressing all points one makes aginst me ONCE and maybe even TWICE, I tire of never having an opponent address the obvious logic and facts that i point out.

3 strike bird

you are out

you go to your anti-church

and I'll go my church

get inspired on that

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

That people generally don't want to discuss this stuff?

This is what I was talking about.

I have been compared to Satan in this conversation. I have been told to not quote the Bible. I have been told a half-dozen times that "this conversation is over". I have been told that disagreeing is mockery.

More to the point, I have been told that my points have been refuted when they have merely had assertions to the contrary stated with the claimed Authority of God behind them.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

only got so much room in my brain

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Christians hypocrites. On the other hand I have proven to you from the Bible (which at the very lest from your viewpoint is a historical book full of great wisdom) that homosexuality is immoral. Which brings us to the point of how we as a society should deal with this immorality? And here we must agree to disagree. You want to extend rights to sexual immorality, by at lest letting homosexuals form civil unions (that somehow makes their sexual immorality moral) and I do not, no more than I would extend rights to heterosexuals who wish to cohabitate outside of marriage.

I *KNOW* that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination.

The problem is that I also *KNOW* that the Bible calls Lobster an abomination and has rituals for what needs to be done when you sit in a chair upon which a woman who is suffering her sickness has sat.

The Bible is chock full of things.

The problem, to me, is not that The Bible Says Homosexuality Is A Sin.

The problem, to me, is that you explain to me how the things that The Bible calls an abomination that you do aren't really abominations anymore but the stuff that those other folks do still is.

If I suggested legislation to outlaw Red Lobster ("it doesn't make it illegal to eat in the home, it just makes it illegal to eat in public!"), you'd call me a nut... but this is the equivalent of what I see you doing.

And you and I both know that lobster is not a big deal.

And you and I both know that the Bible says that Homosexuality and Lobsters are abominations.

My question is "is it more than mere coincidence that the stuff that you like to do has been decided to be cool with The Lord or is this a case of you picking and choosing which Words of God you find convenient to follow?"

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

keep your hands over your ears your whole life screaming la-la-la-la as the refutations role in re

abominations at one time in history (for unity purposes)
abominations always (see crime aagainst one's body)
death penalties for some but not others
the effect of christ
gentiles need not be jews (hence not subject to diatary laws)
jews need not remain jews if they accept Christ but may also remain jews as well

all in the name of mocking scripture to justify sodomy

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

That you have a clear insight into what has been unabominated and what has not.

If I told you that I have had a lifelong relationship with The Lord and He and I have hammered out these issues and he has spoken to me, through the words of His Son Jesus Christ, that homosexuality is similar to Lobster insofar as that was a rule for them, way back in the thousands of years ago but today, in my time, my people are *READY* for the new truth that homosexuality is no longer an abomination...

Would you suspect that I was reading the Bible and saying "Nope, I don't have to change my life" without real regard for the words written?

Why or Why Not?

Also, for the record, I am not *mocking* Scripture.

I am questioning it.

Those who claim to follow it because it is the Word of God and yet read it without saying "I Need To Change My Life" mock it far, far more effectively than I ever could.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The Old Testament is the account of God bringing about his promise to Adam of providing a Savior for all of mankind because of Adam's transgression. Jesus Christ is that complete fulfillment of all that the Old Testament required (He lived a perfect life according to all that the Old Testament required). I would also add from it we can glean many moral and spiritual lessons about the Law of God and man's inability to live up to it because of his corrupted nature (the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to our need for a savior). The New Testament is not a doing away of the Old Testament it is a raising of the standard from outward works to the inward intentions of the heart. Jesus explains this in His sermon on the mount very plainly. So as a Christian (a follower of Jesus Christ teachings) I am to live my life in accountability to a higher standard than even the Old Testament would give allowance for. In so doing I realize my inability to meet such a standard and therefore realize I fall short of the requirements needed to live eternally with a perfect, holy God. Therefore I realize my need to be saved from eternal separation from God and humbly ask him to forgive me through the work of His Son Jesus Christ. The cross work of Christ has taken care of every transgression than every man has or will ever do (a person is eternally separated from God not because His transgressions have not been forgiven, but because he refused to accept the forgiveness provided through the cross work of Jesus Christ). It is my receiving of the forgiveness that Jesus offers from the cross that transfers the His righteousness to my account. I now have a position before God as having never sinned. Can I still sin here on Earth? Yes, because I still have a body corrupted by original sin of which I will be freed from at death.

As far as your argument about food it has been completely refuted. I am free to eat more things than the Old Testament allowed, but don't take that as if I have more freedom to do what I want. As a matter of fact I have a greater restriction placed upon me that I am not to eat anything that you would find to be immoral. The higher standard is my neighbors beliefs come before my own in this particular matter. Do not take this as if I am to let homosexuals live their lifestyle as they see fit. I am to honor God first, then my neighbor, then myself. I can not honor God first by condoning an act that He declares immoral.

This whole judge not lest ye be judged argument that you are trying to use to prove that Christians are guilty of hypocrisy is absurd. The point of that truth is to not be condescending from our position in Christ to those who do not believe. It is not condescending to call homosexuality immoral when the Bible defines it as such. I would go as far to say that the reason that homosexuals have more acceptability in our society is because we believe we must let people live their lives as they see fit, but my government gives me the right to defend my beliefs and I will use that right to promote the morality that I find to be true. There is safety in the multitude of counselors, but what if the majority of counselors are corrupted?

"A Proper Interpretation Of The Bible"

I always find such phrasings fascinating.

Let us look at the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A proper interpretation of this Amendment would lead any intellectually honest Scholar of History to the obvious conclusion that the governors of the various states have not only the Right but the Responsiblity to regulate handguns and other weapons.

It's right there in the amendment: "well regulated militia".

While people who mock the Constitution focus on "keep and bear arms" to the exclusion of the rest of the Amendment (indeed, on the rest of the Constitution!) yadda yadda yadda yadda. Assertions, barely disguised psychological evaluations of people who disagree, assertions.

I'm sure you've seen arguments like the above. I'm sure you've argued against them.

I imagine that, at some point, you have brought up the other writings of the founders to put the 2nd Amendment into context for them. "No, Hamilton said *THIS*! And Jefferson said *THIS*! And Franklin said *THIS*!"

And people wave it away because it doesn't fit with the conclusion they've already reached. "That was for another time", they argue. "That doesn't apply to us but it applied to them", they excuse. "Those Dead White Men were slave-owners!", they explain. "SHUT UP!", they reason.

I do not see where you have shown that you have refuted my argument about food. Paul has done no such thing. I quoted verses in which he has said as such.

But, sure. Let's say that Lobster, which was once an abomination, has been officially Unabominated by The Lord.

We have established that the Lord can change his mind on whether thing X is an Abomination, have we not?

I'm going to need you to explain why homosexual sex in the context of marriage (or a lifetime committed partnership, anyway) has not been equally unabominated in the eyes of The Lord.

We're not talking about promiscuity. We're not talking about a lack of a lifetime commitment.

We've established that God changes His mind.

And now I need you to explain your insights into the Mind of God as to how you know that when he changed His mind about Lobster, oh, 2000 years ago that that was the last time He changed His mind about anything.

Because, quite honestly, your arguments reek of special pleading for the stuff you like to do and pleading against the stuff you find offensive... and you hide behind a wall of "proper interpretation".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

religious view points debate one another in the hope that the majority consensus is best for society. I am very aware that there is a movement out there to remove my religious views from the discussion by removing them from public discussion by attacking my views on the authority of scripture, hey that's life. You and I differ greatly in our religious views of God and the Bible. I'm greatful that I still have a voice at the table as I'm sure you are. Unfortunately one of us is not going to get what we want.

I will not move from my position that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and that Jesus is the foundation from which I base my stand. I will not move on the fact that the Bible calls homosexuality immoral and I will not move on the fact that rights should not be extended to immoral acts. Marriage does not negate the immorality of the homosexual lifestyle.

Trying to get me to denounce the authority of God's Word by trying to convince me God has changed his mind is going to get you nowhere. God has not changed his mind on the immorallity of homosexuality from Genisus to Revelation.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J

I do *NOT* want your views (religious or otherwise) removed from public discussion. I want more and more and more voices out there.

I want as much discussion as is humanly possible.

The parts that are good will rise to the top.

The parts that are odious well have a spotlight shone on them.

"Trying to get me to denounce the authority of God's Word by trying to convince me God has changed his mind is going to get you nowhere."

Dude. You don't even understand. I don't believe in a God. I don't believe that there is a mind to be changed.

You are the one arguing that God said this but it doesn't apply to me anymore. You are the one who waves verses away as verses talking to people who aren't you and so you don't have to change your life.

It is my opinion that these verses do not apply to me because I do not recognize the Authority of Scripture.

I find your explanations for why those verses don't apply to you, despite coming from the Mouth of God to be...

Well... yet another example of someone reading The Bible and saying "I don't have to change my life."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"The parts that are good will rise to the top." A better conclusion to make is that evil will eventually rise to the top. Our founding fathers developed a system of government to restrain evil from being able to rise to the top because they lived under it. It is "We the people" that have been given the power to make sure that it does not rise to the top. This is why "We the people" must fight to keep the power in our hands by not relying on our government to solve problems outside of the constitutional bounderies assigned to it.

This is why I fight against the homosexual agenda that is being forced upon our society. From my scriptural view point God calls it evil, and henceforth I will fight against the immoral act because it is the most loving thing I can do for them.

I understand completely that you don't believe in God, that scriptures don't apply to you, and I also know that you don't understand that the consensus of other Christians on scriptural interpretation outweighs your biased opinion.

"Our founding fathers developed a system of government to restrain evil from being able to rise to the top because they lived under it."

And the Constitution that they wrote specifically allowed for Slavery. Indeed, some also owned slaves.

When The Civil War happened, there were churches who argued that the Bible allowed for Slavery... and there were churches that argued that Slavery was a grave injustice.

The Southern Baptist Church, as a matter of fact (the church to which I once belonged), apologized in 1995 for defending slavery.

In the 1800's, however, they used the Bible to defend it.

It is not my position that these people were "bad" Christians (nor is it my position that these people were "good" ones). It is, however, my position that they, in good faith, used the Bible to defend an abomination. In good faith, they read the Bible and came to the conclusion that what they were doing was covered and defensible according to Scripture.

Before that, Luther argued against Heliocentrism using Scripture... and he did so in good faith.

And now we're talking about using the law against sinners.

In good faith.

My argument is that the Scriptures don't apply to me. My argument is that if you believe that the Scriptures apply to you... why do you put so much emphasis on the verses that result in you deciding that you don't have to change your life?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

If the condoning of the homosexual lifestyle is somehow a sign of a more enlightened society, how is it that every society that has achieved this status of enlightenment is no longer in existence?

It's still alive and kickin' my man.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"Expelled: No intellegence required" that their are two basic premises that we derive all of our values/beliefs from: either God exists or He doesn't.

Because I would say that you have many premises.

1) There is a Deity
2) The Deity has, for lack of a better term, a personality
3) The Deity has knowledge of the Earth and its inhabitants
4) The Deity has a personal interest in Earth and its inhabitants
5) The personal interest in Earth and its inhabitants is benign
6) The Deity has set up a whole bunch of rules such as those for the eating of Lobster and the, ahem, interpersonal interactions of consensual adults
7) If these Rules are followed (or not followed) you totally get stuff (or bad stuff) after you die

My premises:

1) Human beings are capable of Moral Agency
2) It's better to have more Moral Agency than less of it

I can totally imagine a Deity that created the universe but does not care one whit for its inhabitants and, as such, "morality" is little more than a poorly thought-out term that actualy hinders conversation.

I can totally imagine a Deity that created the universe and promised a Messiah and that Messiah is totally going to show up one day and after that everything is going to be perfect like the prohibitionists promised when prohibition passed.

I can totally imagine a Deity who will someday eat us all.

And so on and so forth. I can probably even imagine a Deity like the one you believe exists.

I wouldn't want to pass laws based on His Commandments (and only upon His Commandments) though.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"I don't believe in a deity. That is the predicate for my not believing that the Bible is the Authoritative Word Of God."

My perspective is that your bias is based upon believing that the Bible is the Authoritative Word of God.

Or claiming it is, anyway.

I doubt you engage in ritual purification every time you sit in a chair that your wife sat in once.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Sure. That which is immoral is that which inhibits or stagnates the moral agency of an Individual.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Since I think that it can be proven fairly clearly from what I have already stated that homosexuality is a sin from the Bible's perspective (whether you agree with its authority or not) I can without a shadow of doubt conclude that homosexuality is immoral from the Bible's perspective.

And yet I am certain that you see nothing wrong with Lobster even though God calls it abominable!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Faith comes first, then grace, and then fruits....You don't stop being Gay to be saved.

Once you are saved and received the grace promised by the death, burial and resurrection of Christ the holy spirit is cleared to do a work in those that are saved by grace. Homosexuality is a sin...the verses in the bible that call it so are there for a definition of what sin is. The law is there to point the way to our need for a savior. It explains God's standard of righteousness. Sin is a symptom of man's rebellion against God.

I ain’t comparing you to Satan, but the simple Truth is that picking out verses without the fullness of the philosophy behind it makes it a nearly impossible to come to Truth. We abandoned the "eye for an eye" law for instance, yet we don't claim that Jesus abolished the Old Law, but that He fulfilled it.

The point is to me anyway (and this is a major reason I remain Catholic) is that many brilliant religious philosophers have come before us and wrestled with these notions and not found them to contradict. In fact the mystery of "what is sexual immorality?" pales in comparison to the mystery of the Trinity, etc. So I'm willing to pick up a brilliant religious mind like Aquinas, Augustine, Ratzinger or yes even CS Lewis (who makes more sense to me than many Catholic theologians) and get to the Truth of it in summary form rather than argue over verses.

Honestly though, arguing the details of theology appears to me like us arguing Quantum physics where I pit my scientists against your scientists even though neither of us really grasps the fullness of the matter. I noticed your use of Greek. Exactly how much knowledge do you have of Greek two millennia ago and the actual Biblical original texts as well as the traditions and historical understanding of the texts? 'Cause I'll be the first to admit I know squat as far as an argument about the original meaning of the text goes. And unless you are a Vatican scholar or equivalent lifelong student of the subject, I got to go with my theologians on this one. It's not that I don't think you're really, really smart, Bird, it's just that when the Stephen Hawking of Theologians tells me something contrary to you, I got to go with the theologian.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

The problem is that when we deal with an issue that Thomas hasn't wrestled with (should the government deny hospital visitation rights to homosexual life partners?) it's far too easy to fill in the blanks with your predisposition on the topic.

"I'm sure that Thomas would have totally said that, as Christ loved us, we should not prevent these two life partners from seeing each other in the hospital."

"I'm sure that Thomas would have totally said that The Wages Of Sin Is Death and it is our responsibility to put these men on the Path of Righteousness and make sure that they never see each other again."

And I'm sure you could write a hundred-page essay going into great detail explaining how Thomas Aquinas totally would have agreed with whatever you would have done anyway.

Which is why I find scripture interesting.

The Lord comes out and says that Lobster is an abomination.

And the pages above are filled with people explaining how, naw, it's cool if we eat it.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

extrapolating from a particular to a general, I can say with some amount of certainty that no teaching on homosexuality by Aquinas demands that the govt should force by law a hospital, a private business, to allow or deny someone's "life partner" visitation rights.

It seems like an attempt to shift focus by dealing with the particulars like lobster. And I'll agree that it is not a great argument for someone like me to merely rely on Biblical verses, though I may still be right in my conclusion. I more often than not say "it contradicts Christian teaching" since I know that greater theologians have worked out the argument better than I could.

If I may be redundant by offering yet another analogy: You and I could argue economics all day long, but in the end you and I probably know very little compared to what some men have spent their whole lives studying. What I do know is that capitalism works, and I have the USA as evidence of it. Now you can argue with me about trickle-down until we are blue in the face, and I may not understand the particulars of this formula or that, but I do know that the Carter years sucked and that the Reagan economics pulled us out of it. For you and me to continue to argue over the particulars of an equation or specific aspect of a market is silly though, since neither you nor I have really spent as much time studying it as others who can make better arguments have.

Just like that, I refuse to get caught up in "well the Bible contradicts on verses X and Y" because I can turn to my favorite theologian and ask "Does it?" If he says "No", that is all I need since my faith isn't based on a single verse. I build it up on 10 Apostles willing to die gruesome deaths in the name of what they witnessed. I build it up on the experiences of countless witnesses from every century since. I build it up from verifiable miracles that you can even see to this day like the pile of crutches in Lourdes. So if the keepers (overwhelmingly) of this tradition can look at a book I am unqualified to criticize and say "Don't worry about the lobster, but homosexual sex is still bad", I tend to believe them. And when I go to my parish priest and say "Your ISP is not what's wrong, you need a new router", he tends to believe me since he knows I'm more knowledgeable about such things than him.

Don't get me wrong, I still like to know the "Why?" about certain religious questions, but I don't demand them as I humbly accept that it is not my specialty.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

I am forging my understanding of the universe as well.

I just have little patience for the whole "God Said It, I Believe It, That Does It" attitude where, after follow-up questioning happens, it's pointed out that we're both ignorant so we should just follow the lead of our betters.

I'm an American. My betters ain't been born yet.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"My betters ain't been born yet." Mine are all around me. They precede me, fought next to me, and call me dad.

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

They are my peers.

They are no more my betters than I am theirs.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."

his apostles.

I'm sorry that it is offensive to you that I've settled in my mind questions that you have yet to find the answers too.

Let's say that there is a group of homosexuals.

Let's say that there is a group of people who claim to be aligned with The Lord who are condemning homosexuals.

Using Christ as your example, which group do you think that he would hang with and give moral support to?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

to repent and ask for forgiveness. At the judgement seat all those who have accepted his forgiveness get to live with Him. All those who have rejected it get to live without Him.

You're not going to answer the question?

Is it because, looking at Jesus's example, he pretty obviously would have been hanging with the homosexuals telling them about their heavenly Father rather than hanging with the religious politicians calling the homosexuals wicked?

Or have I misread the example that Jesus set?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Christ I have no problem with hanging with homosexuals and telling them they have a heavenly Father who loves them and wants to forgive them. In the enterest of the society I live in, I also do not have a problem telling politicians what my heavenly Father has to say about homosexuality either.

Do you tell them what your heavenly Father has to say about Lobster?

Oh, yeah. He didn't mean that. But he didn't change his mind. He meant that for other people. Not you.

Do you not see how someone can look at what you're doing and picking and choosing the verses that are most convenient to you?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

God isn't concerned with what I do, He's concerned about getting me back into fellowship with Him. I'm to be about my Father's business and not be concerned with what people are doing, as much as getting them back into fellowship with God.

Romans chapters 1 - 8 are applicable here. I'm no longer under any law, but now I am under grace. My life should have outward changes. Old things are put away.

I'm still accountable to honor God with my lifestyle by loving Him and loving my neighbor as myself. Again, one of the most loving things I can do for my neighbor is to tell him that he is an abomination like me, but the work of Jesus Christ can set him free and make him a new creature.

"Again, one of the most loving things I can do for my neighbor is to tell him that he is an abomination like me"

How's this:

You are *NOT* an abomination. You are a Child of God. If you would only return to him, you would see him watching for you from his front porch and when you return to him he will leap off of his chair and run to meet you. He will call for his servants to put a coat on your shoulders and a ring on your finger and he will call for the fatted calf to be killed and roasted because your return to Him is cause for Great Celebration.

When you realize that *THAT* is how God sees you, not as an "abomination", then you will see the lessons that Jesus needed you to learn.

And maybe you'll stop telling your neighbors that they are abominations but instead they are God's Children.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Jesus Christ. I am an abomination (a natural man who is spiritually dead) because of the transgression of Adam and until I see myself as such I can not fully understand Jesus Christ or the Word of God for that matter. It is the law that teaches me that I'm an abomination and it is the cross that shows me the solution.

I'm sorry I mad you sad because I see myself as a vile sinner (abomination) because I'm extremely glad that I do.

You spend your time explaining to your neighbors that they are abominations.

What makes me sad is not that you see yourself that way. Hey. Whatever gets you through the night.

What makes me sad is that you see it as a good use of your time to tell your neighbors that they are abominations like you.

I think you need to spend a little more time with the Gospels.

If only to give your neighbors a break.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I wish some of my neighbors would give me a break!

people live any way they choose?

Am I not required to tell them they are abominations just like me, but that I have found good news in the work of Jesus Christ?