December 4, 200718 yr The difference, and this is why I have trouble following your logic, is that in one case the behaviour is between consenting adults and in the other there are non consenting people involved. You and I are free to believe whatever we wish about sin. We are not free to impose our view if sin on the rest of society. I happen to believe that it is sinfull to eat meat on Fridays during Lent. I don't fear for the country because most people don't agree with me. To an extent I agree with you. But my version of what is right and wrong is based on my faith. It is determined by my faith. And cannot be separated from my faith. If it can be separated, than I have not truly turned my life over to Christ and he commands us to do. When the actions of consenting adults effect society and other people including kids, than yes, I believe society can and should be involved with that issue. Drugs would be an example of that.
December 4, 200718 yr I was unaware that the U.S. Census Bureau had, as part of its information form, a section that allowed one to list that they were a "same-sex couple." I've been looking for the copy I made of mine from 2 years ago, but I certainly don't recall that. Maybe next they will ask us, as part of Census Data, how many of us are virgins, and whether we prefer Coke to Pepsi. I am suing for discrimination as I prefer Dt. Mt. Dew.
December 4, 200718 yr I worry about a lot of things but gay people are very low on the list (as in - they're not on it). I'd argue we focus our energies on issues of race and poverty, for example, and quit worrying about people who find themselves to be attracted to their own sex. I know I'm in the minority on this one so I guess I'd ask those who disagree the following: How do you rank the following issues as far as our nation is concerned (from needs the most urgent attention to the least attention): Race Homosexuality Poverty Acceptance of non-traditional religions Education
December 4, 200718 yr My stance on homosexuality is the following: I do not believe that homosexual tendencies are wrong (I do not know if they are genetic or environmental, although I believe they are environmental). I do believe that homosexual actions are wrong, (just as LBBC's example of anger issues or, say, a person who wants to have sex with animals). I guess for most people this argument boils down to a fundamental point that will probably never be agreed on by everyone--much like why many will always disagree on abortion, they can't agree on when "life" begins-- whether or not homosexuality is environmental or genetic. However, in my opinion, even if homosexuality is genetic, that doesn't make it morally right to me. Just because it is "natural" doesn't mean is it moral, I don't look for biology to answers to moral questions.
December 4, 200718 yr To an extent I agree with you. But my version of what is right and wrong is based on my faith. It is determined by my faith. And cannot be separated from my faith. If it can be separated, than I have not truly turned my life over to Christ and he commands us to do. When the actions of consenting adults effect society and other people including kids, than yes, I believe society can and should be involved with that issue. Drugs would be an example of that. My version of right and wrong is also based on my faith. I also believe that society should become involved when the actions affect others. I just don't see where gays fall into that category.
December 4, 200718 yr I worry about a lot of things but gay people are very low on the list (as in - they're not on it). I'd argue we focus our energies on issues of race and poverty, for example, and quit worrying about people who find themselves to be attracted to their own sex. I know I'm in the minority on this one so I guess I'd ask those who disagree the following: How do you rank the following issues as far as our nation is concerned (from needs the most urgent attention to the least attention): Race Homosexuality Poverty Acceptance of non-traditional religions Education ABORTION (no surprise there and I edited your list.) Education (a solution to poverty) Poverty Race Homosexuality
December 4, 200718 yr My version of right and wrong is also based on my faith. I also believe that society should become involved when the actions affect others. I just don't see where gays fall into that category. As I said, with the growing acceptance of it as normal, teenagers are exploring and experimenting with it tremendously. Which I believe could lead to issues further down the road with the continuing decline of the traditional American family. Kids ARE BEST raised in a home with one dad and one mom. It can be done other ways and be good. BUT BEST in a home with one LOVING Dad and one LOVING mom.
December 4, 200718 yr I worry about a lot of things but gay people are very low on the list (as in - they're not on it). :thumb:
December 4, 200718 yr How do you rank the following issues as far as our nation is concerned (from needs the most urgent attention to the least attention): Race Homosexuality Poverty Acceptance of non-traditional religions Education Harder than it looks Education - Needs to be totally revamped Race - Neither blacks nor whites really accept each other, and the gap is widening Homosexuality - A real danger to our society Acceptance of non-traditional religions - they have the right to be wrong Poverty - Much of this will be fixed by the first two
December 4, 200718 yr Education Race Poverty Acceptance of non-traditional religions ... Homosexuality And it would be obnoxious of me if I actually put as much space between homosexuality and the others on the list as I believe would be representative. Unless you mean working towards acceptance of homosexuality, in which case it goes above non-traditional religions. There are a lot more gay and lesbian adults out there than adult wiccans.
December 4, 200718 yr I worry about a lot of things but gay people are very low on the list (as in - they're not on it). I'd argue we focus our energies on issues of race and poverty, for example, and quit worrying about people who find themselves to be attracted to their own sex. I know I'm in the minority on this one so I guess I'd ask those who disagree the following: How do you rank the following issues as far as our nation is concerned (from needs the most urgent attention to the least attention): Race Homosexuality Poverty Acceptance of non-traditional religions Education As you know, I am very libertarian when it comes to government intervention. I don't like it much at all. IMVHO, the only issue worth discussing on a national level is the last one, Education. I feel strongly that a focus upon that one will go some of the way towards helping with issues involving the other four. I don't think the government should be much more involved in race other than prohibiting sanctioned discrimination. I do not racially discriminate. However, just as you feel that homosexual issues are very low on your priority list, so are racial issues on mine. If some redneck wants to go out an yell the 'N' word at the top of his lungs, so be it - if he also gets his butt kicked I'm not going to feel too bad about it, either. I don't think we need 'reparations,' our history is what it is. I don't think we have any business handing out racial quotas. If a private company wants to create one, that's their business. The bottom line is, no GOVERNMENT activity is going to ever change people's minds about race. Getting smarter might, though. Poverty is the same to me. Poverty sucks. It always has existed, exists now, and will continue to exist. I think to some extent a government can be involved in alleviating poverty for its most helpless citizens - the extremely aged, the grossly disabled, and children. However, I think we have set the bar way, way too low with how we define those things. I believe wholeheartedly in two principles 1) that if you get your hand out of my pocket, I'll reach in there more readily for other people and 2) that we should teach a man how to fish rather than taking him to Long John Silver's. I don't know why the state should be accepting non-traditional religions any more than Christianity or any other religion. As folks are fond of saying on here, no endorsement. What goes for one goes for all. 6th Circuit just ruled that Michigan can't provide state funding to an evangelical group to go into prisons for Christian counseling, and frankly I thought it was a good decision. So this is a complete non-issue to me. Homosexuality, I'm sort of with you, but the other edge of the sword needs to be equally applicable. If we don't need to be worrying about homosexuality then we don't need to be worrying about it - no legislation for gay hate crimes, no legislation recognizing gay rights amendments, no state or federal subsidies for health insurance for gay partners, including at U of L. This is where the gay rights folks bother me the most - they scream bloody murder when a marriage amendment is proposed by a legislator, claiming we shouldn't be legislating the gay "issue," but then they think we ought to legislate the gay "issue" when it comes to state-sponsored health insurance. So, in order of importance for the "state" or guv-ment: 1. Education 2. Education 3. Education 4. Education 5. Education
December 4, 200718 yr As you know, I am very libertarian when it comes to government intervention. I don't like it much at all. IMVHO, the only issue worth discussing on a national level is the last one, Education. I feel strongly that a focus upon that one will go some of the way towards helping with issues involving the other four. I don't think the government should be much more involved in race other than prohibiting sanctioned discrimination. I do not racially discriminate. However, just as you feel that homosexual issues are very low on your priority list, so are racial issues on mine. If some redneck wants to go out an yell the 'N' word at the top of his lungs, so be it - if he also gets his butt kicked I'm not going to feel too bad about it, either. I don't think we need 'reparations,' our history is what it is. I don't think we have any business handing out racial quotas. If a private company wants to create one, that's their business. The bottom line is, no GOVERNMENT activity is going to ever change people's minds about race. Getting smarter might, though. Poverty is the same to me. Poverty sucks. It always has existed, exists now, and will continue to exist. I think to some extent a government can be involved in alleviating poverty for its most helpless citizens - the extremely aged, the grossly disabled, and children. However, I think we have set the bar way, way too low with how we define those things. I believe wholeheartedly in two principles 1) that if you get your hand out of my pocket, I'll reach in there more readily for other people and 2) that we should teach a man how to fish rather than taking him to Long John Silver's. I don't know why the state should be accepting non-traditional religions any more than Christianity or any other religion. As folks are fond of saying on here, no endorsement. What goes for one goes for all. 6th Circuit just ruled that Michigan can't provide state funding to an evangelical group to go into prisons for Christian counseling, and frankly I thought it was a good decision. So this is a complete non-issue to me. Homosexuality, I'm sort of with you, but the other edge of the sword needs to be equally applicable. If we don't need to be worrying about homosexuality then we don't need to be worrying about it - no legislation for gay hate crimes, no legislation recognizing gay rights amendments, no state or federal subsidies for health insurance for gay partners, including at U of L. This is where the gay rights folks bother me the most - they scream bloody murder when a marriage amendment is proposed by a legislator, claiming we shouldn't be legislating the gay "issue," but then they think we ought to legislate the gay "issue" when it comes to state-sponsored health insurance. So, in order of importance for the "state" or guv-ment: 1. Education 2. Education 3. Education 4. Education 5. Education As I understand the U of L domestic partner issue, all they were doing was making domestic partners eligible to be on the policy. The University was not going to pay any of the premiums. I'm just fine with that. I tend to agree with you that the solution to most problems is education.
December 4, 200718 yr I am not gay. I personally have nothing against gay people. Is it against God's will, yes. But God allows for the human body to develop freely. That said, there are gay people that chose that lifestyle and those, that "were born with it", I mean that they literally feel like they have always been gay. Now that may be due to up-bringing, or whatever. That said, I feel the Bible's teachings and God's words are for ME as an individual and with my family. I am not responsible as to how others follow God's path. I will condemn a gay person, or look at them in a bad light. Some of the absolute best people I know are gay, and I know quite a few.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.