The Heretic

[jochhejaam]

For all of you Romney bashers, ol Mitt ain't got nuthin' on Obama!



Obama: Sermon on Mount OKs Same-Sex Unions
Monday, March 3, 2008 8:04 AM
By: Terence P. Jeffrey

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." (See video here) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama's mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments ("anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as "obscure," discusses people who knew God but turned against him.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised," wrote St. Paul. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." <--yep, sure sounds like God give the ol' thumbs up to civil unions

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith. <---Then your knowledge of God and scripture is superficial, twisted and one of convenience.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington <----Yeah, forget about the fact that they're aborting their Creators means of bringing new life into this world. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay." <---No, it's not!

Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."

In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage--including adoption rights--and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against "gay marriage" and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same "family" status as heterosexual couples.

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view."
Obscure only to those who want to torture and twist the Bible beyond recognition to suit there political or personal agendas. Does he even know what "obscure" means? the Scriptures in Romans are no more obscure that the Sermon On The Mount is in Matthew! Does Obama find the Scriptures in Genesis regarding God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their immorality/homosexuality, equally obscure?

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted. And he "prays nightly to Jesus"? What's he praying for, carte blanche to contort beyond recognition, the Scripture? Taking morality out of the Scripture? Add Blasphemer to Heretic!

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade--and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass--Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal. Okay, add hypocrite too. He doesn't know what the heck he believes, that's so liberal politician of him.

"On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue <unless, of course, you've talked to your family, pastor, etc., first> :rolleyes ," he said. "I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible ....(enter the disclaimer to what he just said) But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a "devout Christian." Okay, good thing I haven't eaten breakfast, because I don't think it would stay down.

"In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts," he said. "I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. <albiet, an immoral devout Christian...> I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.

"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."

John 11:36 - Jesus Wept.




[urlhttp://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_same_sex/2008/03/03/77289.html[/url]


Disappointment, but not surprise. He's a perfect fit with the liberal left fringe marxist, socialist, democrats. For the Christian Democrats on this board, I'd be interested in hearing your defense of this mess.

[inconvertible]

he has a point. romans=paul, sermon on the mount=christ.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't think it could happen, but conservative Christians made themselves irrelevant.

Impressive.

[jochhejaam]

he has a point. romans=paul, sermon on the mount=christ.

Obama has no point, and neither do you.

1. Romans and the writings of Paul are not obscure, nor are they in contradiction to anythng Jesus Christ said.

2. There is absolutely nothing in Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" that even remotely suggests that Civil-Unions, aka homosexuality, is to be condoned.

He's clueless and ignorant, but he can get away with his nonsensical heresy, in part, because a majority of his audience, including those in the news mediums, are ignorant regarding Scripture. That along with an overall indifference to morality.

[Kriz-Maxima]

There is a reason why religion and state were separated.

[jochhejaam]

I didn't think it could happen, but conservative Christians made themselves irrelevant.

Why didn't you think it could happen?





I'd bet the house that McCain doesn't think conservative Christians are irrelevant. And since they'll be voting against the ultra-liberal Clinton or Obama, possibly tipping the scale in McCains favor, they wouldn't see them as irrelevant either.

[E20]

How can people say he is less Christian? Who gave them the authority to judge him? God or their own ego?

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

Why should a presidential candidate for any Western democracy in the 21st century make his decisions on a 2000 year-old book full of metaphors that were written for that specific period in time?

Even more, should it matter what religious belief does the candidate has? Or if he hasn't got any at all?

[Extra Stout]

That was standard liberal-apostate Christianity. Nothing he said was a surprise. If you go into any of the mainline Protestant churches, odds are better than half that the pastor will agree with the stuff Obama said.

And that is why I reject mainline churches.

[jochhejaam]

How can people say he is less Christian? Who gave them the authority to judge him? God or their own ego?
I'm saying Obama's a heretic, and it's not a matter of judgement, but a matter of fact.

[jochhejaam]

Why should a presidential candidate for any Western democracy in the 21st century make his decisions on a 2000 year-old book full of metaphors that were written for that specific period in time?

Even more, should it matter what religious belief does the candidate has? Or if he hasn't got any at all?
Roughly 2 out of 3 Americans believe the Bible is literally true (4 of 5 Black Americans), and that it is the Word of God. With that in mind, what else would you expect?

p.s. That means those same percentages of Americans believe that your characterization of the Bible as a "book full of metaphors for a specific time period" is absurd.

[Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]

p.s. That means those same percentages of Americans believe that your characterization of the Bible as a "book full of metaphors for a specific time period" is absurd.

Is it? Just because an awful lot of people believe in it does it make it a book that fits these times? If a lot of people read "The Da Vinci Code" does that make it historical and relevant to this day? Millions worldwide have watched the six Star Wars movies, and there's even a Jedi Church in some countries. Are we about to enter a new era in which all of us will speak backwards just because a lot of people watched those movies?

Religion has no word on the State or its politics, or at least, shouldn't have it. Religion is a personal choice affair, much as sexual orientation, drug consumption, colour of your knickers or how much salt you put on your steak.

Religion is a personal choice of an ethical code. The state and politics are based or reason and logic (in theory, many politicians do their best to rebuttal this). To pretend to erase the line that divides the State from religion is a step backwards in human evolution.

[Holt's Cat]

We do have freedom of religion in this country, no?

[Extra Stout]

Religion is a personal choice of an ethical code. The state and politics are based or reason and logic (in theory, many politicians do their best to rebuttal this). To pretend to erase the line that divides the State from religion is a step backwards in human evolution.
You cannot derive a form of government from reason and logic alone. You have to have some set on principles from which you use reason and logic to derive your form of government.

For example, if one nation relies upon the principle that the wealth and comfort of the despot, his family, and his close companions is the only matter of importance, this, through the application of reason and logic, will result in a very different form of government from that of another nation which relies upon the principle that all people are created equal and have certain inalienable rights.

So what is the distinction between those two sets of principles? If you prefer one over the other, why?

[Extra Stout]

Obama has no point, and neither do you.

1. Romans and the writings of Paul are not obscure, nor are they in contradiction to anythng Jesus Christ said.

2. There is absolutely nothing in Christ's "Sermon on the Mount" that even remotely suggests that Civil-Unions, aka homosexuality, is to be condoned.

He's clueless and ignorant, but he can get away with his nonsensical heresy, in part, because a majority of his audience, including those in the news mediums, are ignorant regarding Scripture. That along with an overall indifference to morality.
He can get away with what he says because that is more or less the official teaching of his denomination. I doubt the clergy in the UCC are ignorant regarding Scripture; rather, it is more likely they know it quite well, but find it less important than their own human wisdom.

[ChumpDumper]

Why didn't you think it could happen?They seemed to have their act together. They just got arrogant and ridiculous like a lot of other moverments.


I'd bet the house that McCain doesn't think conservative Christians are irrelevant. And since they'll be voting against the ultra-liberal Clinton or Obama, possibly tipping the scale in McCains favor, they wouldn't see them as irrelevant either.So Republicans can count on them no matter what their actual positions are like the Democrats counted on the black vote.

It's that kind of relevance? Ok. :tu

[Holt's Cat]

"Render unto Caesar..."

[Extra Stout]

Roughly 2 out of 3 Americans believe the Bible is literally true
I think I'm going to need a link on that one. If there are many more than 90-100 million actual Christians in the United States, then I'm the King of Scotland.

[Mr. Peabody]

I think I'm going to need a link on that one. If there are many more than 90-100 million actual Christians in the United States, then I'm the King of Scotland.

I know, but I looked it up and sure enough a 2005 Rasmussen poll says exactly that.

[jochhejaam]

So Republicans can count on them no matter what their actual positions are like the Democrats counted on the black vote.
It's an anti extreme-left-wing liberalism voting bloc. There is a philosophical chasm that exists on moral issues that is beyond reconciliation for a "Conservative" Christian.





It's that kind of relevance? Ok. :tu
It's not a matter of relevance, but one of conviction and principle. The idea is to please God, not politicians, so they align themselves, at times reluctantly so, with the Party whose platform most closely identifies with those principles and convictions.

[ChumpDumper]

So they can be taken for granted.

Thanks for reiterating that.

God is pleased.

[Holt's Cat]

Any movement that is represented by John Hagee needs to die.

[ChumpDumper]

hagee wants to hasten the apocalypseSo then we should vote for Obama.

[jochhejaam]

So they can be taken for granted.

Thanks for reiterating that.

God is pleased.
Nothing's been reiterated. If McCain made no overtures to them, or shrugged them off, that would be construed as taking them for granted, and there would probably be a significant number of them not voting at all.
He has made overtures, recently restating that he's "always been a conservative" (talk is cheap, so he'll have to further define his conservatism), and he'll more than likely select a conservative running mate to further illustrate that he's not taking them for granted.

Now, with those things being true, a reasonable person would not continue to insist that they can be taken for granted.

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing's been reiterated. If McCain made no overtures to them, or shrugged them off, that would be construed as taking them for granted, and there would probably be a significant number of them not voting at all.
He has made overtures, recently restating that he's "always been a conservative" (talk is cheap, so he'll have to further define his conservatism), and he'll more than likely select a conservative running mate to further illustrate that he's not taking them for granted.

Now, with those things being true, a reasonable person would not continue to insist that they can be taken for granted.So they have been made content with simple lip service.

That's relevant.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Manu'sMagicalLeftHand]Is it? Just because an awful lot of people believe in it does it make it a book that fits these times?
It does for them.





If a lot of people read "The Da Vinci Code" does that make it historical and relevant to this day?
Up until 1992, an estimated 6,000,000,000 Bibles had been sold in 2,000 languages and dialects. Let me know when the Da Vinci Code approaches those numbers. http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html
http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html



Millions worldwide have watched the six Star Wars movies, and there's even a Jedi Church in some countries. Are we about to enter a new era in which all of us will speak backwards just because a lot of people watched those movies?
I can't speak for you, but I won't be. (another poor analogy)

[jochhejaam]

I think I'm going to need a link on that one. If there are many more than 90-100 million actual Christians in the United States, then I'm the King of Scotland.

My bad, I should have linked it in the first place.
It's taken from a Rasmussen survey.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43957


Edit: I see that Peabody already confirmed this.

[Doc Jerome]

One of the fundamental teachings of Christ is that of forgiveness, and not casting judgement on others. I think folk of your ilk come perilously close to crossing the line on a regular basis, but if you all are asking God for forgiveness, I guess it's o.k., . . . Right?

[jochhejaam]

One of the fundamental teachings of Christ is that of forgiveness, and not casting judgement on others. I think folk of your ilk come perilously close to crossing the line on a regular basis, but if you all are asking God for forgiveness, I guess it's o.k., . . . Right?
Another of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that the fruit of unrepentant sin is eternal damnation. Homosexuality falls into that category, and therefore, without repentance, results in that damnation. With that in mind, why in God's name would an alledged "devout" Christian perpetuate that lifestyle as being okay?
Oh yes, the title of the thread.

As I've previously stated Doc, there is nothing in Christ's Sermon on the Mount that remotely substantiates Obama's contention that it condones homosexuality. Can you show otherwise? There's been a couple hundred views here and no one has presented one iota of evidence to the contrary. Could that be because there is none?

When standing before God, I'll be judge for presenting the truth, Obama and "his ilk" will be judged for heresy. I like my chances.



And why you're at it Doc, provide me with the reasoning behind how my pointing out heresy is judgemental. The facts are the facts.

[Doc Jerome]

Another of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that the fruit of unrepentant sin is eternal damnation. Homosexuality falls into that category, and therefore, without repentance, results in that damnation. With that in mind, why in God's name would an alledged "devout" Christian perpetuate that lifestyle as being okay?
Oh yes, the title of the thread.

Well, you seem willing enough to recite catagories and levels of sin, continuing to leave out your own. How do you know at the time of death, that all are unrepentant? Seems like a judgement call to me. I don't think God would be pleased with you all making a general judgement call for every individual. That would negate the concept of forgiveness altogether would it not?

Politicians are not running to represent a particular religion. Within their constituents are people from many different faiths, including atheists. No one religion should be placed in a higher regard than any other. What you are aspousing is discrimination (religious) pure and simple, which is unacceptable.


As I've previously stated Doc, there is nothing in Christ's Sermon on the Mount that remotely substantiates Obama's contention that it condones homosexuality. Can you show otherwise? There's been a couple hundred views here and no one has presented one iota of evidence to the contrary. Could that be because there is none?

There is no need for Sen. Obama nor anyone else for that matter to prove that politicians should not condone what concenting adults choose to do behind closed doors. You can't legislate what happens in the bedroom. Nor should you be allowed to project your preference or religious beliefs on any other citizen. This undermines God's gift of free will. You have a right to choose for yourself.


When standing before God, I'll be judge for presenting the truth, Obama and "his ilk" will be judged for heresy. I like my chances.

I am heartened by the fact that you seem to be favored by God, but the fact of the matter is, in condemning others, you risk condemning yourself. No matter how you frame it, you know these words to be true.


And why you're at it Doc, provide me with the reasoning behind how my pointing out heresy is judgemental. The facts are the facts.

I just did.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Doc Jerome]Well, you seem willing enough to recite catagories and levels of sin, continuing to leave out your own. How do you know at the time of death, that all are unrepentant? Seems like a judgement call to me. I don't think God would be pleased with you all making a general judgement call for every individual. That would negate the concept of forgiveness altogether would it not?
Okay Doc, we'll start off here by noting that you found nothing in the Sermon on the Mount that would exonerate Obama from being labeled a heretic. That was the thrust of the thread, and it remains intact.

Regarding you judgement rant, I never rendered an opinion regarding the possibility of repentance at the time of death (I assume you mean before the time of death, as it's difficult to repent at the time of death). You have attributed a position to me that is not mine. Sorry Doc, but I can't respond to a false presumptuous charge. In the future, if you'd like to engage me in debate, stick to the truth.






Politicians are not running to represent a particular religion. Within their constituents are people from many different faiths, including atheists. No one religion should be placed in a higher regard than any other. What you are aspousing is discrimination (religious) pure and simple, which is unacceptable.
:dizzy Your rambling sermonette has nothing to do with anything I've stated. Obama is perpetuating heresy, and in doing so is in direction opposition to, and defiance of, the teachings of Jesus Christ. Your contention that bringing that information to the forefront is tantamount to "espousing discrimination, is whacked out Doc...pure and simple...unacceptable too.






There is no need for Sen. Obama nor anyone else for that matter to prove that politicians should not condone what concenting adults choose to do behind closed doors. You can't legislate what happens in the bedroom.
He's free to condone homosexuality if he so chooses, but he does not get a free pass when he implies that Jesus Christ condones this sin, because clearly he doesn't.





Nor should you be allowed to project your preference or religious beliefs on any other citizen. This undermines God's gift of free will. You have a right to choose for yourself.
Incoherent, and immaterial to anything I've posted in this thread.




I am heartened by the fact that you seem to be favored by God, but the fact of the matter is, in condemning others, you risk condemning yourself. No matter how you frame it, you know these words to be true.
A silly notion there, one that I shouldn't even go to the trouble to respond to, but no Doc, unlike Obama, I am not guilty of heresy, nor am I at risk of condemnation for pointing out that he is.

[j-6]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

We don't even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of anything from the original writings of any of the writers of the Old or the New Testament. Whatever ol' J.C. actually said has probably been bastardized three dozen times already to get to the 21st Century King James version of the Bible. Then we have quasi-religious people immediately denoucing someone else's opinion of what they think a 2000 year old passage means using words like heresy, damnation, condemnation, and repentance?

Personally, I prefer words like acceptance, praise, and tolerance, but whatever floats your ark.

I'll have to remember this next time I'm having beers with the lesbian couple across the street and we're watching do-gooders going door to door handing out flyers trying to convince people to attend their house of worship.

[Spurminator]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

You and many others, unfortunately.

[Marklar MM]

This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.



I approve this message.

[Doc Jerome]

Sorry jochhejaam, your passion is surpassed only by your ignorance. You still fail to see that you are trying to live in the spiritual world ill-prepared, with a twisted concept of religion and it's purpose. You seem to be filtering your entire decision making process through your very personal and unique religious beliefs. I won't knock you for it, after all, it is part of that gift we were all given, . . . Free will.

Peace.

[boutons_]

"So then we should vote for Obama"

We did, eg, in TX.

Obama, now including caucus results, won TX, not Hillary, by +3 delegates,

but TX is so complicated that TX won't finish until June,

and Hillary may drag TX into court.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/texas_twostep_leaving_dems_fla_1.html

[Phenomanul]

Sorry jochhejaam, your passion is surpassed only by your ignorance. You still fail to see that you are trying to live in the spiritual world ill-prepared, with a twisted concept of religion and it's purpose. You seem to be filtering your entire decision making process through your very personal and unique religious beliefs. I won't knock you for it, after all, it is part of that gift we were all given, . . . Free will.

Peace.

jochhejaam made an observation about Obama's stance that is fully backed by the scriptures. He in no way participates in deciding Obama's everlasting destiny/fate - that alone is up to GOD; or rather between GOD and Barack Obama's actions.

Unfortunately, the belief that 'calling a sin by it's name is tantamount to casting judgement' has become far too pervasive in our society. The Word of GOD is very clear on such matters and differentiates the two premises. Sorry to burst your bubble - but declaring that Christ's Sermon on the Mount condones the act of homosexuality wreaks of heresy, blasphemy and apostasy - it does. It goes beyond Obama's obvious attempt to pander to his constituency.

What you must understand is that the observation in and of itself does not mean that we are casting judgement on Obama; it suggests that he is not speaking in Biblical Truths. Not only were humans endowed with the gift of free will; GOD's Spirit also endows his true followers with discernment. How else is He to guide them?

Furthermore, the scriptures state that GOD's arms will embrace any sinner who turns from their lifestyle and turns to Him (that includes homosexuality). That He is "Faithful and Just" to forgive us of our sins when we have shown true repentance. Our message is one of Hope and Love; not eternal damnation.

But alas.... to each their own. :drunk

[Spurminator]

Um guys? I think everyone missed Obama's point completely. While it's a poor choice of words (you should never call any part of Scripture "obscure," especially when running for President on the Democratic ticket), he's not saying the Sermon condones homosexuality.

[Holt's Cat]

Clearly, those who engage in sins such as adultery and theft are mere pikers compared to the queers.

Sure, salvation for your sins through acceptance of Christ as your savior is the key tenet of Christianity. But some focus a wee too much on that sin to the apparent exclusion of Christ's admonitions about loving the sinners.

I think that when that day comes for each of us, we'll be a bit surprised by the importance of those sins as well as the importance of loving those in spite of their sins.

[Holt's Cat]

Also, it seems that most do not understand:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

[Phenomanul]

Any unrepented sin carries the same reward; death and eternal separation from GOD.

A weighting system for sin doesn't exist because any sinful deed is equally detestable to GOD.

The nature of homosexuality however, is inherently defined by a lifestyle choice that continually rebels against GOD's statutes - as such they are in continual defiance of GOD's law. Until they turn away from that lifestyle, or rather until they allow Christ to break their bondage to their deviant nature, it becomes an irreconcilable hurdle in their path towards repentance. But this is no different from what rages deep within the souls of pathological liars, chronic adulterers, or thieves. Their lives can be transformed by the Power of GOD's Word only if they allow for Him to work in them. Rejection of this offer is tantamount to blasphemy - which.... just so happens to be the only unforgivable sin stated in GOD's Word.

[Extra Stout]

Did people not know that liberal, mainline, formerly-Christian denominations affirm homosexuality? Is that some kind of mystery?

Obama actually is somewhat to the right of the UCC in claiming that gay partners should not be considered "married."

I do have a question for jochhejaam. Do you think that the state should discriminate against homosexual partners with regard to property rights, taxes, insurance, inheritance laws, etc., in order to enforce morality?

[Holt's Cat]

Any unrepented sin carries the same reward; death and enternal separation from GOD.

A weighting system for sin doesn't exist because any sinful deed is equally detestable to GOD.

The nature of homosexuality however, is inherently defined by a lifestyle choice that continually rebels against GOD's statutes - as such they are in continual defiance of GOD's law. Until they turn away from that lifestyle, or rather until they allow Christ to break their bondage to their deviant nature, it becomes an irreconcilable hurdle in their path towards repentance. But this is no different then what rages deep within the souls of pathological liars, chronic adulterers, or thieves. Their lives can be transformed by the Power of GOD's Word only if they allow for Him to work in them. Rejection of this offer is tantamount to blasphemy - which.... happens to be the only unforgivable sin.


Right. So why is it that so many are worked up about gays and not so much that Rick cheated on his wife with Mary? Heterosexual adultery in the US is much more prevalent than gay relationships.

[Phenomanul]

Also, it seems that most do not understand:

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."


I caught your drift when you mentioned it.

Unfortunately it is the secularist anti-Christian crowd which fails to acknowlege that Christ himself established the principles behind "separation of Church and State". They believe that Christians are all trying to conform everyone into to their way of thinking; trying to subvert this nation into a theocracy. While that agenda may apply to some groups it certainly doesn't apply to all Christians.

All citizens of this country are equally entitled to lobby for whatever suits their fancy - that's one of the core rights provided by the democratic state. The anti-Christian crowd hence, doesn't have a leg to stand on when they deny Christians the right to shape the laws of the land - they can't have it both ways.

But that argument was neither here nor there with regards to the thread subject. JJ was trying to expose the fallacy of Obama's statement. He wasn't advocating a premise that suggested that Barack Obama was trying to wedge further discord in the "Separation of Church and State" argument. At least that's not how I interpretted his post.

[Phenomanul]

Right. So why is it that so many are worked up about gays and not so much that Rick cheated on his wife with Mary? Heterosexual adultery in the US is much more prevalent than gay relationships.

I'm indifferent to their actions. I try not to get worked up about the actions of those I am not personally acquainted with.

[ChuckD]

Nothing's been reiterated. If McCain made no overtures to them, or shrugged them off, that would be construed as taking them for granted, and there would probably be a significant number of them not voting at all.
He has made overtures, recently restating that he's "always been a conservative" (talk is cheap, so he'll have to further define his conservatism), and he'll more than likely select a conservative running mate to further illustrate that he's not taking them for granted.

Now, with those things being true, a reasonable person would not continue to insist that they can be taken for granted.
He's actually dissed them pretty hard in the past, but if you want to believe the recantations of a politician, or anything else they say for that matter, I may have some beach front property for you in McCain's back yard.

[Extra Stout]

I caught your drift when you mentioned it.

Unfortunately it is the secularist anti-Christian crowd which fails to acknowlege that Christ himself established the principles behind "separation of Church and State". They believe that Christians are all trying to conform everyone into to their way of thinking; trying to subvert this nation into a theocracy. While that agenda may apply to some groups it certainly doesn't apply to all Christians.

All citizens of this country are equally entitled to lobby for whatever suits their fancy - that's one of the core rights provided by the democratic state. The anti-Christian crowd hence, doesn't have a leg to stand on when they deny Christians the right to shape the laws of the land - they can't have it both ways.

But that argument was neither here nor there with regards to the thread subject. JJ was trying to expose the fallacy of Obama's statement. He wasn't advocating a premise that suggested that Barack Obama was trying to wedge further discord in the "Separation of Church and State" argument. At least that's not how I interpretted his post.
That's one thing that secularists have never been able to articulate to me. I hear that government is supposed to be determined solely by logic and reason. However, in order to use something like deductive reasoning, you have to start with a premise. How do you determine the premise?

[jochhejaam]

I do have a question for jochhejaam. Do you think that the state should discriminate against homosexual partners with regard to property rights, taxes, insurance, inheritance laws, etc., in order to enforce morality?
No.

[jochhejaam]

Clearly, those who engage in sins such as adultery and theft are mere pikers compared to the queers.

Sure, salvation for your sins through acceptance of Christ as your savior is the key tenet of Christianity. But some focus a wee too much on that sin to the apparent exclusion of Christ's admonitions about loving the sinners.

If Obama had engaged in theft or adultery, perhaps the thread title would have read, "the adulterer" or "the thief" (although I personally wouldn't have started a thread for either of those). For those that read this as an assault on homosexuals, you have completely misunderstood it's intent (like it went right over your heads).
The focus was on Obama, and his gross misinterpretation of Scripture.
I would suggest a refresher course on comprehension for those that chose to see it as anything other than that.
Of course, the frustration of not being able to refute the crux of the thread left them with no alternative, other than to create diversionary arguements that had nothing to do with his heresy.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=j-6]This type of crap is what turned me off of religion in the first place.

We don't even have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of anything from the original writings of any of the writers of the Old or the New Testament. Whatever ol' J.C. actually said has probably been bastardized three dozen times already to get to the 21st Century King James version of the Bible. Then we have quasi-religious people immediately denoucing someone else's opinion of what they think a 2000 year old passage means using words like heresy, damnation, condemnation, and repentance? Personally, I prefer words like acceptance, praise, and tolerance, but whatever floats your ark.
And now we are fortunate enough to get to listen to someone who claims to prefer "tolerance, praise and acceptance" denounce an opinion he disagrees with. Powerful stuff!



Suggestion - Focus and get "turned on" to Jesus Christ instead of religion.








I'll have to remember this next time I'm having beers with the lesbian couple across the street and we're watching do-gooders going door to door handing out flyers trying to convince people to attend their house of worship.
Whatever rings your bell oh tolerant one.

[ChumpDumper]

So Obama, according to a message board poster, misinterprets scripture.

That isn't high on my list of reasons to vote for or against someone for president.

If you prefer a full-on Christian theocracy based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that's ok. I just don't think it's going to happen.

[jochhejaam]

So Obama, according to a message board poster, misinterprets scripture.

That isn't high on my list of reasons to vote for or against someone for president.

If you prefer a full-on Christian theocracy based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, that's ok. I just don't think it's going to happen.
I'm sure it doesn't phase a lot of people. Justifying preferred sins by wresting the truth from Scripture has been going on forever.

And no, I don't prefer a Christian theocracy.

[ChumpDumper]

Preferred sins?

:lol
And no, I don't prefer a Christian theocracy.Then what is your point?

[Ignignokt]

Preferred sins?

:lolThen what is your point?


that obama's disingenous use of scripture to promote a sinful lifestyle is dishonest could be one, or simply that he's wrong.

[Phenomanul]

that obama's disingenous use of scripture to pander to homosexual constituents is dishonest and simply wrong.

I believe that if phrased this way we are closer to the intent of JJ's initial observation.

[jochhejaam]

Preferred sins?
:lol

Yes, preferred sins. Specific God-forbidden sin, that brings great pleasure to those that profess to be Christians, so much so, that instead of abstaining from the sin they torture or contour Scripture through contextual manipulation to rationalize or justify their sinful behaviour. Voila! The best of both worlds (or so they believe).




Then what is your point?
What in my posts would lead you to believe that I favored a Christian theocracy?








.

[td4mvp21]

Supporting abortion and gay marriage/civil unions has nothing to do with a person's Christianity or faith in God. I find it insulting to question someone's faith based on the latter, because I am for abortion rights and I consider myself a Christian. I believe in God, that Jesus is His Son, that He is our Saviour, so am I not a Christian, or less of a Christian because I support abortion rights? I can't see me standing before God, only to have Him condemn me to hell because I supported abortion rights. I can't see Him saying "You are not a very good Christian, because you supported abortion rights. But I guess you can enter Heaven anyway."



On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith. <---Then your knowledge of God and scripture is superficial, twisted and one of convenience.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington <----Yeah, forget about the fact that they're aborting their Creators means of bringing new life into this world. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay." <---No, it's not!

Who are you to say he's less of a Christian and has twisted views on Christianity? Are you God? Do you live in a perfect world where no one has to consider abortion? What if someone gets raped and gets pregnant as a result? What if the pregnancy could result in serious health problems? What if it could kill the mother? The fetus isn't the only thing that matters here. I think it's despicable for anyone to judge another person's faith. Obama is a Christian and that is what he believes-so what? He interprets the scriptures a different way than you do. If believing in abortion rights is indeed a sin, it's not any worse than lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. You sin too so I guess you have a warped sense of Christianity :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

that obama's disingenous use of scripture to promote a sinful lifestyle is dishonest could be one, or simply that he's wrong.Yeah, calling him a heretic kind of made his point about judging Obama. I still don't know what it has to do with electing him -- unless of course someone preferred our laws be directly based on scripture.

[angel_luv]

Obama needs to pick a position, Christian or secular.

Actually, by trying to please everyone, he has already chosen.

[Phenomanul]

Supporting abortion and gay marriage/civil unions has nothing to do with a person's Christianity or faith in God. I find it insulting to question someone's faith based on the latter, because I am for abortion rights and I consider myself a Christian. I believe in God, that Jesus is His Son, that He is our Saviour, so am I not a Christian, or less of a Christian because I support abortion rights? I can't see me standing before God, only to have Him condemn me to hell because I supported abortion rights. I can't see Him saying "You are not a very good Christian, because you supported abortion rights. But I guess you can enter Heaven anyway."



Who are you to say he's less of a Christian and has twisted views on Christianity? Are you God? Do you live in a perfect world where no one has to consider abortion? What if someone gets raped and gets pregnant as a result? What if the pregnancy could result in serious health problems? What if it could kill the mother? The fetus isn't the only thing that matters here. I think it's despicable for anyone to judge another person's faith. Obama is a Christian and that is what he believes-so what? He interprets the scriptures a different way than you do. If believing in abortion rights is indeed a sin, it's not any worse than lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. You sin too so I guess you have a warped sense of Christianity :rolleyes


I think most people in the pro-Life camp agree that when the mother's life is in danger that abortion may become a necessary means to save her life - once all other alternatives have been weighed and considered.

In the case of rape however... there are other alternatives to abortion - such as adoption (unless the rape was incestual in nature - because that becomes a quality of life issue for the baby due to any number of defects and diseases that are inherited when people of highly similar genotypes produce offspring).

People in the pro-Life camp simply don't want to open the flood-gates to irresponsible use of the procedure, or as a stop-gap birth control method. Supporting that use of abortion, is disrespectful to life and its Author... chiefly GOD... it's an irreconcilable difference.

[angel_luv]

I have never been in the position where I knew a mother whose life was endangered by her pregnancy. I cannot imagine much that is more horrible.

However, if you choose to end the baby's life to save the mothers, there should at least be an acknowledgement that that is what was done.

A baby is a human life regardless of the circumstances of its conception and birth.

I feel strongly about this, probably all the more so as my mother ( a young, single parent) came very close to aborting me.
She had an appointment and changed her mind right before entering the doctor's office.

[Holt's Cat]

If Obama had engaged in theft or adultery, perhaps the thread title would have read, "the adulterer" or "the thief" (although I personally wouldn't have started a thread for either of those). For those that read this as an assault on homosexuals, you have completely misunderstood it's intent (like it went right over your heads).
The focus was on Obama, and his gross misinterpretation of Scripture.
I would suggest a refresher course on comprehension for those that chose to see it as anything other than that.
Of course, the frustration of not being able to refute the crux of the thread left them with no alternative, other than to create diversionary arguements that had nothing to do with his heresy.

We are only discussing this due to the fact that there are political movements afoot to deal with various issues related to homosexuality, which, while undoubtedly of import and interesting from a theological and puerile standpoint, are minor in terms of the actual volume of sinful deeds going on in this country as opposed to say, again, heterosexual adultery. If we are going to use the federal government as well as state and even local governments to strike against sin how about a national movement against adultery? If there was anything which disrupts and destroys families, hurts children, and is just as evil as the concept of two dudes cornholing each other then it has to be adultery.

But that's never the case. Why? I can think of a few thousand issues that are of greater concern to this nation than that which affects between 2 to 5% of the population. You want to advance the cause of your faith? Start with yourself. Not with the ballot box.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Holt's Cat]We are only discussing this due to the fact that there are political movements afoot to deal with various issues related to homosexuality
That may be your reason for discussion, and while you may be the mouthpiece for others on this board, you certainly don't speak for me.
I posted it here because of the hypocrisy and heresy of a high-profile individual.

The juxtaposition;
-Heresy is responsible for damning innumerable people to Hell.
-The commission of a Christian is to lead them to Christ, and away from Hell.

You may think of this as minor, but God, who sacrificed his Son for the Redemption of sinful man, and that redemptive man, who became impassioned for Christ through that redemption, do not see it as minor.
Nor will the impassioned Christian be moved or silenced by your silly
admonition to "start with yourself, not with the ballot box".


Are you a Christian?

[ChumpDumper]

More judgment to follow.

[Holt's Cat]

That may be your reason for discussion, and while you may be the mouthpiece for others on this board, you certainly don't speak for me.
I posted it here because of the hypocrisy and heresy of a high-profile individual.

The juxtaposition;
-Heresy is responsible for damning innumerable people to Hell.
-The commission of a Christian is to lead them to Christ, and away from Hell.


Lead by example and by explaining what Christianity is about, not by trying to legislate them into becoming Christians.






You may think of this as minor, but God, who sacrificed his Son for the Redemption of sinful man, and that redemptive man, who became impassioned for Christ through that redemption, do not see it as minor.
Nor will the impassioned Christian be moved or silenced by your silly
admonition to "start with yourself, not with the ballot box".


Right. Christianity is about forcing people to believe through the electoral process. I'm glad that Christianity has become how you vote and not what you believe and do.




Are you a Christian?

Yes. But I'm not whatever you are.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Holt's Cat]Lead by example and by explaining what Christianity is about, not by trying to legislate them into becoming Christians.
I'm agree and aware of all of that. Perhaps it will be helpful to those that aren't.





Right. Christianity is about forcing people to believe through the electoral process. I'm glad that Christianity has become how you vote and not what you believe.
Your admonition was silly because I've never advocated advancing my belief in Christ through the ballot box.
It would be helpful if you would educate yourself on someone's position before running of at the mouth (keyboard).





Yes. But I'm not whatever you are.
Ditto

[Holt's Cat]

So Christianity is not about the ballot box according to you?


Nor will the impassioned Christian be moved or silenced by your silly
admonition to "start with yourself, not with the ballot box".

How you vote does not determine whether or not you are a Christian. That admonition might be silly to someone content to fuse Christianity with politics into some kind of uber-American religion.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Holt's Cat]So Christianity is not about the ballot box according to you?
My intent, and I've already clarified that, but I'll revisit it once more in a last ditch effort at helping you to understand; Your "start with yourself, ballot box" statement was ridiculous, because I have not advocated advancing or furthering Christianity through legislation.








How you vote does not determine whether or not you are a Christian. That admonition might be silly to someone content to fuse Christianity with politics into some kind of uber-American religion.
Are you suggesting that I've implied that Christianity is determined by political affiliation? If so, you have a nasty habit of mischaracterization.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

That was standard liberal-apostate Christianity. Nothing he said was a surprise. If you go into any of the mainline Protestant churches, odds are better than half that the pastor will agree with the stuff Obama said.

And that is why I reject mainline churches.

Not a fan of same sex marriage then?

that would be a good debate, I'm not sure if this forum has ever done that one.

[Extra Stout]

Not a fan of same sex marriage then?

that would be a good debate, I'm not sure if this forum has ever done that one.
My position is that if the state grants benefits to married couples, it should not withhold them from other kinds of households. It is unfair to charge people higher taxes, or withhold inheritance and visitation benefits, because their decisions about their relationships are not acceptable according to my moral code. As I read the Scriptural tenets regarding marriage, I fail to find the passages where God ordains joint tax filing.

Regardless of whether people follow the moral tenets of Christianity, they are human beings created in God's image, and are to be treated with respect. Without that underlying moral basis, democracy is pointless.

However, the idea that Christianity affirms same-sex marriage is a complete overturning of its morality as it was understood for its first 1,900 years. Christianity from the start adopted the Jewish abhorrence toward homosexual conduct, in stark contrast to the widespread acceptance of homosexuality in pagan Roman and Greek culture. In fact, it also adopted the Jewish abhorrence toward abortion, which likewise had widespread acceptance in the pagan cultures.

[Extra Stout]

Supporting abortion and gay marriage/civil unions has nothing to do with a person's Christianity or faith in God.
It would indicate that such a person is woefully ignorant about what his faith teaches, or has been instructed by false teachers.


I am for abortion rights and I consider myself a Christian.
Then you don't understand what your faith teaches about the significance of human life, and what it represents with respect to God.


I believe in God, that Jesus is His Son, that He is our Saviour, so am I not a Christian, or less of a Christian because I support abortion rights?
I can't speak to the quality of your faith in general, but your view on abortion stands in contrast to the belief of Christians in all times and all places prior to the modern age of liberal theology, when the error became common.


I can't see me standing before God, only to have Him condemn me to hell because I supported abortion rights.
Error on certain moral tenets is not damnable.


I can't see Him saying "You are not a very good Christian, because you supported abortion rights. But I guess you can enter Heaven anyway."
That's probably because you're not familiar with the parts of Scripture that talk about the judgment of your works.

[DarkReign]

When my life is reduced to the pleasing of imaginary men in the sky, only then will I know the true bottom of humanity.

[2centsworth]

My position is that if the state grants benefits to married couples, it should not withhold them from other kinds of households. It is unfair to charge people higher taxes, or withhold inheritance and visitation benefits, because their decisions about their relationships are not acceptable according to my moral code. As I read the Scriptural tenets regarding marriage, I fail to find the passages where God ordains joint tax filing.

You've heard of the Marriage Penalty when it comes to income taxes?

Everything else you discussed can be handled through a trust.

[Extra Stout]

You've heard of the Marriage Penalty when it comes to income taxes?

For most couples, the marriage penalty has been eliminated, at least through 2010, and there is now a marriage bonus.


Everything else you discussed can be handled through a trust.
It takes a lot more than that.

For example, if Trisha buys her gay domestic partner Lisa a $15,000 ring for her birthday, she is liable for a gift tax.

If they want to have a joint bank account or dual title to a home, uh, good luck with that.

Really, there are seven or eight separate legal procedures they would have to go through to start to obtain the same legal protections as a married couple. They have to pay attorney's fees -- lots of them -- to get them.

That's not any more equal than it would be to let a white person vote on recognizance, while making a black person bring three kinds of photo ID, a signed and notarized affidavit of his identity, another signed and notarized affidavit from the local sheriff verifying that he has not committed a felony, oh, and also having him pay a processing fee for the privilege.

[2centsworth]

For most couples, the marriage penalty has been eliminated, at least through 2010, and there is now a marriage bonus.

You're mistaken brother.

Two single people can make $362,000 before hitting the 33% tax bracket while it takes $195,000 for a married couple. Where's the bonus in that? btw, that type of scenario applies to all levels except the very bottom.




For example, if Trisha buys her gay domestic partner Lisa a $15,000 ring for her birthday, she is liable for a gift tax. You're allowed a $12,000 gift exclusion per year plus a $1,000,000 life time gift exclusions in excess of $12,000. So Trisha is just fine.


If they want to have a joint bank account or dual title to a home, uh, good luck with that.
where, in Saudi Arabia? I have joint bank accounts with unrelated people.



Really, there are seven or eight separate legal procedures they would have to go through to start to obtain the same legal protections as a married couple. They have to pay attorney's fees -- lots of them -- to get them.
I think I've already done a good enough job of shooting you down. Nevertheless, you can get these legal procedures, which btw I recommend for everyone, for as little as $500. I don't see how dying without any estate planning is a benefit to married people.


That's not any more equal than it would be to let a white person vote on recognizance, while making a black person bring three kinds of photo ID, a signed and notarized affidavit of his identity, another signed and notarized affidavit from the local sheriff verifying that he has not committed a felony, oh, and also having him pay a processing fee for the privilege.
:dizzy

I respect you ES, but you're way off.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree with ES on this one. Go ahead and grant two adults of consenting age to have a domestic partnership so the same legalities are granted. Just don't call it marriage. Maintain that for one man and one woman only.

I disagree with homosexuality myself. However, that doesn't mean it's my right to impede them in life.

[2centsworth]

I agree with ES on this one


Go ahead and grant two adults of consenting age to have a domestic partnership so the same legalities are granted..
Please explain same legalities?

[Wild Cobra]

Please explain same legalities?
I wouldn't be able to start with all concievable ones, but marriage does automatically grant a status that otherwise gets tricky to lay out in a legal document.

We have to accept the fact that people want this. What is the harm in such liberties?

[2centsworth]

I wouldn't be able to start with all concievable ones, but marriage does automatically grant a status that otherwise gets tricky to lay out in a legal document.

We have to accept the fact that people want this. What is the harm in such liberties?
give me two or three.

[Wild Cobra]

give me two or three.
Why are you so demanding on this? I agree legal papers can be written up to cover most things. I do know some situations exist. I do not recall the specifics. It's not important enough for me to look up.

I personally do not agree with the lifestyle myself. but I am at least not bigoted in this setting as you apparently are. I try not to impose my moralities on others. I am adamantly opposed to calling a gay union, a marriage. I am not opposed to allowing them a status that grants then the same umbrella of privileges as marriage, and for some, the status is a necessary part for them to feel complete as a couple.

What's the big deal?

If you want answers to this, find someone who actually cares about this issue rather than my limited viewpoint of liberty. That is the extent of my care of this issue. That people can live as they wish in this land of liberty.

[2centsworth]

Why are you so demanding on this? I agree legal papers can be written up to cover most things. I do know some situations exist. I do not recall the specifics. It's not important enough for me to look up.

I personally do not agree with the lifestyle myself. but I am at least not bigoted in this setting as you apparently are. I try not to impose my moralities on others. I am adamantly opposed to calling a gay union, a marriage. I am not opposed to allowing them a status that grants then the same umbrella of privileges as marriage, and for some, the status is a necessary part for them to feel complete as a couple.

What's the big deal?

If you want answers to this, find someone who actually cares about this issue rather than my limited viewpoint of liberty. That is the extent of my care of this issue. That people can live as they wish in this land of liberty.I have no idea what you're talking about. Just do me a favor and tell me what privileges of marriage are you talking about? ES gave me a list. Of course he was wrong, but at least he gave it a shot.

[Ignignokt]

wow 2cents just obliterated everyone.

[Extra Stout]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Just do me a favor and tell me what privileges of marriage are you talking about? ES gave me a list. Of course he was wrong, but at least he gave it a shot.
I really don't want to become an expert on the legal arrangements of domestic partner benefits for homosexuals, but I did read an article from New Jersey that discussed how their new civil unions law isn't effective to allow the gays to get the equivalent of spousal benefits (i.e., the ones that are required by law to be offered) from their employers. Some employers are arguing that since a civil union is not the same thing as a marriage, they don't have to offer partner benefits to their gay employees who have civil unions.

[Wild Cobra]

wow 2cents just obliterated everyone.
Not at all. He has simply taken a position where my belief in liberty oppose his. At the same time, I wish not to defend gay rights. The subject creeps me out and I have better things to do. I know of some things, but would have to take time to insure I had correct sources and specifics. I have better things to do with my time.

[smeagol]

The subject creeps me out

What creept you out? Gay rights?

[Wild Cobra]

What creept you out? Gay rights?
I have some personal biases against homosexually. I believe it's flat out wrong. The thought of "in through the out door" is disgusting to me. Even when it's a woman. It's not clean, and it's not healthy.

I should have used the word "disgusts" instead.

Again, It is not my right to infringe on other's rights. The liberty aspect is my view. It's not the "gay rights" aspect that bothers me. As long as it doesn't move to "special rights," I believe in liberty for all.

[smeagol]

I have some personal biases against homosexually. I believe it's flat out wrong. The thought of "in through the out door" is disgusting to me. Even when it's a woman. It's not clean, and it's not healthy.

I should have used the word "disgusts" instead.

Again, It is not my right to infringe on other's rights. The liberty aspect is my view. It's not the "gay rights" aspect that bothers me. As long as it doesn't move to "special rights," I believe in liberty for all.

What if your brother turned out to be gay? Or your son?

[Wild Cobra]

What if your brother turned out to be gay? Or your son?
I already know several gay people. I maintain a level of tolerance, and let them know if they tread into subjects I don't like discussing. Most of them are pretty good people. Some, I stay away from.