Posted on 07/14/2007 12:24:48 PM PDT by madprof98
As a member of the United Methodist Judicial Council, physician James Holsinger voted with the majority to affirm Methodist teaching that bans practicing homosexuals from ordination. Holsinger also wrote a white paper for the denomination 16 years ago on the health hazards of gay sex and on the biological complementarity of the human sexes.
Should that bar him from serving (as President Bush desires) as U.S. surgeon general? It's not surprising that homosexual-activist groups like Human Rights Campaign think so. But most of the major Democratic presidential candidates agree.
[snip]
The Bush administration didn't exactly rush to Holsinger's defense. "That was not his belief. It was not his opinion. It was a compilation of studies that were available at that time," a spokeswoman said. "Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved."
[snip]
Where does that leave biblical Christians? We may soon come to the point where supporting a sexual ethic based on an orthodox reading of Scripture becomes part of our cross to bear.
The early church did not shy away from proclaiming a biblical sexual ethic in the midst of a promiscuous and perverted culture, but we don't have evidence to suggest that licentious Romans said, "See how these Christians hate homosexual behavior." Instead, non-Christians reportedly said, "Look how they love one another."
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Why is it not permissible to criticize homosexuality?
Here’s what gets me — There is a lot of talk in recent years about “safe sex” and criticism of heterosexuals who are promiscuous and spread sexually transmitted diseases. They are spreading diseases and having unplanned pregnancies, and are criticized for doing so. Random heterosexual sexual behavior can have bad consequences.
Why then, can’t we criticize the homosexual behaviors that spread diseases and have bad consequences? Why can’t we talk about certain dangers of homosexual behavior, just as we’re allowed to speak about certain dangers of certain heterosexual behavior?
I think there is a double standard involved, and we’re not supposed to criticize anything related to homosexuality, even if it has to do with dangers to their health. Instead of focusing on risky behaviors, all too often the homosexual community lashes out at people like Ronald Reagan who allegedly didn’t do enough to fight AIDS.
This seems to be getting awfully close to a religious test, especially when the paper he wrote that is being used in the litmus test was written for his Methodist denomination.
We've learned that the human sexes aren't actually complementary?
I hate to say this, but I hope Bush pulls the nomination. The United Methodist Church needs him to stay on the Judicial Council. We are just starting to turn back the tide, and he is a reliably sane vote.
We have lost this battle even while the vast majority agrees with us because we have allowed them to define all the terms and set all the boundaries. We are too weak and too compromised to win even though they are so obviously in error. It’s going to get much worse until God decides He has been patient with us long enough.
RFK Jr. also called anyone who questioned the scientific theories of man made global warming a “traitor” to the US government (there is no other kind of treason).
The Stalinists on the Left are getting ready to criminalize political dissent.
Thay, thouldn’t that be thibboleth?
You've never been married, have you?
The Left claims that Reagan didn’t do “enough” to stop AIDS.
Here we are over 20 years later with more money thrown at this disease than any other and still there is no cure.
How much spending should Reagan have authorized and how would it have stopped the activity of gay drug users having random sex encounters in bath houses?
What would a "win" look like, and how do we know God wants that outcome? Seems to me that He wants only that we remain pure, and proclaim the truth in and out of season ... and nothing prevents us from continuing to do those things.
You are spot on, I have raised this point on many occasions, there is a conspiracy of silence in the media when it comes to educating the population about the health dangers of homosexuality
There are lethal medical consequences of engaging in male homosexual behavior.
These various behaviors cause trauma to the rectum; contribute to the spread of AIDS; increase incidences of oral and anal cancer; and result in serious infections due to the ingestion of fecal matter. Anal intercourse tears the rectal lining of the receptive partner, regardless of whether a condom is worn, and the subsequent contact with their own fecal matter leads to a host of diseases. Other diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable can be classified as follows:
Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex--not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle.
A 1998 study suggested that a homosexual lifestyle, on the average, shortens one’s lifespan by roughly 20 years. It is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction.
And RFK Jr. is a convicted drug user/abuser.
He thinks he is morally superior because he is a good Democrat and worships at the altar of Al Gore.
Well, many of us think we’re morally superior to RFK Jr. because we stay away from mind altering drugs, and we don’t think we’re above others because of having a last name such as Kennedy.
So in a pissing contest about moral superiority, how does RFK Jr. really stack up?
You've never been married, have you?
That's complEmentary not complImentary ... and I've been married long enough to know the former is always true and the latter occasionally.
The problem is that we don’t have any politicians who are willing to stand up and fight this garbage head on. That’s the problem. The only way this will become a litmus test is if we LET IT.
Touché!
Those are good questions. It’s so easy to see ourselves as in a “battle” and to imagine that what we are put here for is to “win.” In war, absolutely. But with regard to Christians’ place in society? We strive for justice and oppose injustice, but there really is no such thing as “winning.” We will never eradicate abortion, for instance, but good Christians will continue to strive to make it illegal. God will judge the Kennedys, Cuomos and Pelosis, and the Bernardins, Mahonys, McCarricks, and Wuerls who sided with evil, and many who have sided with what is good.
It is permissible to critize homosexuality. We are still in America; no matter what the alledged thought police say.
May I suggest you pay more attention to what is actually happening, both in this country and around the world.
What I meant by "win" was "win the debate." Do you suggest that God is indifferent to the definition of marriage and even sex? He is the Creator you know. I think He has an opinion on the matter or else He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.
Yes it would be great to save every soul in America so that laws and decency standards were not necessary. But that is not reality. To act like it is more Christian to ignore evil than to stand up against it is appalling.
Whether we win or lose is not even the main point. Though I stand by my statement that we have the majority opinion on our side regarding homosexuality and we would win the arguments and spare the children of these evils if we only had the courage and the concern. But if we lose we lose. We should not lose becuase we did not try. If we do, we share the guilt.
A permissible society like ours is losing or has lost the moral high ground from which to criticize homosexual behavior.
Of course those who have not lost their moral compass should still be permitted to speak out.
They just probably won't ever get elected to a national office.
“Why is it not permissible to criticize homosexuality?”
Check out “The Overhauling of Straight America,” available on a number of places on the web. The MassResistance web site at http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm has highlighted a few interesting parts of the article.
Roman homosexuality wasn't about love; it was about dominance. The homo-eroticism to which Paul referred in Romans was Greek in character.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
“The Stalinists on the Left are getting ready to criminalize political dissent.”
Already happening...
In Canada, Commons bill C-250 will basicly make the quoting from the Bible “Hate Speech” under genocide and hate-crimes legislation.
In the House, Barney Frank presdied over the passage of HR 1592 House which adds gender and sexual orientation to the categories covered by federal hate crimes law.
IF YOU OPPOSE THE RADICAL GAY AGENDA, You will soon be a criminal....
They'll see defeat on this, too. The more they force the issue, the more the truth will, shall we say, "come out of the closet."
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for saying this. Are you an American citizen? Do you understand self government, and the role of a citizen in the process? Is this pitiful whine a statement of your refusal to do your part as a citizen?
Gays are very heavily represented in the media. The board of the NYT, for isnatnce, is supposed to have many gays.
“IF YOU OPPOSE THE RADICAL GAY AGENDA, You will soon be a criminal....
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for saying this.”
REALLY?????
The FACTS say otherwise....
Care to explain why the Editorial Board of the New York Times is called “The Gay Mafia”?
I have no problem with gays, far from it. I DO have a problem with the radical gay political agenda.
Are there some “insane” voters on the UMC Judicial Council?
Or have we “recently learned” that on the basis of anatomy and physiological function, the male penis was designed to be shoved up the male anus?
Will good Christians strive to make anything illegal related to homosexuality?
May I suggest you pay more attention to what is actually happening, both in this country and around the world.
What do you think I've overlooked?
What I meant by "win" was "win the debate."
Thanks for the clarification.
Do you suggest that God is indifferent to the definition of marriage and even sex?
Not at all. If you're saying only that God wants us to strive to win the debate, i.e., proclaim the truth in and out of season as I said, then it seems we agree.
It wasn't clear from your previous post that "win" meant "win the debate.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I missed the announcement of that research finding. Maybe the libs will let us know which scientific journal it was in.
Just for starters ---point one in a 25-point plan --- I'd like the criminal penalty for sodomizing a boy to be akin to the penalty for murder.
oh yes, but not a majority.
And also the raping of a girl?
You've set me thinking. There should be different degrees of rape (not just statutory and forcible, but first, second, and third degree of this, and first, second, and third degree of that.) So the answer is "yes," for the most serious category.
What? I didn't say that. Here's what I DID say:
"There should be different degrees of rape (not just statutory and forcible, but first, second, and third degree of this, and first, second, and third degree of that.) So the answer is "yes," for the most serious category."
There are degrees of badness, even among different crimes which are already damnably bad. My thought here is that there could be first, second, third degrees of rape; also that the badness of it can be mitigated or exasperated by circumstances.
For instance: aggravating factors would include (but not be limited to) the use of threat, force, or drugs/alcohol to take down the victim, or the assailant being in a position of authority (teacher, minister, doctor) or in loco parentis guardianship over the victim; the assailant being knowingly HIV+ or carrying some other infectious disease; serial offenses.
Mitigating factors would include (but not be limited to) lack of mental capacity on the part of the assailant, ambiguous consent/nonconsent on the part of the victim... hmm... hard to think of mitigating factors.
Anyhow, rape of a girl is especially serious because she could be impregnated against her will; rape of a boy is particularly serious because it can mess him sexually for the rest of his life.
The mose serious penalties in either case (rape of female or male) should be akin to the penaties for murder.
On rereading, you certainly didn't. My apologies ... I'm not sure what part of "yes" I didn't understand. :-(
Thank you for a graceful apology. It’s -— in the context of Freeperdom -— so refreshing. :o)
Just for starters ---point one in a 25-point plan --- I'd like the criminal penalty for sodomizing a boy to be akin to the penalty for murder.
Since you'd make the penalty for raping a girl equally stern, that appears to be a "no" to my original question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.