Posted on 08/12/2007 6:39:03 AM PDT by Victory111
Two rebukes repeatedly leveled at Christians from today’s champions of “tolerance” are becoming wearisome when trying to apply scriptural admonition to the practice of homosexuality. First is the idea that calling it sin always means that believers hate homosexuals. The second is the feeling that Christians who hold to biblical truth are not in the twenty first century.
(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...
Rhetorical question. ;)
Their main objective is to disrupt the status quo.
Democrats who call themselves Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc. but pander to those who engage in aberrant behavior (homosexuality, abortion, etc.) are NOT Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc. They are merely subhumans who were brought up in their faiths but no longer believers or practionioners of their faiths.
They are such hypocrites. They can't be trusted if their going to lie about religion in their daily lives.
In a sane world the very idea of having a debate sponsored by sexual deviants would be considered appalling. In addition, the debate is being mischaracterized by the media in many ways.
For instance, this debate got less major media coverage than any Democrat debate thus far. The only reason for this is that the press doesn’t want the mainstream electorate to know that the Democrat candidates all support a pro-homosexuality agenda.
Furthermore, the modest coverage which has occurred has focused on how the Democrat candidates came out against same sex “marriage”. Tucker Carlson dwelled on this over and over on his show, featuring two leftist guests (one a lesbian) who expressed disappointment with the Dems over this issue. One of the New York papers even had a headline which stated that the Dems had “dumped gays at the altar”. The impression being created is that the Dems stormed into the debate and told the homosexuals in no uncertain terms that same sex “marriage” would become law under their administration only over their dead body.
In fact, the Dem candidates promised the homosexuals EVERY THING THEY WANTED other than same sex “marriage”. And on same sex “marriage”, the Dems are lying when they claim to oppose it. All the homosexual acivists and news reporters know this. They’re expressing disappointment in the Dems only as an act.
The many huge referenda victories by supporters of traditional marriage have frightened the Dems a little, and have convinced the homosexual lobby that they’ll only achieve their goals on this issue via deceit and judicial fiat. So the Dems are all pretending to oppose same sex “marriage”, but as president would appoint leftist judges who would impose such “marriage” policies nationwide. They would also use executive orders and other ruses to advance the agenda quietly, under the radar.
The voters need to be alerted that there is a major deception ploy being initiated by the left on this issue.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“Democrats who call themselves Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc. but pander to those who engage in aberrant behavior (homosexuality, abortion, etc.) are NOT Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc.”
Right on. However, your statement should also include Republicans who hold these beliefs.
They are "gay" because they have gay sex. Sex is an act and the method of sex is a specific behavior.
They are not a "race". They are not an "ethnic group". They are not born with an identifiable birth defect or specific chromosome.
They are gay because they behave that way. Very different from a man who is black, white or asian because they were born black, white or asian.
You cannot recognize special rights for personal behavior. It opens the door for others to claim special rights for any given behavior on the basis of "sinister birth" or other false claims.
Can someone be born with a sexual attraction for animals? Can someone be born a pedophile or arsonist? These are all behaviors that emerge later in life. Would recognizing special rights for gay give those folks grounds for claiming similar rights in their future? Don't be so sure it wouldn't.
I'm waiting for someone to point out that Christianity is a "behavior". Well, it is, however Christianity ascends behavior and is more of a cultural trait inseparable from Western civilization. It is also the foremost reason this nation was established. You can hardly compare Christianity, an intrinsic cornerstone of Western civilization that defines it's very nature to homosexuality, a controversial behavior that seeks to destroy that very civilization.
This being said, I do not support "special rights" for homosexuals to behave poorly in public.
The Democrats will have to deal with the "other" 98% and explain why they would pander to such a group. "They have money" isn't going to cut it with the mainstream.
Ha! So the Republicans have "Big Oil" and the Dems have "Big Homo." I thought going after $$ was anathema to Democratic principles (except where Dems are the recipients.)
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.