Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: biblewonk
I retract the accusation of harsh rhetoric. Your phraseology was awkward for me. I will go further than mere retraction, toward agreement.

Not as a Christian, but as an American, I categorically reject the notion that it is good for gay marriages and gay adoptions and gay politicians and gay teachers to be openly acknowledged to children and all. I reject the notion that unions between gays are to be held up publicly as equally valuable as marriage.

I do not categorize what homosexuals do privately as sinful, nor do I recommend total abstinence on their part. Nor do I know how Christians should feel.

What I take from your comment about the 19th amendment, is that things here were changing slowly and we became a liberal society, in a good sense. In the same sense that Afghanistan has liberalized. Women won voting privileges.

But now the notion of "equality" has become fetishized. In the area of race, I do believe in equality under the law. I do believe in the endeavor for public policy to become completely race-blind.

But it is not so clear-cut for gender, and certainly not for sexual orientation. The liberal movement is unwilling to make distinctions proper to these areas.

287 posted on 11/19/2003 6:29:51 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies ]


To: NutCrackerBoy
I retract the accusation of harsh rhetoric. Your phraseology was awkward for me. I will go further than mere retraction, toward agreement.

I understand, most people hate the word sodomite.

Not as a Christian, but as an American, I categorically reject the notion that it is good for gay marriages and gay adoptions and gay politicians and gay teachers to be openly acknowledged to children and all. I reject the notion that unions between gays are to be held up publicly as equally valuable as marriage.

I do not categorize what homosexuals do privately as sinful, nor do I recommend total abstinence on their part. Nor do I know how Christians should feel.

But if there is no sin in what they do in private, to which I don't agree, then why do you take issue with the things listed. Otherwise there must be something wrong with two men sleeping together.

What I take from your comment about the 19th amendment, is that things here were changing slowly and we became a liberal society, in a good sense. In the same sense that Afghanistan has liberalized. Women won voting privileges.

When I watch Mary Poppins and see the man of the house sitting back while his wife is out doing politics, it almost makes me cry. Biblewonks have a different perspective on male vs female roles. There was an excellent post on the FR of an article written by women who were opposed to the 19th amendment written before the 19th amendment was passed.

But now the notion of "equality" has become fetishized. In the area of race, I do believe in equality under the law. I do believe in the endeavor for public policy to become completely race-blind.

Absolutely!

But it is not so clear-cut for gender, and certainly not for sexual orientation. The liberal movement is unwilling to make distinctions proper to these areas.

But you said earlier that what homos do in private is not a sin in your eyes so why the double standard. It's either perfectly OK or a sin against God or a sin against nature.

295 posted on 11/19/2003 7:14:37 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson