Posted on 02/14/2005 12:32:30 AM PST by RWR8189
Your argument makes sense. But I would always want my child to know that I loved her. I would not be happy with her decision. I would let her know that I would be praying for her deliverance from that lifestyle, but that I would always love her. Also, I would not cut myself off from my child. One never knows when our time on this earth will end, or those of a loved one. I could not bear it if my child were to die and I had banished her from my life.
I think too much is being made of a family argument that might otherwise have ended in reconciliation. The hype reminds me of the hype divorce lawyers use to drive families further and further apart until there is not only no chance of reconcilation between the husband and wife, but no chance of an amicable, working relationship as seperate parents in order to make life more bearable for their children - only the lawyers win.
I'm saying Keyes reaction is perfectly justifiable on her politics alone.
She is explicitly aligning herself wiith groups seeking to undermine the legitimacy of a sitting President in time of war.
All the homosexuality issues, while sufficient in my own mind to justify the same reaction, may or may not have been operative before he cut her off, but clearly the watershed event was the "Counter-Inaugural."
Would you be so kind as to point out exactly where in Scripture this is defined?
Romans 1:18-32
Where in Scripture is homosexual orientation attributed to sinful acts of human beings?
If I read you correctly, embarrassing ones' father entitles him to throw you out of his home, cut off college funding (remember she could have applied for a scholarship had she known in advance) and break off communication.
I call it overkill.
As a matter of fact it takes a careful and fairly selective reading of Paul to get lesbianism into the bible at all.
Romans 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Anal intercourse is "against nature" for men. Women could have allowed anal intercourse, not practiced lesbianism.
Incorrect.
While admittedly the language is rather convoluted by modern standards, it is not incomprehensible. There is no textual support for your claim that Paul is speaking of isolated acts as opposed to general rule.
If by use of the term "orientation" you mean to incorporate the modern understanding into the Pauline discourse, you should understand the two are mutually exclusive and can not be reconciled.
Of course they are. You make my point for me.
Scripture does not speak to homosexual orientation, since Paul could not make the distinction.
The Catholic Church makes the distinction, and rightly so.
You can conclude anything you want, and you can kick your kids out of your family for anything you want. I think that these actions were way beyond the pale. But that's just me.
I feel very sad for The Keyes family.
I think Ron Reagan, The Lesser, IS GAY!! Geesh...have you never heard of a "beard"?? RR, The Lesser, doesn't have ANYTHING masculine about him, including his views.
This sentence leads me to believe you didn't read me at all, let alone correctly.
I'm saying her actions were the domestic equivalent of Jane Fonda's trip to Hanoi. All the sound and fury over her sexual proclivities is an attempt to employ the "McGreeney defense," against the sanctions she's suffered for it. Though reflexively, said proclivities are sufficient to warrent the same reaction.
One is left with a simple choice. You can believe Keyes is a blatant hypocrite, or that his daughter is being somewhat disingenuous. I choose to give benefit of the doubt to the party that doesn't celebrate sodomy.
Actually, if I recall my catechism correctly, the Catholic Church's position is to leave the question open, made moot by the fact that the act is disordered in and of itself.
The act is disordered, but the orientation is neutral. Homosexuals should not be condemned merely for being homosexuals.
Source please.
I can believe both, easily.
Keyes is clearly a hypocrite since he commented on Cheney's daughter without acknowledging his own daughter was the same. Saved him some embarrassment during the campaign.
I also consider his reparations explanations disingenuous.
I don't have enough data, but what I do have leaves room for the daughter to be disingenous also. I'd like to know who funded her trip, since she had been fired and was also "homeless".
B.S.
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.