Posted on 05/23/2006 1:58:25 PM PDT by NYer
"....it no ones business what consenting adults do in their own homes.'
Most here agree. It's because they flaunt what they do in their homes, demand acceptance of said chosen behavior as normal and demand their choice to be legislated we all have an issue with!
Note to self: practice knuckle-crunching handshake for "sign of peace" with limp-wristed shirtlifter on Pentecost.
It's called a .......*gasp*......joke.
Possibly in bad taste but, yes, an attempt at humor.
Check back up the thread. Somebody actually.....laughed.
Yeah, yeah.....I know......I'm an evil, hypocritical, homophobic bigot......
Go wag your finger at someone else.
The Supreme Court has ruled that that is unconstitutional, so now what? Actually, I was not so bothered by legislatures that chose to not make it illegal, thinking like other immoral acts that society openly disapproves of but are not necessarily legislated against. But homosexuality seems to be unique in that its legal status, especially as a Constitutionally protected status, greatly affects many other legal issues and government acts. As a protected class, speaking against them is quickly becoming equated with racism and bigotry. And what about adoption, marriage, and family? It is simply impossible to restrict this issue to two consenting adults in their own bedroom. Even the Supreme Court immediately applied it to a 14 year-old. So the "adult" part was dead from the start. Heck, homosexual activists are most concerned with minors. Check out all their efforts in the schools, or just go to the GLSEN website.
Now that the constitution demands we not legislate against them, government (mostly through the legislating courts) will likely act and legislate against opposition to them (again, look to racism as the predictor of things to come). This means those who hold to traditional moral, biologically normal sexual standards are silenced or shamed, and pushed out of the public square with the full force of government. The structure of society is basically the same -- there is no more freedom and tolerance really -- but the values have been reversed. Who is accepted and who is rejected has reversed.
The whole thing is really utterly ridiculous. But here we are. We can't even distinguish between male and female, let alone right and wrong. We must equate sexual unions that cannot even "unite" without the aid of a strap-on sex organ substitute with the clearly natural complementary union of male and female. It is so ridiculous we should all be laughing if the consequences were not so serious.
LOL - you are getting really serious now(g)
*************
Not only survive, but her career is still alive.
Yes, I am in the North Dallas suburban area. There is no lack of Episcopal parishes in my area, ranging from very liberal to ultra-conservative. I believe there is also an Anglican church in the same suburb I live in.
My parish is an extremely "high" parish, which is one of the things I like about it. It is about as close to Catholic as one can get without actually being Catholic, if that makes any sense. I don't know how to explain it.
I have to say that our Rector hasn't done any Catholic-bashing or said any blatently pro-gay things but that if that were to happen, my decision would be a lot easier to make.
You got that right. I know how difficult it is just to keep our lone church body moving in more or less the same direction. I know the church leadership feel like cat herders. I count this independence as a good thing.
Episcopalian or Presbyterian churches on the other hand are very difficult to corrupt individually, but once the train goes off the tracks (as it has with the ELCA, the Methodists, and the Epsicopalians) it's time to abandon ship. The Southern Baptist Convention is the only church group that I know of which has engaged in the fight against homosexuality and liberalism and won.
The problem with hierarchal churches is that the leadership in such churches is separated from the congregations. This separation IMHO makes infiltration easier. I know our leadership. They have been in my home and I in theirs. I trust them.
While I'm glad that you have found a place to attend with a clear conscience it probably requires you to be more vigilant than ever about
More vigilance, perhaps, but less watching, any changes in attitude or membership of the board of elders would be immediately noticed. Sure, there are some odd practices in independent churches, especially ones run by the minister, like Westboro Baptist Church. (I know they are surely not Southern Baptist, a Southern Baptist church was runner up in our search for a new church home.) Our set up with elders, deacons, preaching minister and body in general makes hijacking of the church difficult, if not impossible.
Have you tried St. Nicholas Episcopal in Flower Mound? They are definitely on the conservative side.
No, I am not a Catholic. And yet, I have an opinion about this and other threads on this site. Imagine that. I am also interested in how much hatred there is here against homosexuals and why people think that hatred will serve their cause.
Sunsong wrote: "I am sure you are not condoning, advocating or making excuses for homosexual behavior. It is condeming that I am questioning."
Too many of us, myself included, embrace the "go" part while happily ignoring the "...and sin no more" part.
Grace can only be accepted when one is convicted of their sin.
How very liberal of you to attack personally rather than deal with the content of the link. Are you working hard to eliminate all *abominations*? or do you focus on only one and, if so, why?
Have you talked it over with him? He might understand more than you know and be afraid to leave your chuch because you wouldn't understand.
In case you have forgotten - this is a public site - not a Catholic site. And I have opinions about Catholisism. Imagine that. It doesn't matter whether they "care" or not, really, though I'm sure some of them do - what matters is that people are free to express their opinions - even ones you disagree with!
Jesus said that it is what goes out of a man that defiles him, not what goes in..
The abomination of homosexuality was one of the abominations that was so egregious that it carried the death penalty. St. Paul said in the NT that it was "one of the sins worthy of death, not only for those that do it, but those that consent to it.. man are the liberals in trouble!
"For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them."
Christian compassion and civil law doesn't call for that now, but people who engage in this conduct should worry about the death sentence to their souls if they don't repent.
Oh puhleeze. These morons are the ones who are fearful of and will not tolerate a biblical stance toward homosexuality.
It would be nice if they would be met at the church doors by the congregations who would say, "You are welcome to worship here. But understand, there will be no support for any claim that what is clearly described as sin in the bible is perfectly acceptable in God's eyes. Take your sash off, leave it outside, and then you can come in."
"I am also interested in how much hatred there is here against homosexuals and why people think that hatred will serve their cause."
You continue to use the word "hatred" against homosexuals. They hate the sin,[ hate the behavior, hate the fact they are making others accept it as normal etc.] NOT the sinner. Obviously you choose to ignore this fact. Only a few, like Fred Phelps spew the hate and don't deny they hate.
If that's where they'd keep it, no one would say much about it. But as you can see from the article, they are demanding that the church accept their perversion. That's not keeping it in their own home, AND that is making it my business.
Though your post is interesting - it does not answer my point. There are many *abominations* listed in the Old Testament...consider pride, weak-mindedness, dishonest business pratices, a haughty attitude etc. Do you work hard to eliminate all *abominations* or just one, and if only one, why?
Why is it that anybody who disapproves of a behavior is expressing hatred? You are using the same kind of egregious lie that would call those who want enforcement of immigration laws racists and bigots. So I guess you think we hate rapists and we hate shoplifters, etc. No, we oppose the behavior. And you are a LIAR when you come in here and call people haters.
The truth is many here oppose the agenda of people who insist that we approve of their deviant and perverted behavior choices. The "love that dare not speak its name" has become the lust that won't shut up.
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.