Posted on 10/26/2001 11:59:30 AM PDT by RobertBauman
Most are private, quiet types who just want to be left alone. They would no more care to shove an agenda in your face than most people.
Think about those you would consider "raving" heterosexuals. You know the type - women who are always "on", who always seem to be wearing something tight or hardly there. Or their male counterparts - the guys who can't utter a sentence without inserting a sexual innuendo, who talk to women with their eyes forcused about six inches under the women's chin. These are the hetro conterparts to the homosexual activists.
Gay activists that I know live (and die) by their lifestyle. It is an all consumming fixation. They view everything through the prism of "gayness." They are to be pitied and ignored, just as we do their hetero counterparts.
Just my two cents...
Exactly. As long as they keep their preference to themselves and in the bedroom where it belongs, I have no problem with them. The friends and acquaintances that I know are homosexual, I only found out accidentally. I see no need to discuss it with them ever, they keep their behavior private and I won't lecture them on mine.
Just found out a friend of mine I've know for 20 years is gay. In hindsight it is kind of like "DUH", but it wasn't ever an issue.
To strech my analogy in my previous post even further - how happy would we be with a "Straight Pride" parade that featured scantily clad men and women doing simulated sex acts on a parade float? Not very.
For the general public, I don't think they mind homosexuals, per se, but they don't like having ANYONES sexuality shoved in their face.
It is funny that the news media, which is very pro-gay, is probably their biggest problem. The media focuses on the loudest most flamboyant gay activists and this does distort the picture of most gays. When a gay person only wants other people and the government to leave them alone and stay out of their private lives, they are much closer to Republicans than Democrats.
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
1 Thessalonians 4:3 It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality;
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Yeh, I got your view of AIDS funding buddy. Cut it ALL, right now, and quarantine all who have AIDS. Make it a capital offense to transmit AIDS. Its an epidemic, right? Its a real huge problem, right? Then there should be no arguments with my policy.
Yep. My Jewish friends are also not qualified to inherit the Kingdom of God. Should I shun them also? Or should I, as by the example of Jesus, associate with those who are shunned and be an example to them and show them that Christians change people by loving them and letting Jesus make the change in their life?
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
See previous.
1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
I agree. This is consistent with my previous post. It doesn't matter if you are hetro or homo, sin is sin.
1 Thessalonians 4:3 It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; Taking the fact that these are letters written to specific people in reply to specific questions and circumstance they were living through out of the equation, the whole question of what is and isn't sexually immoral is never specifically answered in the Bible. It does give positive statements, as in the justification of marriage, but other than "Thou shalt not commit adultry" and few other Old Testament passages relating to sleeping with relatives, there isn't a whole lot to say one way or the other. Yes, sexual immorality is a sin. Paul thought that all sex, even thinking about sex, was a sin. Jesus NEVER spoke on the subject. He loved and comforted prostitutes and adulterers (sp?)and told them to stop sinning. He was pretty clear that the crowd accusing the adultress were out of line. He rebuked them, but showed mercy to the sinning.
Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
In the time of Sodom and Gomorrah having homosexual sex was part of the religous practice of the people the Jews were surrounded by. Was God upset with the competing religion or the act they used as a sacriment? My guess would be both. Imagine if we used heterosexual sex as a sacriment. Would God bless it? Obviously not. It is not sex as God meant it to be.
My main point is that I don't think God wants us to take any kind of sex frivioulsly. It is a gift from God meant to be share by a man and a women who have committed their lives to each other. Sex outside of that is a sin. That sin, as is all sin, is a matter between the sinner and God. The best way to turn people from their sinful ways is to live righteously and to love abundantly and let God do the rest.
sorry
Traditional morality, mom-and-pop families, sexual fidelity and responsibility are important conservative ideals. Sullivan is obsessed with gay partnership and homosexual marriages--which are open and shameless mockeries of these important conservative ideals.
Sullivan is not entitled to a pass simply because he also believes in smaller government and lower taxes. The day--indeed the very hour--the Republican Party implicity or expressly embraces the least portion of the so-called gay-rights agenda is the day and hour I and my family will cease to support the Republican Party.
Ha ha ha
Kevin...you've been saying this like...forever.
Like a little boy at the beach..."The line in the sand is HERE" ...
step
step
step
"No really" little boy says as he stands back and draws another line..."the line in the sand is HERE!"
Tongue out for affect.
Ferchrissakes will ya just either accept the Republican party has dropped the sheet a little
and is beginning to see people for who they are and accept them AS the are...
Or get the eff OUT of the Republican party and stop weeziling out with your crybaby words.
Sheesh.
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.