Posted on 05/11/2003 7:04:33 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Your approach, using the power of government and laws to stigmatize and control their behavior, will continue to bring the matter into our Courts, until such a moment as these Courts will call it "persecution" and give homosexuals protected status under Civil Law.
If homosexual behavior is to be "stigmatized" based on our morals as a Christian nation, this needs to be done by the religions of our nation, not the government.
Oh, indeed. . . within the context of a male/female marriage (lifetime commitment).
Oh, spare me the excuses.
This is the extent of my starting "name-calling" in our conversation?
"The objective reality here is that we live under the governance of a secular government, and a system created by some people who took great pains to, in spite of their strong beliefs, impose obstacles on religious zealots from duplicating the work of tbe Taliban in this country."
I drew a comparison between out form of government, and a well-known theocracy.
Far from name-calling.
You may be correct that using the power of law to call something that is inherently wrong wrong will continue to bring the matter into our courts. I understand your point of view and respectfully disagree.
Shalom.
No, you drew a comparison between our form of government and a well recognized dangerous theocracy with the intent to disparage those who disagree with you.
It would be the same thing as me calling those who support the homosexual movement the gaystapo or gay Nazis.
All laws are based on a moral position. Without that moral position there can be no law. Our desire and our goal is to base our laws on the correct moral position. If we can not be sure the position is correct (absent faith) then we tread carefully.
Let me give you an example. I could make a strong case for a property-rights environment based on the notion that if you aren't strong enough to hold onto your property you don't deserve to keep it. That is a particular moral position with lots of cultural advantages. Why shouldn't the U.S. take such a position?
Other than the fact that stealing is wrong.
Shalom.
Are you saying that sex is not pysically pleasurable outside of marriage?
We're done...I refuse to "debate" with the deliberately disingenuous.
LOL!
MEGoody: Oh, indeed. . . within the context of a male/female marriage (lifetime commitment).
Luis Gonzales: Are you saying that sex is not pysically pleasurable outside of marriage?
We're done...I refuse to "debate" with the deliberately disingenuous.
Luis, First you ask a question but declare any answer than the one you presuppose is a lie. Then you intentionally twist what MEGoody has to say.
You are either a disruptor or you are twisted yourself. Either way, I'm glad you're done.
Shalom.
That was uncalled for.
I am worthy of freedom.
It takes a lot to make me jumpt to such a conclusion. It seems obvious to me that L.G. was trying to find a way to misinterpret what ME had said. However, in my life I have learned that some people really do think that way. It is not a healthy way.
Personally, I think he's a disruptor.
I appreciate your bringing your thoughts to my attention. Let me know if you can't agree with my reasoning.
Shalom.
How can a human being be worthy of anything?
Shalom.
No, dear, but in your original post to which I was responding, you invoked the name of God (or G-d as you refer to Him). God did not design sex for use any old way with any old person. He designed it for procreation as well as unification/bonding of a husband and wife. God will allow people to go outside that design if they so choose, but there are consequences to that.
I'd say it was YOUR post that was disingenuous. Thank God you are 'done'. LOL
You are absolutely correct.
Is there some reason that you think two people who disagree with you can't disagree for different reasons?
I am glad that you have uncovered the mystery of God's plan to such an extent that you know what His intentions were.
"God will allow people to go outside that design if they so choose, but there are consequences to that."
When did He chose the US government to enforce His laws?
Pax
** The Laity Rules! **
Someone quoted from Saint John Chrysostom, from his work: "De Sacerdotis," or, "Concerning the Priesthood." He wrote concerning the behavior of priests in the Church, and their relation to society. He cautioned that priests are not there to be rulers, to lord over the faithful.
Of course, he was writing in the 4th Century. There were no democracies then. Governments come and go, but the Church stands forever. The Church has to take a long-term view of society. Saint John Chrysostom, a Father of the Church, and a Patriarch of Constantinople, did not say that the laity, the faithful, should have no voice, though. We, the laity, have not only a right, but an obligation, to determine what sort of society we are to live in. We do this through the political process, through our votes, and through political discussions.
Have I ever said that people should give over their secular rule to Bishops or Cardinals? No. Religious leaders shouldn't be secular rulers of the country. The Church doesn't have a secular role. The Church and the secular are different. But that doesn't mean to say that the people themselves shouldn't enforce morality. People themselves have a right to say what kind of society they live in, what their children are taught, what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable.
When Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco wrote to the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the school board's plan to distribute condoms in the schools, the Archbishop offered the advice and wisdom of the Church, as a matter of discussion.
We have an obligation, (if we are lucky enough to be born in a moral society), to MAINTAIN that moral society for all future generations. To allow the degradation of morality, to accept a "let-live" attitude in morals, to turn away from evil behavior, would be cruel to not only the present generation, but also to future generations, as well.
People have a right to determine
What sort of society they are to live in.
Their society will be MOST SUCCESSFUL
If it is based on a religious morality,
Based on the infinite wisdom of God,
Rather than based on secular morality.A secular morality
Is uninformed,
Is half-informed,
A product of a merely human intellect,
With no wisdom.
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.