Do more for gays, clergy told

Des Moines Register ^ | 12/02/02 | SHIRLEY RAGSDALE

[Iowegian]

A Des Moines lawyer says the church must embrace gays, not simply tolerate them.

Congregations that merely show tolerance for gay and lesbian members should not pat themselves on the back, according to prominent attorney and former Des Moines School Board member Jonathan Wilson.

[Iowegian]

This is proof beyond a doubt that the sodomy lobby wants much more than tolerance, but the total acceptance of all of the rest of us, even to the point the total rejection of our ancient Biblical morals to do so.

BTW what the fish wrap fails to mention is that Wilson was voted out of office for trying to secretly infuse his own gay agenda into the school systems agenda, but got caught- not for being a homosexual.

[Iowegian]

Please ping the list, NC's, RC's and otherwise, if possible. Thanks.

[dadwags]

This guy sounds like he is trying to subvert Christianity .
I think his biblical knowledge is sadly lacking .
For example, leprosy is a contaigous disease, incurable in those days. So, society instituted a quarantine, not to punish the leper, as to protect the uninfected .
Maybe all practicing homosexuals should be quarantined , for the same reason .That is, unless they are "cured".
Also, demonic possession or epilepsy, Jesus cured them both, as did his Apostles after Him .

[Iowegian]

I think his biblical knowledge is sadly lacking .

Yes, and history as well. Or maybe he's just lying to justify own his unnatural urges.

[onedoug]

Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

[Salvation]

This is an interesting and unique take on the situation here. All people are created and loved by God regardless of their sinfulness. God is always ready to forgive.

But why the separating them out for special treatment? Don't we all deserve special treatment as daughters and sons of our Lord?

Just my opinion.

[Iowegian]

Don't we all deserve special treatment as daughters and sons of our Lord?

If you mean all true Christians, then yes I agree. As for those who reject Christ and are dead in their sins, they all deserve death. Romans 3:23

[WriteOn]

Catholic position:

2357. "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[Cf. Gen 191-29 ; Rom 124-27 ; 1 Cor 6:10 ; 1 Tim 1:10 .] tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically DISORDERED.'[CDF, Persona humana 8.] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

[RichardMoore]

I agree with the Catholic position and I would go further and add that a union between a man and woman that practice artificial contraception or BIRTH CONTROL as it is commonly called is basically the same as a Homosexual Union in that it denies the procreative aspect of a sexual union and goes against the natural law. Therefore as long as we support and promote BIRTH CONTROL we cannot oppose Homosexual Unions.

[Iowegian]

Are you implying or stating that if the act of intercourse does not lead to pregnancy or the intent thereof- it is sinful, even for married couples?

[gcruse]

BIRTH CONTROL as it is commonly called is basically the same as a Homosexual Union

Are you implying or stating that if the act of intercourse does not lead to pregnancy or the intent thereof- it is sinful, even for married couples?

Do you need to be hit over the head? "When they came for him, I said nothing...."

[Salvation]

Agree with your statement here.

[Iowegian]

"When they came for him, I said nothing...."

Please translate to English for me. Thanks.

[RichardMoore]

No I am not implying anything of the sort. I am stating that a sexual union, whether it is heterosexual or not, that denies the possibilty of procreation is disordered and yes, sinful because it goes against the natural order of things, according to God's Will.

[Iowegian]

The difference is ... what?

[Iowegian]

I am stating that a sexual union, whether it is heterosexual or not, that denies the possibilty of procreation is disordered and yes, sinful because it goes against the natural order of things, according to God's Will.

So a couple married for 50 years would be sinning if they have sex, since there is no possibility of pregnancy.

I think you were referring to the type of sex involved, but your statement is broad enough to include my above scenario, does it not?

[RichardMoore]

The difference is the intent. Of course it is not sinful to fail but it is wrong and sinful to attempt to twart God's Will. And it should be obvious that one intention of sex is procreation. It doe not alway happen. But that isdifferent than purposely attempting to keep that from happening. Even with the rhythm method there is still the possibilty that a child will result. But with articficial contraception there is a willful stopping of that possibility. So, it is a matter of willful intent.

[RichardMoore]

I guess you don't know the story of Abraham and Rachel. There is no willful intent to deny the possibility of pregnacy. It is most decidedly different to say, I will prevent this from happening and to say, I will love my wife in the manner a husband can love his wife. The 80 year old couple does not practice Birth Control but the union is not sinful because they do not willfully deny God's Will. Nothing is impossble for God. I thought everyone knew that.

[Iowegian]

Hey you made the broad statement, not me. But thanks for the clarification.

[PFKEY]

Matt 18

[15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

If a person openly practices sin and soes not turn from it then the Scriptures tell us to withdraw from this person.