The epithets for homosexuals come from both sides of the debate amazingly enough. The religious epithets are confined to one side by necessity.
I have no problem at all telling you I am a social conservative and that I consider the homosexual act perverse. But I don't use epithets because, thoguh, I am undoubtedly a sinner, it is poor form in an anonymous forum even though I post under my own name.
And by the way, I'd be more than happy to engage you in debate on whether or not homosexual rape is deserving of harsher penalties.
I think though that part of the problem, as I see it is that we are often talking about apples and oranges in this debate. The question of what God wants, and what Rome law states are two different questions. What do we render to Caesar could be a great debate. I do consider myself a christian( failing, flopping, and struggling along), but a small l libertarian as well. I actually believe there is no inconsistency in that view. I choose not to sin often. It is part of my faith journey. To struggle against temptation that Rome allows and still rejects it reaffirms my faith. If I was going to be shot for committing adultery, it leaves me no spiritual struggle. It would be fear of Rome, not love of God, and the union between me and my wife that he consecrated that would be driving my actions.
I do believe the homosexual lifestyle is unnatural and against God's plan. I do though believe that Rome should not be forced to forbid it. 18 is an arbitrary cut-off, but there must be one somewhere. I believe at 18 one should lose the protection of the nanny state, and you should be free to take your path, as long as you don't violate the rights of another. Job was tested, and passed. So are we every day. It makes our faith richer.
You lost already Geek.
212 posted on 06/27/2003 7:18 PM CDT by jwalsh07
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? What were you saying?
Did you change your mind? Last night, I understood you to say it wasn't.