Posted on 02/14/2005 12:32:30 AM PST by RWR8189
My family has no gay members, but my best friend became a homosexual and moved to Hollywood. My middle daughter is heterosexual with a boyfriend, but has nearly all gay friends and is a liberal Democrat.
We can't choose our relatives.
My family has no gay members, but my best friend became a homosexual and moved to Hollywood. My middle daughter is heterosexual with a boyfriend, but has nearly all gay friends and is a liberal Democrat.
We can't choose our relatives.
I think there's a lot of hollier-than-thouness going on in our society. Plenty of people standing in line to cast the first stone.
Excellent response,... this matter is between him and his daughter, his family, and God. 'Nuf said.
When did Lynne Cheney announce that she's a lesbian?
Ping me when you post the breaking news.
Thanks
You're caviling. Show when Maya Keyes unequivocally announced to her father she was homosexual.
Don't bother though. We both know you can't do it, and without that information all your gleeful cries of "hypocrisy" are nothing but slander.
Is Lynne Cheney homosexual? I just need to know this.
What, are you blind? This whole thread is about trying to find sins for him to be guilty of!
I think there's a lot of hollier-than-thouness going on in our society. Plenty of people standing in line to cast the first stone.
And I think according to the book of Jude, that's just the kind of thing an apostate would say.
"And I think according to the book of Jude, that's just the kind of thing an apostate would say."
You've found me out. I'm an apostate. Seriously though, its impossible to argue with dead authors. If people reply to all my posts with their quotations, what's a boy to do? I don't mind talking with people, but I can't talk with dead authors who supposedly know the mind of The Creator.
You think he thinks she's not?
Well they have to exist somewhere don't they? I see no reason to believe every apostate actually knows it, or takes the possibility seriously.
Seriously though, its impossible to argue with dead authors. ... I don't mind talking with people, but I can't talk with dead authors who supposedly know the mind of The Creator.
Well how would you qualify said authors on the chance they did?
I have no problem if you want to start with natural law, but you don't get to jump off the trolley if it goes farther than you like... at least not with any pretense of integrity.
And there are times when we are called upon to enjoy the fruits of their existence, and others when we are called to sacrifice the fruits of our own for their sake.
This whole mélange of joy and satisfaction, of pain and grief and sacrifice, of moments when you fulfill yourself, and moments when you must completely put yourself aside--this is what it means to have a child.-Alan Keyes August 29, 2004 at Mountaintop Community Church.
"Well how would you qualify said authors on the chance they did?"
I used the word "supposedly". I'm allowing for them knowing the mind of God or not knowing equally. But most Believers won't budge on this at all. So when I have a discussion with them about something like homosexuality, they keep quoting the bible as if it is the beginning and end of all Truth. I'm suggesting that it might not be, that there may be more to the mind of God than the bible.
I think he sure knows it now. But I also think she knew that proclamation was directly tied to the gravy train. And I wouldn't put it past a selfish hedonist to keep it to herself till she found another choo-choo.
As I noted earlier, she admits to withhold her opinion to avoid conflict. She also says he's known since finding a gay-friendly publication in her room, but does that mean they discussed it, or was he suppose to infer it?
There are too many open questions to be throwing rocks.
The problem is, do any of us really know what to do? Love the sinner hate the sin, does that mean shunning the sinner? Support her formative financial needs....does that mean he's aceepting of his lifestyle and financing it? Weighty issues.
No, you're not. Saying it and doing it are not the same thing.
How can I prove this? Easy?
If indeed you were "suggesting that it might not be, that there may be more to the mind of God than the bible," you'd have some definable set of circumstances to conclude there is indeed nothing else in the mind of G-d, and that this set does not fulfill it.
Without that, all you're doing is attempting to undermine the veracity of the other person's philosophical premise. You're not showing any faults, you're just trying to get them to accept YOUR question mark instead of THEIR period. Without a reason to do so, there's no reason to do so.
I posted on the daughter's site's comments area.. firmly but respectfully, I think. I hope that no one here on Freep would send here pejorative-laces comments.
I will say that I disapprove of Alan Keyes and his wife cutting her off.. a parent's love should be unconditional and the 'tough love' approach backfires as often as not. She is a deeply misguided girl, but there is always stil hope. BUt pushing her to keep exclusively company that agrees with her sexual orientation and politics is no way to either treat her generally, or 'salvage' her eventually, if that's the right word.
"you'd have some definable set of circumstances to conclude there is indeed nothing else in the mind of G-d"
It should be obvious that nobody knows the mind of God. If they do, it isn't provable. If it is provable, nobody's proved it. If they've proved it, where's the proof? So what you are left with is a lot of very big fans of very dead authors who take everything they say on faith, and exclude the possibility that God, if She exists, may hold contrary opinions to many assertions in the bible. Perhaps She's working through me right now, bringing you the truth, and trusting that even with Free Will you'll make the right decision and abandon the idea that who people are attracted to matters at all.
IN case anyone is interested, here is what I posted on her site's comments area (latest post), in response to her complaining that she has had a bunch of abusive comments from here:
Naturally, anyone who disapproves of homosexuality in any way must be a gramatically - challenged Freeper. One of the earliest signs of maturity is when a child suddenly realizes that perfectly intelligent and well intentioned people disagree with his or her parents. Seems that many voices here are having analogous issues, only the gay rights movement has taken the place of authority.
I think that anyone who has ever known gay people well is quite aware that sexual orientation is not so cut and dry an issue as many would have us believe. Many people 'go gay' for only a year or two, and afterwards are as heterosexual as can be. Some do it when adolesence hits and then cease as they mature. Some , the best publicized, remain in the closet for awhile, often breaking out in middle age. Some even show the tendencies before adolesence, and stay pretty unshakeably gay throughout their lives, but they are not a majority, in my experience. But the gay rights lobby emphatically focuses on the dualism of gay vs. straight, probably because if the grey area's extent were known there would be more public sentiment behind attempts to change sexual orientation, and less patience for the agendas of such organizations generally. My point is that human sexuality is a very arbitrary and complicated issue, and that viewing it in extremist moral terms, whether of the "You must accept and celebrate homosexuality, or you are a Nazi!" ilk, or the "God hates fags" cretinism, is inaccurate and counterproductive. And yes, I do put them on the same level, with many more advocates of the former out there.
My opinion that homosexuality is not the equal of heterosexuality is bourne out and echoed by virtually all recorded history, the antics of a small class of privedged ancient Greeks, scattered hunter-gatherer tribes, and Bonobo Chimps notwithstanding. If you dismiss me as some uninformed redneck, you dismiss 99.9% of all humans in recorded history similarly. And if you think that there is anti-gay hostility today in the USA, just see what happens if the 'right' to a non-heterosexual (and/or non-monagamous) marriage is forced down the throats of the public. Would you prefer mandatory and legally obligatory celebration of homosexuality, or informal and widespread private tolerance? Because you can't have both.
Isn't that the bone of contention we're all gnawing on? Do you bring any new support for your claims?
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.