High school gays get a harsh lesson

Chicago Tribune ^ | March 13 | Dahleen Glanton

[metalmanx2j]

Kerry Pacer was used to the whispering behind her back, the name-calling and the snickering when she walked down the hall. But when almost the entire student body at White County High School booed as she accepted a rose from a female friend during a Valentine's Day (news - web sites) program last month, she knew it was time to do something.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"only white men can vote or own property"


Since the others were covered early in the thread, I'll stick to this 1.

BS. Nonsense impressions set by liberal-minded teachers and historians to make their positions look better and the Founders to look bad.

Nothing in the Constitution precludes women or other people of different races to vote. It was up to the states (state's rights!).

New Jersey women voted 1st thing, as did other races there, e.g. Indians voted too.

Not until *more* "conservative" (in the old sense) forces changed about all the states' laws did this essentially white-man only principle exist.

So in 1794, you're wrong. Certainly in many places in the US you're wrong.

[Antoninus]

St. Polycarp had the right to call someone a "child of the devil", because Polycarp was a saint of God and was blessed with that charism. I am not. Therefore, I'll leave that sort of thing to the real saints out there.

Polycarp wasn't a saint yet when he said it. Was he given a special charism? Yes. But the existence of that charism does not make what he said inherently right or wrong.

Everyone who sins is a "child of the devil". We all sin.

That is correct, which is why I didn't think what Farmer18th said was any big deal.

The Lord offers us forgiveness, but that forgiveness does not give us the right to condemn our fellow sinners.

There is a difference between "condemnation" and a stern warning. If you ask Farmer18th whether those who are unrepentant homosexuals may be saved, or are always 'children of the devil', I suspect he would give you the right answer. Yes, of course they may be saved, if they go and sin no more.

But the time is long past for us to stop meekly surrendering in the face of extreme evil and call a spade a spade. Those who practice homosexual acts and are not only unrepentant but DEMAND that we Christians accept their acts as licit, valid, and moral, are Children of the Devil. There's no two ways about it. By their fruits will ye know them.

Meanwhile, those individuals who cast aside their same-sex attractions and accept Christ unconditionally, should be fully embraced and accpeted by the Church. You know as well as I do that the excerpt from the Catechism which you lifted says exactly that. It says nothing about sheepishly giving way when the radical homosexual groups demand that we change our culture to accept them and their barbaric acts as 'good'--and using the force of law to compel us to do so. That's really what this is all about when you get down to it.

[Antoninus]

Treating human beings like shit is a tactic of the other team.

That is true. But let's face it--there are some people who will only pay attention if they're hit in the head with a sledge hammer. I know because I'm one of them. If it weren't for brave people speaking out fearlessly about sexual immorality--and calling a spade, a spade, I probably would have succumbed to that particular trap. There is a difference between using strong words to make an impression and "treating someone like sh!t."

[Antoninus]

So, I take it you are againt homeschooling, because that takes the kids from a verbal (and physical) abusive environment (Public School) and teaches them at home.

How you read that into my statement, I'll never know. Believe me, as a kid, I would have learned all I needed to know about the "school of hard knocks" from the other kids in the neighborhood even if I had never stepped foot in school.

[farmer18th]

There is a difference between "condemnation" and a stern warning. If you ask Farmer18th whether those who are unrepentant homosexuals may be saved, or are always 'children of the devil', I suspect he would give you the right answer. Yes, of course they may be saved, if they go and sin no more.

And if they accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. The near universal formula for evangelizing in the Bible is to preach repentence first. Peter's first sermon--and Peter knew something about sin--included, at the outset, an accusation, that the Sanhedrin had crucified Christ. He called them to repent, and then he offered them the Lord's mercy.

There's a street preacher you may have heard about, Ray Comfort. When he first began preaching, he spoke of Jesus's love. Most of the people who heard him responded, if not with outright avoidance, by saying, "Great, someone else loves me." When he began following the Biblical mandate--accusation, repentance, and then mercy--people began accepting the Lord. Until people know how deeply entrenched in sin they are, they don't see a need for a Saviour.

If a homosexual is basically ashamed of his acts, you hold out the wonderful prospect of the Lord's mercy. If he is proud of his acts, you have to warn him, sometimes harshly.

[Antoninus]

I find it laughable that we American Christians, whose lives are rotten with divorce, remarriage, abortion, birth control use, and unmarried couples living together and having kids, have the nerve to call the homosexuals "sexually immoral" as if we were better than they are.

You wouldn't be throwing a blanket accusation on all of us, would you? That sounds awfully close to what you're accusing us of doing.

No one is saying "I am 'better' than a homosexual." We're all human and prone to sin. The difference is, a Christian recognizes that he sins and does his utmost to avoid a recurrance of the sin. We are not intrisically 'better', but we are actively trying to DO better. The unrepentant homosexual (or fornicator or drug addict or masturbator or abortoinist, etc.) not only denies that his acts are sinful, but insists that the rest of us accept and laud his grotesque behavior, condeming us if we do not and, increasingly, using the force of law to compel us to do so.

The time to use strong words to resist this attack is at hand. The time for enabling weasel-words is past. Those in the radical homosexual movement are in the vanguard of this attack on the Culture of Life and must be resisted stoutly. To sit back and watch because it's easier to be "nice" to them, is no longer an option. As Fr. Groeschel says, "Jesus wasn't nice."

[Antoninus]

An degenerate mind doesn't hear very well. You need to shout. If they come back to church, you can lower your voice.

Amen. If it wasn't for voices like yours, I may never have heard. Some of us don't respond well to the touchy-feely stuff. It's utterly wrong to think that you can reach everyone by using the same tactics. Jesus certainly knew that sometimes you used the silk glove, and other times you used the mailed (rhetorical) fist.

Some of us are better at the latter, others at the former. I don't get on the people who use the 'silk glove' exclusively, unless they descend into enabling. Nor do I find fault with those who know how to use the 'mailed fist' in a constructive and reasonable way. It's important to remember that we're all working toward the same end--and that slamming each other over our tactics is an exercise in futility--as well as a waste of time.

[B-Chan]

It says nothing about sheepishly giving way when the radical homosexual groups demand that we change our culture to accept them and their barbaric acts as 'good'--and using the force of law to compel us to do so.

And neither am I. I'm just saying that for us as sinners, going around calling people "children of the devil" is idiotic, counterproductive, and uncharitable. I detest homosexuality and have never been shy about expressing that in public, as even a cursory FR search or Google of my writings will show. But we must make it very clear that it is homosexuality we detest -- the act, the political movement, and the "lifestyle" -- and not the homosexual. We can vigorously oppose the homosexualization of our culture without demonizing our fellow human beings.

[Antoninus]

Im a sinner...will you be raining down boos on me as well?

Tell you what. If you stand up on stage and demand that we accept and laud your sin, then yes, I'll boo you. And I hope you'd do the same for me if I got up on stage and demand that you accept my sins.

[FightThePower!]

I doubt the poor kids chose to be gay. I hope people become more accepting of them.

[farmer18th]

With me, it was C.S. Lewis's withering, causting sense of humor, making mocking fun of agnostic absurdities.

But, in this thread, I also had a political point as well. Liberals have tantrums and then their counterparts, instead of shouting back, end up compromising somewhere bewteen the absurd position and the truth. Compromising with absolute absurdity is absurdity.

Thirty years ago, homosexuality was seen as it should be- and as beastiality is seen now--as a deeply hideous, shameful, ugly, disease-ridden road to death. When someone says "celebrate my perversity" you should respond in the harshest possible terms, as intolerantly as possible, because they are asking you, essentially, to participate.

[Antoninus]

Most of the gay men and women that I've met are good citizens, generally well-educated professional members of their communities.

How well did you know them? On the surface most of the homosexually-inclined folks I knew seemed exactly as you descibed. However, I knew the folks in question well enough to have several deep and very disturbing conversations with them.

I haven't seen any more drug use or psychological/psychiatric problems among my gay colleagues than among others.

That's true to the extent that a lot of my acquaintances and coworkers who are "unchurched" have been to therapy at one time or another. It's really a plague.

In a lot of cases, social disapproval and mistreatment can be the cause of such problems, however. Being called a sodomite or a faggot by the other kids at school isn't exactly conducive to good self esteem and happy feelings, especially at a time when one is forming and questioning one's identity.

You're confusing cause and effect. If you get down to the root causes of homosexual behavior, what you almost invariably find are broken/dysfunctional homes and sexual abuse when the person is a child. In the case of lesbians, there's almost always some horrible abuse or betrayal by a father/boyfriend/husband involved.

People with homosexual tendencies are indeed worthy of compassion--but compassion that does not lead them out of that horrible delusional lifestyle is completely false.

[Antoninus]

How come you only single out the poofters for special condemnation?

When masturbators and adulterers begin appearing on stage demanding that we accept them as "normal" paragons of society, then we'll talk. As it is, the radical, unrepentant homosexuals are the ones carrying the standard for the Culture of Death at the current moment.

[farmer18th]

I'm just saying that for us as sinners, going around calling people "children of the devil" is idiotic,

You would prefer "vipers?"

[smith288]

Tell you what. If you stand up on stage and demand that we accept and laud your sin, then yes, I'll boo you. And I hope you'd do the same for me if I got up on stage and demand that you accept my sins.

Touche`. I will, play devils advocate and say what if that person doesnt subscribe to Christian doctrine and thinks this is entirely fair to her to laud? (i disagree totally with the homosexual agenda and their lifestyle but I think this is a fair question)

[B-Chan]

Divorce, remarriage, the use of birth control, and out-of-wedlock sex are far, far more damaging to our society than buttpokery could ever be. The harm to society created by divorce alone make the damage done by homosexuality look like peanuts by comparison. Yet our churches are full of Spirit-filled, Communion-receiving, lesson-reading, Bible-pounding divorcees, birth control users, adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, and so on. How come we're not hammering their balls as hard as we do those of the pooftahs? How come we're not calling divorcees, adulterers, masturbators, and birth control users "children of the devil" as well?

Families are the basis of Christian society. No families, no Christian society. Divorce is the murder of a family. Anyone who has ever gotten a divorce (especially if they remarried afterwards), or used birth control, or had sex outside of marriage, or stepped out on his/her spouse has harmed Christian culture and the social fabric to a much greater extent than every episode of Queer Eye ever broadcast. Let's keep that in mind before we go accusing others of being "children of the devil".

I'm not saying we have to be nice. I detest facile niceness. I myself am not a nice person, as is made plain by my posting history here on FR. Our Lord was a loving man, but not a "nice" man by human standards. When harsh words were called for, He used them. But when gentleness was called for, He used gentle words. I find it telling that His harshness was much more often directed at the self-righteously religious of his time (and at His own disciples) than at the sexual sinners He encountered. Compare his harsh treatment of the Pharisees to his gentle non-condemnation of the woman taken in adultery -- for whom did He reserve His righteous anger?

We are all sinners. Therefore, we are all "children of the devil". For one "child of the devil" to call another a "child of the devil" is stupid. It's like one drowning man telling another "Hey! You're drowning!". Instead of lambasting our fellow drowning men, we should grab on to the lifeline thrown at us from the Barque of Peter and try to pull them in with us to safety.

We must oppose devilish ideas, politics, and agendas with strong words and forthright deeds -- but we must always treat those caught up in such evil movements as our fellow sinners and our fellow human beings. That's all I'm saying.

[Antoninus]

You don't have to prove your pedigree to me. I know your posts well enough to know that you are an excellent Christian and that your intentions here are good. We disagree on methods, not doctrine.

I'm just saying that for us as sinners, going around calling people "children of the devil" is idiotic, counterproductive, and uncharitable.

I disagree based on my personal experiences. It wasn't the touchy-feely aspects of Catholicism that brought me back to the Church, but the hard-hitting apologetics used by the early Church Fathers. And THEY certainly knew something about living in reprobate times.

[farmer18th]

Divorce, remarriage,

You still don't get it. Most people are ashamed of divorce; they see it as a personal failure. This is true for Christians and non-Christians. I know of no "Proud Parents of a Divorced Child." I know of no "Divorce Pride" rallies.

Homosexuals are sticking their filth in your face and asking you to smell it--and you still won't even shout. People like you are like fertilizer for evil; you allow it to grow and flourish, because you hold your false humility up on a stick to God and say, "look how humble I am Lord! I won't even call gross sin, sin, because I'm so very tolerant!"

[B-Chan]

When masturbators and adulterers begin appearing on stage demanding that we accept them as "normal" paragons of society, then we'll talk

Where have you been since 1960? Adultery and masturbation were accepted as "normal" by most people long ago. Our churches are full of people who don't have the slightest problem with receiving the Body of the Lord with the same hands they jerk off with. Our churches are full of remarried divorcees. Our churches are full of birth control users. Our churches are full of people who occasionally step out for a little slice on the side. Why no thundering sermons against any of them?

Because they'd vote with their feet, that's why. Condemn the homos from the pulpit and it's no big deal. Condemn the birth control users and masturbators from the pulpit and the new Family WorshipTainment Centre doesn't get built.

If we're going to hammer the homos, honesty compels us to hammer the divorcees, adulterers, fornicators, masturbators, birth control users, and unwed parents just as hard. To do otherwise makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the unbelievers -- and also in fact.

[farmer18th]

doesnt subscribe to Christian doctrine and thinks this is entirely fair to her to laud?

Then it is perfectly fair for an opposing viewpoint to stridently ridicule what is stridently advocated.