Posted on 02/26/2006 5:41:59 AM PST by Joe Republc
MANCHESTER — A traveling conference advocating the heterosexual lifestyle came to the suburbs of west St. Louis County on Saturday. As gay-rights groups staged a peaceful protest outside the First Evangelical Free Church, conventioneers spent the day inside, mostly listening to speakers who say they were previously gay. Parents of gay and lesbian children got advice and could speak to counselors about what to do, short of accepting their child's behavior. "We suggest you decline an invitation to a civil commitment ceremony," Melissa Fryrear told a group of parents. Some busily took notes; a few others wiped away tears. "So many Christians are yielding on this part," she said. The Love Won Out event was sponsored by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group that Fryrear works for in Colorado, and Exodus International, an umbrella group of ministries by formerly gay people. The conference is in its eighth year, but this is its first time in St. Louis.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Why must they persist in calling homosexuals "gay"? When it's a misnomer to say the least. Ex homosexuals should be the first to point this out.
When somebody claims to be ex-gay the world is suddenly skeptical. The world doesn't believe their claim, the world doesn't believe their testimony and their declaration that they are ex-gay.
When somebody uses the same standard to believe the declaration of gays but ignores the declaration of ex-gays, they should ask themselves why they believe one group and not the other.
"... When somebody claims to be ex-gay the world is suddenly skeptical. The world doesn't believe their claim, the world doesn't believe their testimony and their declaration that they are ex-gay.
When somebody uses the same standard to believe the declaration of gays but ignores the declaration of ex-gays, they should ask themselves why they believe one group and not the other."
Great point.
BTW, I heard a caller on Rush the other day say the Democratic platform was based on Sodomy, Treason, and Atheism. It provoked a good laugh from me, Rush, and I'm sure many others. But actually it kind of sums up a lot of things, doesn't it?
-- Joe
With regard to...? I'm trying to grasp your framework without the benefit of my morning java.
If what you are implying is that we should accept homosexuality because our heterosexuality is acceptable, well...that just doesn't hold up for me, not from a moral standpoint. I do not believe that that is what we are called to do, as Christians. If the life of someone you knew was spinning out of control from drinking, would you stand aside and watch the train wreck or would you do what you could to get them to stop? Here's a better example, closer to the mark: My oldest sister wanted to come visit for a weekend recently, and she wanted to bring her new boyfriend. They are welcome in my home, but I let my sis know that one of them could have the spare bedroom, the other could have the sofa-bed in the living room in which to sleep. They decided not to visit, after all. If I had let them "shack up" under my roof, not only would I be setting a hideously bad example for my kids, but I would basically be telling my sister "It's okay to sin! Have at it." I love my sister too much to do that.
Of course, it is entirely possible that I am misunderstanding your initial premise.
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.