USA To Use Foreign Aid To Promote Gay Rights

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

The views of the Anglican Priest have been espoused by the Unitarian Church forever and by many other 'religious' groups. While it may feel like an ever widening circle that accepts the homosexual without requiring change, this theology has existed for a very long time.

Inside and outside of the religious community there have always been homosexuals and society has always accepted them to a certain degree. Almost every person can tell you about gay uncle so and so even if it was not acknowledged that he was gay until after he was dead and buried. America had a brief (less than 200 year) period where homosexuals had to hide their behavior or risk job loss, loss of status in the community, and even possible physical danger. They were automatically assumed to be most morally degenerate in all areas i.e. natural pedophiles who would attack children of their same gender given any opportunity. Forced into isolation they were easy targets for what we today term hate crimes and often had no recourse even through the law as second class citizens. To avoid this persecution many married yet led secret homosexual lives. When discovered, entire families were destroyed. Others bunched up into 'gay communities' for safeties' sake and began the ever downward spiral into what we see today. Suicide rates were and are quite high among homosexuals who despite the term 'gay' are some of the unhappiest people I have ever known.

Today, while still a small percentage of the population, no more than in ancient Rome or Greece if we can believe history, they have sought change. They have asked for understanding and to be open about this lifestyle choice. They have asked not be be singularly hated by Christians and equated with pedophiles and mass murderers and abortionists as they even have been in this thread, as attempt is made to push every button . I AM FOR that. Nothing left in the dark can ever be brought into the light.

Having spent many years in an all girls school I have seen many people struggle with sexual identity. Many of the those girls who identified themselves as gay or bisexual in adolescence are now happily married women with families and some of them Christians. But if we are going to reach gay people with the Good News of Christ we can not push gayness back into the closet as a secret and especially shameful sin, somehow dirtier than any other sin. If we raise our young people to believe that purity is valued and marriage sacred we will do well. But if, God forbid, they stumble into fornication or homosexuality, let them have been taught that there IS a way back at the foot of the cross.

You sound very compassionate and like you've struggled to achieve balance on the issue.

I don't agree with the radical side of their agenda. It would stiffle free speech, free thought, and freedom of religion. However, I find it difficult to determine where the GOVERNMENT has a right to put a gun to a citizens head and demand what kind of marriages or relationships they should have. The problem comes from the idea that we are a free society. If we are truly "free", freedom has a price. It means that we must allow people that we strongly disagree with to be free.

Theologically, I know there are various interpretations on the issue. Therefore, one's perspective on this is an issue of religious liberty. And is it the place of the GOVERNMENT to rule that one interpretation is to govern a society? The liberal priest I spoke about is really into what he calls the "Golden Standard of Marriage". He believes that if two people wish to live together and engage in any intimate activity... they should be married... even if they are gay. He finds it laughable that it appears that we'd rather they have intimacy privately without being married.

While morally, the issue appears to be cut and dry. But politically... it's a very complicated issue.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Lol

You're comparing gay couples to Charles Manson? lol

Most of the liberal gay couples I know that might marry are pacifistic, wimpy, bleeding heart liberals.

I believe that personal liberties are God given to all men. In my opinion, the Government should only prohibit something if it endangers the life, liberty, and/or property of another. Manson's notions of liberty would no doubt be prohibited.

Lol

No not comparing their sins - just that both groups might claim religious liberty to protect their "right" to practice "religion". Neither could possibly be construed as religious acts IMHO.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Lol

You're comparing gay couples to Charles Manson? lol

Most of the liberal gay couples I know that might marry are pacifistic, wimpy, bleeding heart liberals.

I believe that personal liberties are God given to all men. In my opinion, the Government should only prohibit something if it endangers the life, liberty, and/or property of another. Manson's notions of liberty would no doubt be prohibited.

Lol

No not equating their sins - just that both groups might claim religious liberty to protect their "right" to practice "religion". Neither could possibly be construed as religious acts IMHO.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

The views of the Anglican Priest have been espoused by the Unitarian Church forever and by many other 'religious' groups. While it may feel like an ever widening circle that accepts the homosexual without requiring change, this theology has existed for a very long time.

Inside and outside of the religious community there have always been homosexuals and society has always accepted them to a certain degree. Almost every person can tell you about gay uncle so and so even if it was not acknowledged that he was gay until after he was dead and buried. America had a brief (less than 200 year) period where homosexuals had to hide their behavior or risk job loss, loss of status in the community, and even possible physical danger. They were automatically assumed to be most morally degenerate in all areas i.e. natural pedophiles who would attack children of their same gender given any opportunity. Forced into isolation they were easy targets for what we today term hate crimes and often had no recourse even through the law as second class citizens. To avoid this persecution many married yet led secret homosexual lives. When discovered, entire families were destroyed. Others bunched up into 'gay communities' for safeties' sake and began the ever downward spiral into what we see today. Suicide rates were and are quite high among homosexuals who despite the term 'gay' are some of the unhappiest people I have ever known.

Today, while still a small percentage of the population, no more than in ancient Rome or Greece if we can believe history, they have sought change. They have asked for understanding and to be open about this lifestyle choice. They have asked not be be singularly hated by Christians and equated with pedophiles and mass murderers and abortionists as they even have been in this thread, as attempt is made to push every button . I AM FOR that. Nothing left in the dark can ever be brought into the light.

Having spent many years in an all girls school I have seen many people struggle with sexual identity. Many of the those girls who identified themselves as gay or bisexual in adolescence are now happily married women with families and some of them Christians. But if we are going to reach gay people with the Good News of Christ we can not push gayness back into the closet as a secret and especially shameful sin, somehow dirtier than any other sin. If we raise our young people to believe that purity is valued and marriage sacred we will do well. But if, God forbid, they stumble into fornication or homosexuality, let them have been taught that there IS a way back at the foot of the cross.

The difference is that "they" believe that if you call this sin, that is a hate crime.
This is where we are headed.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You sound very compassionate and like you've struggled to achieve balance on the issue.

I don't agree with the radical side of their agenda. It would stiffle free speech, free thought, and freedom of religion. However, I find it difficult to determine where the GOVERNMENT has a right to put a gun to a citizens head and demand what kind of marriages or relationships they should have. The problem comes from the idea that we are a free society. If we are truly "free", freedom has a price. It means that we must allow people that we strongly disagree with to be free.

Theologically, I know there are various interpretations on the issue. Therefore, one's perspective on this is an issue of religious liberty. And is it the place of the GOVERNMENT to rule that one interpretation is to govern a society? The liberal priest I spoke about is really into what he calls the "Golden Standard of Marriage". He believes that if two people wish to live together and engage in any intimate activity... they should be married... even if they are gay. He finds it laughable that it appears that we'd rather they have intimacy privately without being married.

While morally, the issue appears to be cut and dry. But politically... it's a very complicated issue.

I have had several "discussions" with family members about this.
It is very interesting how they discount the Bible's view on this.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

The difference is that "they" believe that if you call this sin, that is a hate crime.
This is where we are headed.

We are headed to joining them and being accussed of hate crimes. I love all the slippery slope arguments.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by jfrog

We are headed to joining them and being accussed of hate crimes. I love all the slippery slope arguments.

The problem as I see it is that in far too many cases the slippery slope argument does not accurately portray the degree of the slope, nor the speed that it will take to go down it. Consider the fact that in the late 1990s, we were told that civil unions were going to be sufficient recognition, and that gay couples would not pursue actual marriage. However, within less than 10 years of that time, those who predicted that they would pursue marriage were proven right by the states of Massachusetts and Iowa, and the cities of New York and San Francisco.

[houston]

so where is this money coming from? i am politically an economically anorexic. that being said, i do not understand how/why we give foreign aid when our economy is bad.

[Jay]

We have a government filled with incompetent politicians and bureaucrats.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

We are headed to joining them and being accussed of hate crimes. I love all the slippery slope arguments.

So jf, do you believe that there is no danger of anyone who speaks out against the gay lifestyle being convicted of hate speech or hate crimes?