[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

[WESLEY BURDEN]

All I will say about this subject is gog created adam and eve the lord
didn't create adam and steve.  I don't have a problem with home sexuals or
anybody god tells us to love the sinner but hate the sin.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Beth
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:53 PM
To: Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

Allan, this article is severely biased and is hurtful to homosexual friends
of mine.  Thank God they didn't read this.  To be honest, I love my friends,
all my friends heterosexual and homosexual.  Every kid has the right to two
loving parents, but not necessarily a mom and a dad.  Gay couples and
lesbian couples are still adoptable couples.
I've seen a lesbian couple that adopted two Cree First Nations children.  I
saw a gay couple adopt special needs twins who had addiction problems.  This
country needs to be more progressive and stop attacking homosexuals because
they are homosexuals.  Before you know it, Allan, this country will put
blind and visually impaired people as well as cognitively disabled people in
their places: along with the homosexuals, below sighted and heterosexual
people.  Before you know it, Allan, African Americans will be kicked out of
office and there will be an assassination attempt on Barack Obama, who I
hope will reign for eight long and healthy years.  Please watch what you're
saying!  We're all Christians on this list!  Can't we accept others'
beliefs and opinions here?  I'm not trying to be psychic and prophetic here,
but please understand that I am very concerned that this nation is going to
fall down like Rome did and we won't have a very healthy end if you know
what I mean.  And not everybody believes in God.  And God loves everybody,
and even though it is written that homosexuality is a sin, attacking
homosexuals who are not atracted and refuse to be attracted to the opposite
sex is wrong.  We cannot an will not attack others because they are a
different brand of homo sapiens sapiens.
Beth

On 11/9/08, Alan Wheeler <awheeler at neb.rr.com> wrote:
> I went to www.biblegateway.com to see what I could find about 
> homosexuality and the bible.  This was among the resources.  So, again 
> I say, and this is my last comment on the subject, if you disagree 
> that marriage is only for men and women, then your argument is with God.
It's in His book.
>
> http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#marriage
>
>
>
>
>  Sanctity of Marriage
> In recent years, the homosexual movement has centered on giving 
> marriage-like benefits to gay couples. Many in the culture have 
> mistakenly concluded that marriage is merely an institution for the 
> convenience of adults. In actuality, marriage is the bedrock 
> institution for culture to sustain itself through having and nurturing 
> children. There are complementary aspects to a man and woman that are 
> important to the instutution of marriage which go beyond the obvious
physical attributes.
> There are things that a man needs that can only be provided by a 
> woman, and vice versa.
>
> These complementary aspects are important to the relationship of the 
> couple itself, as well as to the children. One does not have to appeal 
> to religion to instinctively understand this. Yet statistics verify 
> the structure of the traditional family as the approach to raising 
> children that gives the best measurable results. The overwhelming body 
> of social science research agrees that children do best when raised in 
> homes with married, opposite-sex parents. Every child has the right to
both a mom and a dad.
>
> Yet we cannot divorce the institution of marriage from its theological 
> roots. We acknowledge that marriage is an institution given by God 
> (Genesis 2:24). The Creator of the Universe established the 
> relationship between a man and a woman, thus it is a divine 
> institution, not a human one. To confer marriage-like rights to gays 
> is not the prerogative of people (Matthew 19:6). (This includes civil 
> unions or domestic partnerships, as they are merely marriage by other 
> names.) Defining marriage is the prerogative of God. Whatever may tend 
> to undermine the institution of marriage would also undermine the
authority of God, as well as hurt society.
>
> Liberals may argue, "Why should we arbitrarily select only 
> heterosexual couples for marriage? What can it hurt if two homosexuals
want to marry?"
> The answer is surprisingly simple. The institution of marriage between 
> and man a woman is not, in fact, arbitrary. It's purpose is clear and 
> of utmost importance to society.
>
> David Orland in an article entitled "The Deceit of Gay Marriage" puts 
> it very well. He says:
>
>   To justify giving privileges or exemptions or subsidies to some 
> particular group in society, the benefit of doing so for society at 
> large must first be shown. With heterosexual marriage, the case is 
> clear enough. Heterosexual marriage is a matter of genuine social 
> interest because the family is essential to society's reproduction. 
> The crux of my argument, in other words, was that married couples 
> receive the benefits they do, not because the state is interested in 
> promoting romantic love, or because the Bible says so or because of 
> the influence of special interest groups but rather because the next 
> generation is something that is and should be of interest to all of 
> us. And, by definition, this is not a case that can be made for 
> homosexual unions. To that degree, the attempt to turn the question of
domestic partnership into a debate about fairness falls flat.
>
>   The more persistent supporters of domestic partnership will of 
> course respond to this argument by pointing to the case in which 
> homosexual partners adopt children or, in the case of lesbians, 
> undergo artificial insemination. The intention here is to show that 
> the nuclear family is found even among homosexual couples and that, to 
> that extent, homosexual unions do indeed meet the same criterion of 
> social interest as heterosexual ones and thus should be granted legal 
> status. It is a weak argument and one that ultimately back-fires on those
who employ it. This is for two reasons:
>
>   First, adoption by homosexual couples is still exceedingly rare and 
> the law-though many are surprised to learn this-is aimed at the 
> general case. To confer legal benefits on the entire class of would-be 
> homosexual spouses just because some very small minority of this class 
> approximates the pattern of the nuclear family would be a bit like 
> admitting all applicants to a select university on the grounds that a 
> few of them had been shown to meet the entrance requirements.
>
>   Second, the right of this small minority to the benefits of marriage 
> is dubious in the extreme. Homosexual "families" of whatever type are 
> always and necessarily parasitic on heterosexual ones.
>
> Every child has the right to a mom and a dad. See 5 Reasons Why 
> Same-Sex Marriage Harms Children.
>
> But homosexuals not only want fair treatment, they are pushing for 
> "Super Rights." According the Paul Cameron of the Family Research
Institute:
>
>   "Every member of society has a duty to contribute to the 
> commonwealth. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who 
> engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and 
> services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) 
> have few children while being more apt to harm them. Thus, homosexual 
> practioners not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative
influence on children, cloud society's future.
>
>   Those who engage in homosexuality seek what they say are 'gay 
> rights." In reality, they are demanding Super Rights. Super Rights are 
> those privileges that allow one to ovverride the inalienable rights of 
> other citizens, such as freedom of speech and association. These Super 
> Rights-which are conferred by 'non-discrimination,' 'hate crime,' and 
> 'hate speech' laws-allow homosexuals, if they so choose, to endanger 
> or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid 
> them or protect their children from them.
>
>   As an example, empirical studies to date indicate that a male 
> teacher who practices homosexuality is the most likely kind of teacher 
> to sexually molest students. A principal knowing this may not want to 
> hire a teacher who declares his homosexual interests. But if that 
> teacher wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights 
> of the principal as well as the right of students not to experience 
> extra risk (especially since safety is part of their right to life). 
> Parents renting out one side of their duplex may not want to place 
> their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if-even on a 
> whim - the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the 
> property and associational rights of the parents as well as their
children's right not to be exposed to potential molestation.
>
>   The Super Rights of homosexual practitioners also squelch the right 
> of others to freedom of speech. If a broadcaster opines that 
> homosexual sex is dangerous, but a homosexual finds such speech 
> 'offensive,' his Super Rights trump the broadcaster's freedom of 
> speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned."
>
> The concept of hate crimes seems particularly reprehensible. If one of 
> your
> (heterosexual) loved ones is the object of a despicable crime, the 
> perpetrator would receive a lesser punishment than someone who 
> committed the same act against someone who practices homosexual sex!
>
> +-+-+-
>
>    He has made clear to you, O man, what is good; and what is desired 
> from you by the Lord; only doing what is  right, and loving mercy, and 
> walking without pride before your God. Micah
> 6:8
> ~~~
>
> Alan D Wheeler
> awheeler at neb.rr.com
> IM me at: outlaw-cowboy at live.com
> Skype: redwheel1
> Check me out on the Q, Fridays from 10 AM to 1 PM eastern time at 
> www.theqonline.net _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Faith-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/thebluesis
> loose%40gmail.com
>

_______________________________________________
Faith-talk mailing list
Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Faith-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/wesley.burden%40
verizon.net