[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

Sun Nov 9 22:56:36 UTC 2008

I agree with you, Wesley.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "WESLEY BURDEN" <wesley.burden at verizon.net>
To: "'Faith-talk, for the discussion of faith and religion'" 
<faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/jcvogt%40pressenter.com
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1778 - Release Date: 11/9/2008 
2:14 PM