[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

[Corey Cook]

If we accept gays we will fall.
Telling gays they cannot get married has nothing to do with the rest of what 
you listed.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Beth" <thebluesisloose at gmail.com>
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.


> 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/thebluesisloose%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/ccook01%40knology.net
>
Corey Cook