[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

Mon Nov 10 06:34:34 UTC 2008

What about the verses that speak of the blind man being healed?  As I
said in a previous e-mail, what about Jesus hanging out with
homosexuals?  Did he do that?  Um, somebody open their inner eyes.
Beth

On 11/9/08, Corey Cook <ccook01 at knology.net> wrote:
> This is an excellent read.
> I am going to post 4 articles here in a minute that bring some more light to
> the issue.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Wheeler" <awheeler at neb.rr.com>
> To: <faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:53 PM
> Subject: [Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.
>
>
>>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/ccook01%40knology.net
>>
> Corey Cook
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>