[Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.

Julie C. Vogt jcvogt at pressenter.com
Mon Nov 10 17:14:10 UTC 2008 

Please read John 9 1-4.  Jesus went up against that stereotype on the part 
of church leadership.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Corey Cook" <ccook01 at knology.net>
To: "Faith-talk,for the discussion of faith and religion" 
<faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.


> No Beth,
> There are no verses speaking of Jesus hanging out with gays.
> However, he did say sin did not cause the man to be blind.
> Please don't read into scripture what is not there.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Beth" <thebluesisloose at gmail.com>
> To: "Faith-talk,for the discussion of faith and religion"
> <faith-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [Faith-talk] More about homosexuality.
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/jcvogt%40pressenter.com
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0/1779 - Release Date: 11/10/2008 
7:53 AM

More information about the Faith-Talk mailing list