Originally Posted by Guest

Here we go again the immediate reaction from the liberal side is you must be homophobic and a gay hater. Well perhaps there are some of us who view this topic with more objectivity and not personal.

First Christianity preaches hate the sin love the sinner. Secondly the Freedom Restoration Religious Act was not written to deny services to gays but to reinforce an individual rights to practice their religion.

But let's see how all of this came about. In the early 80's psychiatrist all of a sudden removed homosexuality from the DSM. I believe it was a political move. Why ,as an example, ask yourself while homosexuality was removed from the DSM a foot fetish (men who love looking at a woman's foot) is a disorder. Especially since many women focus on a man's hand or calfs, etc At least their attract to the opposite sex as nature intended.

In November 1987 Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill wrote an essay entitled "The Overhaul of Straight America which eventually became a book.

Their instructions were clear and I'll summarize to save space...it was to portray as normal and natural the gay lifestyle. If you notice for a number of years gays have been appearing in more TV shows, movies etc Kirk & Pill's plan. The goal was to make it very socially acceptable and thus normalize it. Young minds are malleable and naive and this gay agenda purposefully and strategically planted has been successful at least for the younger set

I certainly cannot identify with the gay lifestyle and believe it is a mistake of nature like any malady. Because of this I understand the need to ensure that this segment of society not be treated unfairly. However we have moved from a discrimination issue to an alternative lifestyle to a preferred lifestyle.

The attack on the Definition of Marriage by the gay community was not so they could have the right to marry and have legal rights resulting from those unions. all that could and has been legally handled.

The real reason gays want the definition of marriage changed is because it affords their lifestyle legitmacy (ie see our lifestyle is normal)

The problem with a breach of the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is that it is bringing perverts out of the woodwork making claims for the legal right for incest, man-boy relations, bigamy etc.

As to Obama's objection like all liberal movements its one sided.

He does not want parents etc to attempts such conversions but he supports schools providing indoctrination of GLBT studies, etc . In other words let's promote homosexuality so we can draw in more troubled and confused kids and get them into the gay lifestyle ....................

Live and let live so please don't label me because I happen to believe that a normal lifestyle means one man one woman in a union to procreate forming the basis for a civilized society that is the bedrock o this nation


Personal Best Regards:

Excellent post and well stated ... You've nailed it

Originally Posted by Guest

If straight people are so against gay people, then why do they keep having gay babies?

You could make the same comment about any genetic malady ... but you knew that

Originally Posted by Fraugoofy

If straight people are so against gay people, then why do they keep having gay babies?

LOL. Well said. Give me a gay neighbor, give me a minority neighbor, give me a
Muslim extremist, but please spare me the pain and embarrassment of an old White FOX rasist neighbor.

Originally Posted by Guest

WOW, Sir with the utmost respect, I am apauled at your understanding of human rights and the Christion Faith. Please, go to see your spiritual leader/advisor for counseling. You are so far off the accepted normal, it brings tears to my eyes. I love all man, but I must say, I have reason to fear you sir.

Only those who worship in the Church of Holy Liberalism need to fear this person's incisive thoughts and analysis ... because it's true

Originally Posted by Guest

Only those who worship in the Church of Holy Liberalism need to fear this person's incisive thoughts and analysis ... because it's true

I read this twice, and for the lack of marijuana or, LSD, that I do not believe in, you are too weird for me.

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

Originally Posted by Guest

LOL. Well said. Give me a gay neighbor, give me a minority neighbor, give me a
Muslim extremist, but please spare me the pain and embarrassment of an old White FOX rasist neighbor.

Great post and it portrays you for the complete idiot you are

Your Muslim extremist neighbor gets to cut off your head or blow you up ... and you're peachy keen with it. Incredible but no doubt accurate because, if nothing else, you get to reduce your carbon footprint?

Originally Posted by Guest

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

I think those offended by same sex mirage, think it is an obomination of the teaching of God. Sad, but many racists and homophobes misunderstands the bible and Gods intent. Love is the key. Heterosexual marrage is bad if no love is present. Gay marriage is wonderful if love is there.

Originally Posted by Guest

It's difficult to understand how a gay or lesbian marriage effects a heterosexual marriage. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't infringe on another person's civil rights.

What you say in your second statement above is correct. But, here is the problem. The CIVIL rights of homosexuals has not been the issue, as civil unions have been allowed for some time. The problem erupted when there was an insistence that they be allowed to be married in churches and in the eyes of God. To those of us of faith, who perceive marriage as a holy sacrament, and based on biblical scripture, as between a man and a woman (note the Bible speaks in terms of husbands and wives), it then becomes an abomination from that perspective. To me, it does not matter whether I view homosexuality as right or wrong - just like anyone else they are Americans and deserve the same respect and civil rights as any citizen of this country. On that we can agree. I just don't understand the push to desecrate other people's religious beliefs when they already had the rights of every other married couple, with the recent additions of healthcare benefits for partners, adoption, etc.

As far as your first statement above, the concern is that the effects can be far reaching. In other words, what's next? Who else will take claim to marriage rights and how much further will it dilute the sanctity of the biblical marriage covenant? IMHO, it is the beginning of a moral free fall.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think those offended by same sex mirage, think it is an obomination of the teaching of God. Sad, but many racists and homophobes misunderstands the bible and Gods intent. Love is the key. Heterosexual marrage is bad if no love is present. Gay marriage is wonderful if love is there.

I can't help but wonder what bible you are reading and how you seem to know so well the intent of God. As a person of faith, I am one of those of whom you speak, but I am in no way a homophobe, and where racist factors in doesn't even make any sense! I come from a very mixed family - bi-racial cousins, gay cousins, all mixed in with the rest of us. I am not phobic regarding ANY of them and love them all. But I also believe what I believe because of my faith - it in no way makes me a hater of any man or woman regardless of race, orientation, religion, or whatever. In fact, quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by Guest

I read this twice, and for the lack of marijuana or, LSD, that I do not believe in, you are too weird for me.

That's because you did not understand my point, nor have you likely ever considered it ... to wit, political liberalism is essentially a secular religion.

"The Church of Holy Liberalism" has its teachings and belief systems, high priests, heresies and a lot of other defining characteristics. At some point I plan to start a thread on this topic but for now, that will have to do.

At least we agree on not using marijuana or LSD ... progress of sorts.

Originally Posted by Guest

What you say in your second statement above is correct. But, here is the problem. The CIVIL rights of homosexuals has not been the issue, as civil unions have been allowed for some time. The problem erupted when there was an insistence that they be allowed to be married in churches and in the eyes of God. To those of us of faith, who perceive marriage as a holy sacrament, and based on biblical scripture, as between a man and a woman (note the Bible speaks in terms of husbands and wives), it then becomes an abomination from that perspective. To me, it does not matter whether I view homosexuality as right or wrong - just like anyone else they are Americans and deserve the same respect and civil rights as any citizen of this country. On that we can agree. I just don't understand the push to desecrate other people's religious beliefs when they already had the rights of every other married couple, with the recent additions of healthcare benefits for partners, adoption, etc.

As far as your first statement above, the concern is that the effects can be far reaching. In other words, what's next? Who else will take claim to marriage rights and how much further will it dilute the sanctity of the biblical marriage covenant? IMHO, it is the beginning of a moral free fall.

What is moral? Who determines what is or is not Moral? I feel sermon on the mount is moral. I feel FOX network is immoral. I have witnessed the most perverted immoral marages between a man and a women. I have also witnessed the most loving wonderful marriages between two women and also between two men as the most honorable loving relationships in my long life.

Originally Posted by Guest

That's because you did not understand my point, nor have you likely ever considered it ... to wit, political liberalism is essentially a secular religion.

"The Church of Holy Liberalism" has its teachings and belief systems, high priests, heresies and a lot of other defining characteristics. At some point I plan to start a thread on this topic but for now, that will have to do.

At least we agree on not using marijuana or LSD ... progress of sorts.

I love you brother, but I do not understand you. That may be a first step.

Originally Posted by Guest

That's because you did not understand my point, nor have you likely ever considered it ... to wit, political liberalism is essentially a secular religion.

"The Church of Holy Liberalism" has its teachings and belief systems, high priests, heresies and a lot of other defining characteristics. At some point I plan to start a thread on this topic but for now, that will have to do.

At least we agree on not using marijuana or LSD ... progress of sorts.

Ahhh......thank you! I think you may have answered my question/concern in the post previous to yours even though it wasn't directed at you obviously.

Originally Posted by Guest

I love you brother, but I do not understand you. That may be a first step.

That is a great answer and as you said, often times a good first step. A little more understanding and a little less flame throwing on this forum would probably go a long way.