Help stop homosexual agenda

[mettle]

You are hiding your head in the sand if you think that the homo agenda will stop at 'teaching a different lifestyle' in the schools. It will be pushed on our children just like 'global warming' is. It will be taught and twisted in being the 'more popular' sexual lifestyle.
It has already started, if you live in a college town you see it and its influence on the college scene. The 'normal' heterosexual students are 'humble and silent' and afraid to stand out in their normal lifestyle. It's as if they have been psychologically subdued...afraid to go against the grain.

Just wait, there will be tax breaks and 'minority' rights in future for them. Our 'Muslim' president will make sure of it.

 

[techres]

Call me intolerant... whatever... I'm man enough call the sickness what it is.

And I am man enough to let consenting adults do what is their business and freedom to do. This is one of those funny places where social conservatives and libertarians can break apart. Why? Because someone else's being gay is none of my business.

Now, if you have a problem with it being in the schools, fine, then take all social engineering out of the school and don't beg to put prayer back in. Otherwise all we are arguing is which social engineering is being done. Personally, I think discretion is the better part of valor and school should be for math.

At the same time, school should not be a place where kids get beat on for being different mainly because kids should not be getting beat on. That is part of where this stuff originates. Perhaps if we focus on math and safety then we would be fine.

I am not gay, but I know gays. I have yet to meet one who is interested in world domination. Sorry, has not happened yet. Mostly they don't want to get the crap kicked out of them and want to be able to have a semblance of the freedoms that others have (yeah popcorn time with that comment). Are some pushy and obsessed with making the world their version of "fair", yep. Just like most of the people here are.

Look, stick with the basics. If you want the gov't to be involved with social engineering then expect fights over it's direction. That means marriage. That means schooling. That means census data. That means tax filings. That means power of attorney. That means all sorts of junk.

Perhaps none of these are really the gov't's business. And perhaps it is not mine either...

 

[jblomenberg16]

I am a Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin. Many have noted the Biblical references in this post, and in others.

As a Christian, I also believe in forgiveness of sins, and that it is not up to me to judge. Final judgement will by made by God himself.

Politically I do not think that chosing to be homosexual entitles a person to any special rights or special treatment. I also stand firm that a person should not have their rights infringed on by making this choice AND that the rights of heterosexuals are not infringed on.

What does this mean?

Homosexuals should expect to be treated equally at work, home, school, etc. They should not get special consideration for employement, have special access to financial resources not available for heterosexuals, and should not be able to access benefits specified for those who have chosen to follow a path for traditional marriage between 1 man and 1 women.

Will I/do I work with homosexuals? Yes. Will I/do I treat them with the same respect that heterosexuals have earned? Yes-so long as they earn it as well. Do I support teaching that homosexual behavior is natural and normal? No.

 

[techres]

It has already started, if you live in a college town you see it and its influence on the college scene. The 'normal' heterosexual students are 'humble and silent' and afraid to stand out in their normal lifestyle. It's as if they have been psychologically subdued...afraid to go against the grain.

We live in the same town! Dude all the college heterosexuals do is get drunk, yell, travel in packs, and spread social diseases. I see nothing in the frat boys or girls that approximates 'humble and silent'.

Now, if what you mean to say is that PC attempts to quash conversation and that college is hard for conservatives, no question there. But that is PC, not the homosexual agenda.

Seriously, plenty of heterosexual freedom being exercised here! Way to much exercise if you ask me. But that is my opinion and not really my business.

 

[VUPDblue]

Intolerance on many levels has brought us to the weird society that we live in. Where the distinction between men and women in dress and action and sexual lifestyle has been blurred beyond all sense of normality. Call me intolerant... whatever... I'm man enough call the sickness what it is.

So are you saying that people like you are the root of all problems? I'm not accusing, or stirring the pot here, I am just trying to make sense of your post.

 

[cce1302]

I am a Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin. Many have noted the Biblical references in this post, and in others.

As a Christian, I also believe in forgiveness of sins, and that it is not up to me to judge. Final judgement will by made by God himself.

I'm in agreement with your entire post, I believe.
Homosexuality is "just" a sin. I should not be expected to condone that sort of behavior (i.e. recognize homosexual "marriage" or relationships) any more than I should be asked to condone laziness or alcohol abuse. What people do in their homes is between them and God, but when they bring their sin out in front of the world, asking for it to be called normal or right, that is where our paths diverge.

 

[HICKMAN]

I don't care what people do behind closed doors. I don't care if people create legal unions for benefits.

I do care when someone tries to tell me what the term "marriage" means.

Hal Turner Show: Disgrace: Webster's Dictionary Re-Defines "Marriage" to include same-sex perversion

 

[esrice]

To: Everyone

Since this thread is progressing quickly, I just wanted to drop a note and say "thanks" for keeping this a debate, and not a war.

 

[dross]

And I am man enough to let consenting adults do what is their business and freedom to do. This is one of those funny places where social conservatives and libertarians can break apart. Why? Because someone else's being gay is none of my business.

Now, if you have a problem with it being in the schools, fine, then take all social engineering out of the school and don't beg to put prayer back in. Otherwise all we are arguing is which social engineering is being done. Personally, I think discretion is the better part of valor and school should be for math.

At the same time, school should not be a place where kids get beat on for being different mainly because kids should not be getting beat on. That is part of where this stuff originates. Perhaps if we focus on math and safety then we would be fine.

I am not gay, but I know gays. I have yet to meet one who is interested in world domination. Sorry, has not happened yet. Mostly they don't want to get the crap kicked out of them and want to be able to have a semblance of the freedoms that others have (yeah popcorn time with that comment). Are some pushy and obsessed with making the world their version of "fair", yep. Just like most of the people here are.

Look, stick with the basics. If you want the gov't to be involved with social engineering then expect fights over it's direction. That means marriage. That means schooling. That means census data. That means tax filings. That means power of attorney. That means all sorts of junk.

Perhaps none of these are really the gov't's business. And perhaps it is not mine either...

Very well said.

 

[mettle]

Nope, not that I know of, thanks for insinuating though. Just expecting those who are 'OK' with alternative lifestyles to label me as such. It's OK, there are few these days who aren't willing to call normal and decent, just that. B/c if they do, then they themselves have to change a portion of their own lifestyle (i.e. rages, frat parties and orgies) to measure up to what they have declared.
It has always been easier to go with the grain than against it.

So are you saying that people like you are the root of all problems? I'm not accusing, or stirring the pot here, I am just trying to make sense of your post.

 

[mettle]

And I am man enough to let consenting adults do what is their business and freedom to do. This is one of those funny places where social conservatives and libertarians can break apart. Why? Because someone else's being gay is none of my business.

Now, if you have a problem with it being in the schools, fine, then take all social engineering out of the school and don't beg to put prayer back in. Otherwise all we are arguing is which social engineering is being done. Personally, I think discretion is the better part of valor and school should be for math.

At the same time, school should not be a place where kids get beat on for being different mainly because kids should not be getting beat on. That is part of where this stuff originates. Perhaps if we focus on math and safety then we would be fine.

I am not gay, but I know gays. I have yet to meet one who is interested in world domination. Sorry, has not happened yet. Mostly they don't want to get the crap kicked out of them and want to be able to have a semblance of the freedoms that others have (yeah popcorn time with that comment). Are some pushy and obsessed with making the world their version of "fair", yep. Just like most of the people here are.

Look, stick with the basics. If you want the gov't to be involved with social engineering then expect fights over it's direction. That means marriage. That means schooling. That means census data. That means tax filings. That means power of attorney. That means all sorts of junk.

Perhaps none of these are really the gov't's business. And perhaps it is not mine either...

I have met a very many who would love to turn this country inside with their agenda. B/c when that happens, they won't have to fight against their basic instincts and hold back any longer, nor fight the conviction that it is wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate them. I hate the their agenda; that they work to turn something pure, wonderful and a blessing into a perversion that distorts their very nature. For those who feel that evolution is true and 'Intelligent Design' is wrong; why would we 'evolve' into a non reproducing species?

Just a thought.

 

[esrice]

Nope, not that I know of, thanks for insinuating though.

I don't think he meant any disrespect, he was just confused by your previous post.

I believe you meant to say "Tolerance on many levels has brought us to the weird society that we live in." Then calling yourself intolerant would make sense.

 

[VUPDblue]

I don't think he meant any disrespect, he was just confused by your previous post.

I believe you meant to say "Tolerance on many levels has brought us to the weird society that we live in." Then calling yourself intolerant would make sense.

This.

 

[dross]

I have met a very many who would love to turn this country inside with their agenda. B/c when that happens, they won't have to fight against their basic instincts and hold back any longer, nor fight the conviction that it is wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate them. I hate the their agenda; that they work to turn something pure, wonderful and a blessing into a perversion that distorts their very nature. For those who feel that evolution is true and 'Intelligent Design' is wrong; why would we 'evolve' into a non reproducing species?

Just a thought.

When a group tries to impose its agenda on others by force - and it's usually through the government - freedom-loving people should stand against that. Freedom-loving homosexuals should stand against a government-enforced gay agenda, and freedom-loving Christians should stand against a government-enforced social agenda. The principle of freedom requires that you stand against forcing values on others, even if you might happen to agree with the values themselves.

 

[techres]

I don't care what people do behind closed doors. I don't care if people create legal unions for benefits.

I do care when someone tries to tell me what the term "marriage" means.

Hal Turner Show: Disgrace: Webster's Dictionary Re-Defines "Marriage" to include same-sex perversion

And yet this is the result of tying benefits and government involvement to a religious state of being. In so doing you invite in everyone. By allowing the government to be an agency that defines marriage, you let government (and all the people) be involved in that definition. Moreso when it determines benefits, etc.

You want to keep marriage "pure" or purely religious? Keep it out of the government's hands. Otherwise.... too bad.

 

[dross]

And yet this is the result of tying benefits and government involvement to a religious state of being. In so doing you invite in everyone. By allowing the government to be an agency that defines marriage, you let government (and all the people) be involved in that definition. Moreso when it determines benefits, etc.

You want to keep marriage "pure" or purely religious? Keep it out of the government's hands. Otherwise.... too bad.

Again, you're dead on. Let's use contract law to define our legal relationships with others, and weddings to define the spiritual side of those relationships if we want. States should have to honor contracts, private entities can choose what kind of legal and or spiritual contracts they want to honor.

 

[mettle]

Well put. My whole point of joining is this discussion is that I have noticed this. (decisions like these placed on a legislative scale) When you look at 'Global Warming' s track record you can see that it gained a great deal of momentum and power by being put into legislative avenues.

I fear this with my children. What will be put 'down the pike' in legislative form by the time they are able to drive? Work? What will be legislated into their lives? Obama has now placed Homosexuality into the envelope of legislation on a national scale. (world scale) Now that agenda has the power and wheels it needs to elbow its way into any household, ANY religion and so on. There was pastor in Canada 2 months ago who was arrested for preaching against homesexuality. Arrested!

We will be there. Just like the radio fairness doctrine; logic that is against the grain (government's grain) can now be monitored and 'filtered' when/if it gets passed. I fear, I really do.

And yet this is the result of tying benefits and government involvement to a religious state of being. In so doing you invite in everyone. By allowing the government to be an agency that defines marriage, you let government (and all the people) be involved in that definition. Moreso when it determines benefits, etc.

You want to keep marriage "pure" or purely religious? Keep it out of the government's hands. Otherwise.... too bad.

 

[rmcrob]

I find myself agreeing with techres. I, too, am a Christian, and a pretty stout one at that. But I have never felt comfortable with those Christians who are all about "getting prayer back in schools", for example.

I am old enough to remember my teachers leading the class in prayer at public school. I don't teachers today doing that. The odds are low that any particular teacher would be in substantial agreement with me on spiritual matters; why would I want that teacher doing anything spiritual with my kid. So, let's keep prayer out of school.

Of course, prayer never really left school, did it? Any kid who wants to can pray any time he or she wants to. No one can stop that. But I don't want the teacher in effect teaching anything to my kid about spiritual matters. I want the teacher to do what a teacher is supposed to do.

The problem is that we have let the Federal government take control by taking its money.

I also agree with mettle in that I don't want the school to have an agenda other than a fundamental educational one. I don't want the school to teach that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle. Neither do I want the school to teach that homosexuality is a sin. I don't want the school to even mention homosexuality, and I can't see any reason why it should.

I think that makes me some kind of libertarian, huh?

Oh, and if this were a theology forum instead of a gun forum, I would have a whole lot more to say than I do here.

 

[haldir]

And yet this is the result of tying benefits and government involvement to a religious state of being. In so doing you invite in everyone. By allowing the government to be an agency that defines marriage, you let government (and all the people) be involved in that definition. Moreso when it determines benefits, etc.

You want to keep marriage "pure" or purely religious? Keep it out of the government's hands. Otherwise.... too bad.

I thought that most of those benefits had nothing to do with religion (atheists get the same benefits as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, etc) but with an attempt to support "the family" (I know you said religiously defined, but it is more than religiously defined. It has been culturally defined that way in Western Civilization for millenniums as well. Can you point to any civilization that has ever defined marriage as a union of same sex couples?). The family unit was considered a desirable thing at one time. It was a place where procreation would occur. A place where the next generation would receive training on becoming a good citizen and a valued member of society. Most of the studies I have seen still indicate that best occurs in a household containing a married husband and wife. Are there exceptions, certainly. Two Christians living together outside marriage do not get the benefits either. Don't forget there is a marriage penalty also built in to the tax code unless it has been changed recently.

 

[antsi]

When a group tries to impose its agenda on others by force - and it's usually through the government - freedom-loving people should stand against that.

I agree with this and think it goes for both sides. I do not believe schools should be in the indoctrination business - pro gay or anti gay.

By allowing the government to be an agency that defines marriage, you let government (and all the people) be involved in that definition. Moreso when it determines benefits, etc.

You want to keep marriage "pure" or purely religious? Keep it out of the government's hands.

Totally agree.

Anything the government is involved in will ultimately be determined by bureaucracy, politics, or both.

Gay people want the government to legitimize their kind of relationship. Some straight people do not want the government legitimizing gay relationships.

I don't think the government has any business saying whether gay relationships are legitimate or not. Where is this listed as a function of government in the Constitution?

Ideally I would like to see the .gov get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for everyone - which would essentially duplicate the legal functions of marriage. Most of us here at least agree gays should be equal before the law. So gays and heteros both would be equally eligible for civil unions.

Then it would be up to the churches to consecrate what they consider to be married in the eyes of God. If you don't like what your church's policy is on this, join a different church.

My church has a strong stance against gay marriage. I agree with that for spiritual reasons. However, I do not believe my spiritual beliefs should determine what kind of government other people live under.