Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

Keli wrote:Do you think that there should be Incest Rights? Is being against incest punishing incestors?

There are proven genetic defects and medical problems associated with incest. You're comparing apples to your morality which you wish to impose on everyone else. Yet you complain if a homosexual does it.

I believe there's a word for that, isn't there!!!

Keli wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Armon,

Do you really think Jesus wants people to punish homosexuals? Isn't that supposed to be his dad's bag?

Who wants to punish them? A person does not deserve special rights for their chosen sexual activity. Can homosexuals vote? Own property? Serve in the military? Serve on a jury? They cannot marry--but neither can brothers and sisters. Do you think that there should be Incest Rights? Is being against incest punishing incestors?

I think you do want to punish them. While I didn't know you a decade ago, I feel quite certain you were railing against the abomination of homosexuality long before gay marriage became the topic du jour.

Do I think you want them imprisoned or caned or executed? No, but I do think you would love to shove them back in the closet. It doesn't matter one hoot to me if homosexuality is "choice" or not. Like other Christians you insist homosexuality is a choice....Dan chooses to have sex with Stan instead of Ann sort of thing. I disagree, but what does that matter if Stan makes Dan happy and Ann leaves him feeling empty?

There are some things some homosexuals do that upset me. I don't care for the gay pride parade with the drag queens and the subbies strutting around in outfits that are only appropriate for 18 and over venues. I don't approve of the way many young men & women dress these days leaving little to the imagination. Some of the girls who attended BHS's Prom this year wore skin tight gowns that plunged so low in the front their boobs were nearly falling out and so far in the back I swear I saw crack. Several had slits that went all the way to the hip with garters on clear display for all in colors to match their gowns....no slip, no hose, it's all just hanging out. She told me one girl actually did have her breasts pop out on the dance floor. "Ooops" she said while stuffing them back in. No bra at all. Good grief.

Nor do I care to see a couple of guys or a couple of girls making out in public. Of course I don't want to see any couple making out in public. Holding hands, a little kiss.....but hot and heavy is not something we all should bare witness to at the mall or in the park or at the movies. Straight couples were doing that back in the halls of my high school while the queers tried to act straight out of fear of grave bodily harm. Should we return to those days?

Anyway, I don't think you personally wish homosexuals any harm. I'm just not so sure you really think about the consequences of what you desire. At least, I think that's what you want....back in the closet or maybe some forced reprogramming or something. Am I wrong?

This is great. Clearly one does not even have to agree with homosexuality to know this is an issue of basic rights.

The right to be left alone, eh?

The right to seek your own happiness.

The real test of one's dedication to liberty, etc, is not by guaranteeing liberty for those who already have it (a.k.a. "the majority"), but for those who don't, even if you disagree with them.

Bravo to Steph. and Aaron.

Without disagreeing with your general thrust here, I've never seen the right to be left alone delineated. That is, who confers these rights? In the Declaration Jefferson averred that our Creator bestowed certain rights including Pursuit of Happiness which would cover your second offering. But I've never seen any being confer a right to be left alone? Is that like the much-price but never-conferred right to privacy?

ohio county wrote:Without disagreeing with your general thrust here, I've never seen the right to be left alone delineated. That is, who confers these rights? In the Declaration Jefferson averred that our Creator bestowed certain rights including Pursuit of Happiness which would cover your second offering. But I've never seen any being confer a right to be left alone? Is that like the much-price but never-conferred right to privacy?

I don't think it has been delineated (unless you count Brandeis) Maybe implied by the 4th?

In any case, isn't it the unofficial motto of the Libertarians?

Aaron wrote:

Keli wrote:Do you think that there should be Incest Rights? Is being against incest punishing incestors?

There are proven genetic defects and medical problems associated with incest.

HIV/AIDS?

If HIV/AIDS was found only in homosexuals, you might have a point. As it's not, you don't.

Try again.

It does not need to be delineated.

Governments do not confer rights.

We are free by nature.

Governments only take them away.

If it's not illegal you can do it.

Stephanie wrote:Armon,

Do you really think Jesus wants people to punish homosexuals? Isn't that supposed to be his dad's bag?

Well, Steph, Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. God became Man. So I would not seperate God the Father and Jesus Christ when it comes to judgement.

I will say that anyone, whether homosexual or not, is sinful and in need of grace, through faith in Jesus Christ.
I agree with Keli that gay sex is immoral, just like non-marital straight sex. I also agree with Stephanie that I don't much care what Stan and Fred do, so long as it is not gratuitous and in front of my kids. If they want to do whatever it is they care to do, I believe it is wrong, but I don't go around trying to prevent other people from sinning. I have my own sinful patterns that need to be addressed. Perhaps a perfect person would do well to try to prevent gays from having sex, but there's only been One perfect person.

Now, I will say that at the stage of gay marriage we have something that goes beyond the "right to be left alone." When it comes to being left alone, I'm all for it. If a gay person wants to smoke crack with a prostitute, I really don't care in the legal sense. But when two men or two women would like to redefine an institution, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask why it is that the government cares about the institution in the first place. Asking public approval for your relationship is not 'being left alone' whatsoever. Being left alone would assume, I would think, that you can do whatever you wish (and with whomever you wish) without worrying about what the government thinks about it.

Incidentally, the abortion thing is why I will never vote for a Democrat who favors abortion rights. If people believe in "leaving others alone," they might start with innocent children!

Mike,

Being a recovering Catholic, I have a pretty good understanding of the concept of the holy trinity and that all are one. Perhaps I should have phrased the question a bit differently.

Still my question is, why do so many Christians wish to force their morality upon everyone else and make everyone live their lives accordingly. If everyone is a sinner of some sort or another why is the sin of homosexuality routinely singled out as some great abomination? Why not crusade against the entire sex industry and its degradation and objectification of women? Surely the god of the bible doesn't approve of men gratifying themselves while viewing movies portraying gang rape or beastiality.

If there is such a thing as "sin" and homosexuality is in fact a sin that it is the sort of sin that only endangers the participants. I just think of we're going to get all worked up about the behaviors of others we should focus our efforts on behaviors that actually bring harm to others instead of just the participants.

Stephanie,

It's interesting you bring that up. 1 Corinthians 6:18

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

So I do think that sexual immorality is "particularly" bad.

However, you bring up an excellent point. Where is the church when it comes to the porn industry/strip clubs/racy stuff on television? You are quite correct here.

Isn't that strange. I would think that sins that actually harm others would be far graver. For example, injecting heroine is bad, imho. Being a heroine pusher is far worse.

Stephanie wrote:Why not crusade against the entire sex industry and its degradation and objectification of women?

But Steph, it is the females that have a product they want to market for profit and it matters little whether the transaction involves cash money or in-kind services.

And when you speak of the "entire sex industry" then that includes everything: commercial ventures, co-ops, partnerships and individuals.

A crusade against the entire sex industry would be akin to a crusade against the entire food industry.

Man can not live by bread alone, ...... and neither can most females during their fertile years.

.

Sam,

You're correct that my choice of the word "entire" was a poor one.

I disagree with the assertion that all women involved in that industry do so because they have a "product" they want to "market". Surely that is the case with some. I'm so bad with names but a good example would be the young woman who relieved Eliot Spitzer of such large amounts of money.

Either way, that doesn't alter the facts that from a Christian view pornographic filmmakers, pimps, Johns and strip club owners are sinners too. Where were all these people worried about the souls of these sinners when all these gigantic adult "bookstores" were popping up or the mind boggeling number of strip joints were opening up shop?

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

Either way, that doesn't alter the facts that from a Christian view pornographic filmmakers, pimps, Johns and strip club owners are sinners too. Where were all these people worried about the souls of these sinners when all these gigantic adult "bookstores" were popping up or the mind boggeling number of strip joints were opening up shop?

And Steph, it doesn't alter the facts that the Christian view is a hypocrite's view ..... and has been for the past 50 years that the Soap Operas have been televised on TV.

The Christians want to "clean up" everything except what they enjoy watching in the privacy of their own homes.



.

It does not need to be delineated.

Governments do not confer rights.

We are free by nature.

Governments only take them away.

If it's not illegal you can do it.

I disagree completely and diametrically. If Governments take them away then you do not have them. Hell, if aliens from across the universe take your rights away then you do not have them.

Do animals have rights? That is a discussion on another thread. If we have rights they had to have been conferred. The Declaration of Independence says our rights were conferred by our Creator. The Constitution codifies and enumerates our rights. So far as I am aware animals are not covered by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. If chickens, for instance, have a right to dignity and freedom then it is only because humans conferred those rights on them. Otherwise, why have chickens been so reticent in claiming their birthright?

I once had a rooster that was a Banty-Polish cross that had 1 1/2 inch leg spurs ...... and I can attest to the fact that that gentleman was always trying to claim his birthright.

.

May I assume that you denied him his rights?

I just know that rooster ended up stewed with dumplings.

Ohio, you got that right.

And Steph, "naw", old roosters are too tuff.

Even stewed?

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

You're correct that my choice of the word "entire" was a poor one.

I disagree with the assertion that all women involved in that industry do so because they have a "product" they want to "market". Surely that is the case with some. I'm so bad with names but a good example would be the young woman who relieved Eliot Spitzer of such large amounts of money.

Either way, that doesn't alter the facts that from a Christian view pornographic filmmakers, pimps, Johns and strip club owners are sinners too. Where were all these people worried about the souls of these sinners when all these gigantic adult "bookstores" were popping up or the mind boggeling number of strip joints were opening up shop?

I think your answer is that the Christians have already surrendered this issue. Perhaps the goal of the Christian communities throughout the country should be to offer alternatives on a Friday night to the really rotten world of smut. It's likely that the church's inattention to the matter comes from the reality that so many of us are married and, if you believe the Univ. of Chicago study, so many of us are getting laid at home.

But my basic point is that you are right, Stephanie. There is nothing "better" about strip clubs than gay sex, and especially in WVA, the former seems the more prevalent than the latter.

ohio county wrote:May I assume that you denied him his rights?

His rights to barbecue sauce and a horrible death?

When my husband was a child the family had a very aggressive rooster. One day, when he was about 6 it attacked him. They killed him and turned him into chicken and dumplings. They all seem to revel in the fact they ate the bird that viciously attacked a little boy who made the terrible transgression of walking by it when in a "mood".