Thursday, October 30, 2008

Christians Aren't Federal Change-Agents

Contrary to what a fellow Christian blogger noted, I don't see evangelicals as "advancing a Christian agenda at the federal level," per se--if agenda means "change." I see them as on the defensive to preserve the best Christian-influenced traditions and moral views of our nation --none of which are new or radical.

E.G. we never had to fight with the American Library Ass'n in the past to keep out of the library, away from children, porn, huge sections of gay porn, found now on library computers and shelves. I remember the Monroe, MI library battle to make the Madonna "SEX" book available to kids. The library said they weren't going to protect the children from anything in their library.

Good grief! This is new and radical view of library freedom. Since then, I believe some sensible people have restored some restrictions and responsibilites toward children in the library --because they were attracting perverts --and the women librarians knew it and felt the threat to themselves and kids.

As for library censorship which the ALA doesn't want, they nevertheless take public monies and "make choices" in their purchases. Same with school libraries. Is it not a form of censorship when they choose NOT to buy some books in favor of others?? Where does choice end and censorship begin? They aren't going to buy EVERYTHING. I think libraries can rightly choose not to spend our money on filth that corrupts, as there are better options for public money.

I remember the AW teacher who put a book title, featuring father-daughter incest in a humorous vein on the opening pages, on his supplementary reading list for 9th graders. This is the kind of thing that Christians notice and protest --and rightly so. It was brought to my attention by the mother of a student--who said, "Mom, this is a dirty book!" Why should school libraries make dirty books accessible? or spend money on them? or approve them as donations?

The hard-core liberal would say the same about religious books. That's what we are up against in this cultural war and the fight to retain decency in the public square --not an agenda to enforce Christianity --but simple morals and decency--which the liberal says is indefensible because Christianity is the source.

That's why Obama's K-12 comprehensive sex ed for which he voted in Illinois is more scary than Halloween. We don't want our kindergartners thinking about any sex, much less gay sex --which is what liberal sex ed now encourages --that, and books about boys wearing Mommy's high heels and skirts.





"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

38 comments:

mud_rake said...

That's why Obama's K-12 comprehensive sex ed for which he voted in Illinois is more scary than Halloween

Not at all. Rather, you and right-wing fundamentalists like you scare the hell out of me!

Anonymous said...

mudrake is allowed to push his homosexual agenda openly here on this blog and the author says that it isn't part of the Christian agenda to push change!

I am beginning to think this blog is an enabling factor for the spread of corrupt filth because of the moderate almost liberal views it espouses.

Why are you so tolerant of the sin and the sinners who spread their agenda amongst us?

Why do you allow Mosques in your community? You will thank me for the work I do monitoring the activities of the black liberal homosexual threat and the Islamic terrorist agenda being taught in your midst.

I pray for this Holy Nation and for you at this blog every day to become enlightened and ready for the conflict to come!

matthew said...

Barb,

What are we disagreeing about? I don't quite get this post.

Rob R said...

mudrake is allowed to push his homosexual agenda openly here on this blog and the author says that it isn't part of the Christian agenda to push change!

He's also allowed to post as the pseudo-humorous anonymous.

steve said...

Lets just look ahead a couple years from now when science finds the inevitable irrefutable genetic or epigenetic causation of homosexuality. You guys will accept the science, but then you are going to say, "well it is their burdon to bear and God gives people 'aflictions' to overcome". So I'm asking is it realy fair that God would saddle people with such a burdon, and more importantly is it right for anyone to judge a person who is "made that way"? I mean what do you say about people who are born with both sets of genitalia? Are they sinners because they have some gender confusion going on through no fault of their own? And what about those who swing both ways, AC/DC's?... ...

Barb said...

Steve, If you've ever read me on the subject of those with abnormal gender in their bodies, chromosomal and hormonal abnormality and developmental defect in the womb-- you would know that I've said such a person has legitimate potential for sexual confusion and parents and doctors should help him or her to have as normal a life as possible. This person has some choice, seems to me, to identify one way or another.

When I saw those huge gatherings of gays on PBS documentary, however, all standing around drinking and dancing without their shirts on --looked like thousands --I'm pretty sure that's Sodom and Gomorrah and not something God sanctifies. That's all the lost boys who got arrested in their development at the hero-worship stage. They never went on to realize that girls really don't have cooties. They had a homosexual thought and nurtured it.

It is a promiscuous diseased lifestyle and not one to encourage. The numbers of partners claimed by the average gay are so high as to be rivaled only by hookers --not normal people dealing with a full deck.

Do you want it promoted to your own little boy someday in Kdgtn class? Or do you want him to just assume he's a boy who will someday be like Daddy --and marry a Mommy?

Anonymous, grow up. You aren't fooling anyone.

Barb said...

It's not a serious disagreement, Matt -- I just don't agree with the Christians who have bought into the liberal view that evangelicals are trying too hard to influence politics --you said "advancing a Christian agenda at the federal level." Liberals see us as violating separation of church and state. That may not be your view --but you did say the above in quotes.

My point is that we aren't the ones trying to force Christian change upon the nation--but we are trying to conserve the respect for faith and decency of many of our founders --and their respect for church, Bible, morals.

The ones with an agenda for change are the secularists, humanists, liberals, atheists, agnostics --such as make up the ACLU and the leaders of the Democratic party.

Christians believe in change through spiritual revival, not by law. At the same time, I believe the LAW gives people their sense of right and wrong --e.g., so far, the Liberals' idea of LAW has convinced masses that abortion is sad but not murder.

kateb said...

If you haven't seen Steve's blog and the muck rake worship going on - you should spend a lost minute reviewing it.

He's coined the 'Bobble Head Jesus'. And then mocked Him.

Shame on you Steve. That's horrible

Barb said...

I've told Steve before that the "bobble head Jesus" title is blasphemous. His parents would not be pleased --let alone God.

I haven't the stomach for any muckrake praise tonight. How could he? How could anyone? Mudly is so miserable and nasty --and not the least bit clever in rebuttal --just desperate --or as he says, "pathetic." so there is nothing to admire. They are simply a mutual admiration society of like-minded liberals and Nobama supporters, patting each other on their gnarly backs, under their bridge.

kateb said...

Thanks Rob, makes sense now. It's strange how far a truly intolerant will go.

kateb said...

I think it's very bizarre that muck rake comments, anonymously, on his desire to push his homosexual agenda.

Barb - you can confirm the IP address that posters use.

If you do not know how to do this, I'll put in touch with another Toledo, commercial, blogger who uses this same (blogger) service.

I think this is a ridiculous and truly, an elementally childish attack.

I also believe that if muck rake was confirmed, even in a small way, in his own belief system - he wouldn't spend such an enormous and overwhelming percentage of his life time attacking Christians. He attacked me very severely and ran me off of another Toledo site once he identified me as being both female and Christian. His abuse to me as a woman and a Christian was unconscionable. He pursued me relentlessly and in a disgusting and offensive manner.

Seriously, if he doesn't choose Christ - if he's emotionally healthy - why would he choose to spend his time attacking Christians?

kateb said...

We have been given very clear instruction on how to handle a 'true' unbeliever.

This means a person who has received the testimony of Jesus Christ and REJECTED it. "Bobble head Jesus" would be a very clear identifier. Steve IS an unbeliever and has not only rejected the testimony of Jesus Christ but he has mocked our Lord.

At that point Christ said that you need to grab your shoes and move on down the road.

This was socially HUGE in his day as the equivalent of being a good host meant that you took your guests shoes, cleaned them and parked them outside of the door. At that time your guest was having their feet washed as a welcome and this ritual took place at the front door. Today we might shake hands, or step aside and motion a welcome guest in.

When Jesus was asked what shall we do when we meet a TRUE unbeliever (again..one who has had testimony and access to the Bible and chosen to refuse them), Jesus said - hey - jump up and grab your shoes. Get OUT - hurry up, move yourself away from that place down the road and don't look back.

Can we not learn from Jesus? How much more does a person need to do to prove that they have access to the Word, they've been testified to and they still mock Christ?

We don't need to apologize for Christ - we need to stand up for him against such lowly beings as this. These people are talking here in an attempt to diminish people's faith.

Not to build faith.

Barb said...

Yes, Mudrake's purpose is to try to erode faith--when he comes here --or invites people to his blogs. He is so miserable in his unbelief. And Misery loves company, they say!

What blog did he run you off from?

I thought I was the only one. He just deleted me --among other tactics. but deletion, of course, makes blogging futile. And makes his blog more boring, and stuffy, too --with all the fawning of the like-minded.

and you are right --it's about you being female --as well as christian. He fawns over male posters, even if he disagrees with them--but if he can't get anywhere with them, in the hope of eroding their faith or getting them to agree with his political views, he turns pretty nasty to men, also. But he has much more patience and respect for men bloggers.

He has been the worst I've seen anywhere. At least on the infamous French blog, some had a sense of humor in their arguments. They got very vile, however --after Mudrake joined them. Microdot used to be tolerable, but he truly went bipolar on me out of the blue. Says I sent him mean emails --which I never did --only bridge-building emails --attempts.

Non-Christians can't suffer disagreement for very long without starting the personal attacks. they just want to say how bigoted and stupid you are, in the final analysis.

I can write on the issues all day --without getting personal.

That would be a really interesting blog, I think --where people debate and disagree without getting personal, without ever resorting to insults. Actually, the Religion Clause blog on my blogroll is better that way than most --less personal stuff and more discussion of what we think on the issues.

I haven't felt led to delete Mudrake --casting pearls or not. I have deleted folks for bad language, obscene references, posted addresses by Mudly --and for spam --which he used to put on my blog.

He's actually been doing a little better lately--hasn't deleted me lately over at his blogs. And he is putting in attendance here --sort of like coming to church to hear what the Christians are talking about --so I am comfortable with hospitality at this point.

Though he's not going to like this comment to you. And I know he's not going to be "nice" any time soon --but maybe, some day....

matthew said...

Barb,

I didn't mean that we are doing too much. Mudrake is saying we are unconstitutional by mixing religion and politics. I'm saying the whole thing is mixed up because nobody, Christian or non-Christian, seems to actually value the constitution.

I pretty much agree with what you've written in this thread so I probably haven't explained myself very clearly. I didn't put a whole lot of thought into my recent comments. I'm sure they could have been written better.

Let me try again.

Christians shouldn't shy away from politics. All of our rulers have a responsibility to honor Christ so we should actively seek to elect men who will honor Him and will seek to establish and enforce laws which reflect God's law.

Ideally (and constitutionally) this is done at the state level. But the federal government is overstepping its bounds everywhere you look so it's not surprising to see Christians working at the federal level.

matthew said...

One further thought...

We trust not in princes or presidents but in King Jesus. His kingdom will prevail, we know that for sure.

We ought not look to politics for solutions. As Christ conquers His enemies by turning hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, we will see righteous rulers. The church needs to understand, though, that this begins with us and until we repent of our idolatry we should expect to get the rulers we deserve.

That doesn't mean we embrace wicked men like Barack Obama but it does mean that if he's elected we should continue to look to God and understand that He works all things together for our good.

Barb said...

Yes, agreed. My point is that Mudly talks of his fear of the Christians for us wanting change to something that he seems to think never was --a Christ and bible-respecting nation--a culturally "christian" nation --rather than culturally atheistic, secularist, Islamic, or buddhist, or New Age Oprah nation. He seems to think WE are the changers --instead of the liberals who, like the ACLU, work for change to make America quite different than when deToqueville said the U.S. was good and great because of our churches with pulpits proclaiming righteousness. DeToquevile said that about our nation when it was fairly new. The ACLU thinks that this early view of America contradicts the constitution's neutral stance toward any one church. Detoqueville was talking about churches in general as having a good influence on the national character--making us a great nation.
______________

politics cannot solve the problems in society that are really caused by sin and its effect on relationships, economy, mental and physical health.

I know a woman now who needs gov't support because of alleged domestic violence --I've known several like this who've needed full gov't support through the years because of their dysfunctional marital and sex lives --presumeably mostly the men's fault for unrestrained tempers, expensive drug and alcohol habits, selfishness, and the like. But I've known some temperamental and irresponsible and adulterous women, too. For sure, unemployment hurts the family relationships, financial pressures make the home a pressure cooker ready to explode in some cases. But the poor and unemployed aren't the only ones with domestic strife. It's a universal problem that only Christ can cure.

A family without Christian faith and character traits of patience, unselfishness, tolerance, honesty, forgiveness, good stewardship of time and money, kindness and slowness to anger --is handicapped.
Family values and the values we learn primarily from Christianity ARE important. Mudrake would bite the hand that feeds people--wanting to erode faith and influence of Christ, Church and the Bible.

"Man does not live by bread alone--but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Barb said...

That's not to say that atheists and non-Christians can't have good marriages --or that all believers are insulated from marital strife. For sure, people of other cultures seem to have loving couples and responsible parents as far as we can tell from the outside. But there ARE cultural features in some nations that are hard for us to believe--parents who would sell daughters into prostitution for family income, e.g. and officials who would encourage the prostitution and sex slavery in their nations. Muslims who would commit "honor killings" if their daughters displeased them --or even when the daughter is a rape victim. Unspeakable things have been done in the name of some religions and cultural traditions. Female mutilation to preserve chastity is one such tradition.

The world over, Christianity is the BEST of all faiths for what it teaches and values --it is based on TRUTH and its results are superior when the Bible is judiciously and consistently applied in a life, in a family, in a neighborhood, in a church, in a town , in a nation.

My atheist prof. uncle came to that conclusion after much travel around the world --that there was no place like home --and that protestant Christianity was probably true after all--and certainly produced the best cultural results.

catholic Christianity is an even more mixed bag because it has harbored immoral and abnormal clergymen. Its effects in Catholic nations has been mixed --depending, no doubt, on the character and sincerity of the church leaders in any particular nation. I believe the Catholic believers were responsible for motivating the people in prayer vigils in Poland that led to the end of the Iron Curtain. Dr. Snyder, an FM missionary doctor tells of the wonderful joint missionary labors with some nuns in Africa. Of course, Mother Theresa's work was exceptional.

mud_rake said...

Robbie says:

He's also allowed to post as the pseudo-humorous anonymous.

Wow! You are even more paranoid than mommy!

Sorry, pal, it's MUD RAKE, not anonymous. Your mommy can cut off anonymous comments if she wants to, but they seem to serve her 'purpose' here.

Anonymous said...

If you agree that Barack Obama is a wicked man and is upsurping the will of THE LORD, then why do you tolerate a system that allows him and his evil followers to even exist?
We CHRISTIANS must seize power and destroy these polluting sinners.
Yes, books must be burnt!
The courts must be controlled by judges that do HIS HOLY WILL!
The schools must be cleansed of corrupting teachers.
Homosexuality will be rooted out and purged!
We are the warriors of THE LORD!

We are the HOLY FIRE that shall burn the world clean of sin!

Tolerance is enabling sin.
Tolerance is sinning by proxie.
The Tolerant will burn with the wicked forever.

Barb said...

I don't mind letting anonymous make a fool of himself --he always posts right after you, Mudrake, so I think we know who he is.

We all know that IF he were a real believer, he's nevertheless a bit crazed and off the deep end. E.G. he is calling for the non-existance of Obama and his followers; we Christians wouldn't do that. You are projecting your hatred and bigotry onto Christians through your little anonymous persona--as though Christians felt the same hatreds you do. That's not the case.

Barb said...

I'm all for tolerance, Mudly. you are the one who has a problem with it.

I'm for co-existance with those who disagree with Christians --and with any people who disagree with me. I can stand to be in the same room or the same blog and talk about differing perspectives without hitting the roof. You are the one who has trouble doing that.

Tolerance doesn't mean quite to me what it means to you, however. I will tolerate different views but I will not tolerate you public school teachers, hired by us, teaching our kids that sex before marriage is OK --or teaching kindergartners books promoting homosexual coupling and cross-dressing. I'm not saying they should teach the opposite on sexuality --they should at least be neutral on the culture wars and teach well the basic academic subjects, the three R's and so on. They ought not be trying to persuade our kids to a socially or politically liberal outlook on our dime. It's our kids, our money. Your academic freedom has a few limits --same as a Christian teacher's academic freedom does.

As for book burning. I'm not into that. But I know that librarians make new purchases, and thus they discriminate for or against some book titles. I think they can use our money to buy books that the majority of the people want the kids to have. You can call that censorship and book burning if you want; I call it discretionary selectivity with the people's money.

the parents need more input into running the schools; instead, the school boards are typically urged to be worthless as reps for parents on what is actually taught and promoted in our public schools.

that's why so many choose home school and Christian schools.

Rob R said...

Wow! You are even more paranoid than mommy!

Why would that make me paranoid? It's no threat to me. It's just a recognition that your view of evangelicals and the over the top statements of anonymous really coincide. If I'm wrong and it's not you, it's really no big deal to identify what is in fact two birds of a feather, cause the persona is clearly a fake exageration. It could be someone who is so out of touch with reality that they seem fake, but I highly doubt that is the case.

mud_rake said...

I don't mind letting anonymous make a fool of himself --he always posts right after you, Mudrake, so I think we know who he is.

You do?

So do I.

Very clever stuff.

Could this 'anonymous' person be, by any chance, one of the 'regulars' here?

I think so.

Here's what you can do, barbara:

1.)go to SETTINGS on your Blooger Dashboard;

2.) click COMMENTS;

3.) choose Registered Users - includes OpenID;

4.) scroll to the bottom and click SAVE CHANGES

There you go, barbara. Now you won't be 'bothered' by that pesky 'anonymous' poster whom you believe [in your neurotic state of mind] is me.

Rob R said...

Mudrake, what she said was very simple and you took it to mean the exact opposite of what she said. Have you been taking english lessons from angry drunk French bloggers?

Barb said...

Why tell me how to close comments to a restricted group when I've never expressed an interest in doing that --like you have? I SAID, I don't care if anony wants to make a fool of himself here, a caricature of a Christian who resembles more YOUR view of Christians than what a Christian really is like.

kateb said...

Someone has very serious control issues. Possibly even aging male ego syndrome? I'm not a psychologist, but one is definitely called for under the circumstance.

If one wants to control the operation of a blog - shouldn't it at least belong to them?

Fair is fair, after all.

Barb said...

MUDrake wrote: "DON'T ACCUSE ME OF MAKING ______ ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ON YOUR BLOG WHEN YOU WILL NOT DISALLOW ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.

WHAT AN IDIOT YOU ARE!"

November 2, 2008 7:40 AM
________________
Mudrake, you make no sense!!! (I deleted your original for bad language, omitted here.) I don't have to disallow anybody --and I have every right to suspect anyone of being the blogger, Anonymous. In fact, you ARE an anonymous blogger --all the time, carefully hiding your ID.

Barb said...

Kateb -- there certainly is an anger problem, at least --with extreme intolerance.

kateb said...

Barb - this is your blog. You make the rules. If someone doesn't like it - they can make their own blog. (Maybe even one that people would want to visit).

It reminds me of the time last summer I took the kids to the Grand Hotel on Mackinaw Island.

They were bothered by the idea that dinner was formal. Men in Tuxedo's or suits. Women in formal dresses. No exceptions.

The kids said, "they can't do that".

I said - oh yes they can. This is their hotel. They own this place and they set the rules for it.

If you do not like it - you lay out the money to buy your own hotel and then you can set the rules for it.

But for you to stand here without having put forth the effort and the money out to own this place and then think that somehow you are entitled to have an opinion on how it is run - is just wrong.

This is not your hotel.

So, I told them that if they want to be the King of the the castle and set the rules - they should buy their own castle.

They had no voice about how this castle is being run - because it wasn't theirs.

Barb - I say to you - this is your blog. Why would you engage in dialogue about how it should be run?

If someone wants free speech and freedom from 'censorship' - they need to make their own blog. But they cannot dictate how you run yours.

Pressure from a clearly unbalanced individual should not make you have to explain yourself.

Of course Obama would take that hotel and give it to someone else - because successful people who do thing like own hotels need to be punished.

Barb said...

Actually, Mudly would agree with your view that he owns his blog and can tell people to stay off of it --just because they debate him too well --and point out that his view is warped,skewed, even libelous--and definitely WRONG.

I do think he comes here in hopes that he will get more Christian readers at his blog, to see his insults of them there.

I think bloggers who write about religious and social and political issues should welcome comments from diverse points of view --and should expect opposition --but of course, when they lie and make accusations of bigotry and racism about named individuals, they don't want any rebuttal --any truth.

I first found Mudrake's blog because a friend googled me and found he was maligning me by name after I wrote a Blade letter about state Board of Ed candidates. The Blade concluded we voters rejected the creationist candidates and I merely wrote in to say we couldn't even find out which candidates believed what --because I had tried. So I didn't agree that the state board race was a referendum on creationism or ID theory in schools. All candidates were apparently "stealth candidates" not wanting their ideology to be known. Like judges.

Mudrake's subsequent article about me when I got that letter printed was libelous. Sprinkled with just enough facts to make him sound like he knew me from my school board days, when I did meet up with a few nasty liberals --not nasty because they were liberal --but nasty about it --like he and Microdot.

So I have gone to his blog --unwelcome and often deleted --simply to defend TRUTH. As you can see, he often writes about Bible-believing religious folks in a most untrue and angry, hateful way. I enter his discussions, unwelcome and unbowed --because he lies and I'm sorry that others will believe him.

That's when I say free speech should be honored in Blogville by all good bloggers --not to be vile and malevolent, however --but to exchange VIEWS on issues --and to refute untruths --and misconceptions. To try to understand one another better, at least.

Giving Mudly the benefit of the doubt --a little --he really believes what he writes --and believes INTENSELY, obsessively. And that's very sad and tragic for his soul. And misleading to his few readers who don't know any better.

Don and Steve are examples of liberal bloggers who usually have pretty good manners. We are posted on each other's blogrolls.

so I do know that liberal doesn't have to mean hateful or evil. Some of my good friends are liberals --not many--but some. Of course, I think they are deluded or ignorant --as they think I am.
but that doesn't mean we can't get along--or even both be Christians.

Yeah, I know, it's hard to believe --but some liberals are real believers and followers of Christ --but they have sat under too many liberal profs. OR they just had democrat background since childhood and still see that party as for the common man and the poor and humble. Which is how the party portrays itself. But I think it's become a party of elitist agnostics --who want no evidence of faith in the public or the private square.

My husband and I are bemoaning the Obama presidency --and the effect it will have on the Christians. We eventually will not be allowed to preach or teach against homosexuality or discriminate in hiring --possibly not even in the church. We won't be able to protect public school kids from gay indoctrination and other "enlightened" sex ed. When you look at the Christian's position in other nations --you see what could happen to us if we don't stop preaching traditional morals in the USA. Or if we continue to say "Christ is the only way to God."

Sandra Day O'connor joined a 3 judge panel --that ruled that this AFr. American town council member could not pray "in Jesus name." The members signed up to take turns opening council with prayer--but he was forbidden to say, "In Jesus' Name." Sandra ruled against him. It is on its way to the Supreme Court. If Obama replaces any swing votes on the Supreme court with sure liberals, we will see much social change in America --and it won't be good. Of course, the ACLU will, in the end, say the council cannot open with any prayer and the ACLU judges will agree. Though it is free exercise and it was not the establishment of any one religion to open with prayer as they did.

The ACLU is currently challenging the military tradition of a chaplain praying before lunch at one of the academies. A dignified formality that truly hurts no one of any faith --only the atheists --they can't stand anyone's faith publically expressed.

we're not going to like what we get with Obama judges.

steve said...

I'd just like to point out that I don't consider myself "liberal". I'm an issues person and tend to be pretty much center, or a little left of center on many issues, but then again I'm right of center on many issues like gun control, or gay marriage. I didn't have a political thought in my head until I joined the USMC. So blame them if you think me too LIBERAL. I just want whats fair for everybody. It's not fair that gays want to infringe on the religious significance of the word "marriage", but it is equally unfair for society to not allow them to join in permenant unions and enjoy the same financial and social benifits that married people enjoy.. so "marriage" NO, but civil unions YES. That's just an example of my thinking on most issues.

Barb said...

What do they need from a "civil union?" that they can't have by living together, sharing expenses and ownership, leaving things to each other in wills, having contracts, etc.? I dont' think there's much they really NEED from a civil union.

Barb said...

Steve: "... but it is equally unfair for society to not allow them to join in permenant unions and enjoy the same financial and social benifits that married people enjoy.."

Why is it not fair? They can shun sinful homosexual thoughts and temptations like adultery and pedophilic and polygamous and incestuous thoughts --and marry one person of the opposite sex and have those benefits enjoyed by heteromarried couples. NO one is stopping them.

Again, what benefits --other than society's approval--are they seeking that they can't get by way of the law now?

Pedophiles are restricted and scorned. Adulterers don't really have societal respect and approval typically. Incestors are locked up like pedophiles. These all feel a compulsion to have sex the way they want it, with whom they want it. These all have trouble being monogamous and normal and chaste. What makes homosexuals so special that we should approve them and sanctify their unions???

Barb said...

Of course, they want the work benefits, pensions and health policies, that employees can get for their spouses. But typically, both gays work and typically, they do well enough in their incomes, better than average. THEY HAVE NO KIDS TO SPEND MONEY ON, TYPICALLY. So why should they have the perks reserved for married people --who typically have kids (though not always) --who raise those kids at considerable time and expense and sacrifice to educate and civilize the next generation.

Gays only have themselves to worry about. Let them earn their own benefits as for single people. Spousal benefits are a traditional and appropriate recognition that a male employee is responsible for his wife and kids. There is no reason for a single person or a gay couple to get in on these benefits. They'll do well enough on their own. IT ONLY ADDS TO THE NATIONAL FINANCIAL CRUNCH. Of course, having a gay partner with AIDS creates a need for spousal benefits --but they can get their care from some other source. AIDS typically is self-imposed; why should employers have to help pay for spousal healthcare for a VERY preventable condition that society traditionally forbade or discouraged, warned against?

crusader09 said...

I'm mildly disturbed by some of the comments here, the ones that stood out are this:

1. Barb, AIDS exposure is not exclusively in the homosexual community any longer. And the origin of the AIDS virus is NOT clear. It is documented that the first cases documented were in five gay men in LA, but it is unlikely that they "invented" the virus. And I do not think that, just by being gay and engaging in sex that way, one is "self-inflicting" AIDS...

These misconceptions are part of the reason that people who are NOT gay and have NOT been IV drug users and have NOT done anything wrong, but contract AIDS from exposure in another way are stigmatized. These kinds of generalizations are cruel, and I don't think you're a cruel woman...

2. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a contract. Now, you and I and several of the rest of you know that marriage, spiritually, is so much more than just a contract. But the government is concerned with marital assets and children and so forth, not the morality of the marriage. If we want the government to decide on the morality of marriages (gay or straight) we're opening up a can of worms that I think we just don't want to deal with.

Why can't two consenting adults enter into a contract? If that is the marriage contract, in the government's eyes, that should be permitted (in my opinion). What social stigmas come with that are a different matter, however.

As far as putting homosexuals in with pedophiles and the like... that's not fair because the government doesn't view them in the same way. Homosexuality is NOT illegal, between consenting adults.

I've brought this up in another post, and I'll cover it better tomorrow, when I've had sleep :)

Barb said...

There is no need under the sun to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples.

Everybody--including me--knows that AIDS is an STD afflicting people other than the promiscuous--other than the gays --but a monogamous-for-life couple will never get it from sex if they didn't first get it from transfusion, IV drug use or their own birth.

Gays did bring it to the USA. A Canadian flight attendant is thought to be particularly responsible for infecting thousands. CDC traced the spread from haiti via gay vacationers from NYC and San Francisco and LA, etc. --and Haiti got it from Africa --and they thought the green monkeys might have been a source but didn't conclude how.

I don't feel or reccognize in others any stigma against people because they have AIDS or are HIV positive. I feel sorry for them.

but it's true that Newsweek lamented a few years back that despite our knowledge of AIDS, the young gays, new to the gay community, were still extremely promiscuous and engaging in high risk activities and not using condoms.

For the gays, it is a self-inflicted disease as the Bible suggests in Romans 1 --as are all STD's when we get them by being promiscuous. Granted, sleeping with one person one time who is diseased can give us STD's --and a husband can bring it home to a monogamous wife and vice versa.

So the status of being diseased with any STD does not mean one has been promiscuous.

And even if one is promiscuous, I'm certainly for curing them. But I do think that our gov't and charity AIDS aid should always be given with education in favor of no risk life-time monogamy--as well as the reduced risk of condom use. Otherwise, the promiscuity will continue to perpetuate the problem.

Barb said...

Homosexuality was illegal very recently in Texas and some other states. (Sodomy was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled recently that it was a privacy issue for consenting adults.)

Homosexuality is illegal in the Bible --as is theft, murder and adultery. Our nation does not defend theft, murder and adultery--so why defend homosexuality as "legal." We don't criminalize adultery--but we don't have pride parades for it either.

Get back to basics, Crusader. Two men cannot be a marriage. They can be domestic partners with contracts about sharing property --but even domestic partners should not have to say they are SEXUAL partners --as Toledo required recently.

and it is wrong to give so called "spousal benefits" to same sex partners --because those are for people who contribute children to the future. It was a recognition that a man might have a wife who raised the children --and his company benefits would help to take care of her.

When a couple divorces, the parents are still responsible for their children. An employer should not have to bestow benefits on Mom's new girlfriend or Dad's new boyfriend. they can't make kids together ever. Let the new lesbian lover take care of herself.

Barb said...

Crusader writes: "As far as putting homosexuals in with pedophiles and the like... that's not fair because the government doesn't view them in the same way."

For my rationale, gov't's view of homosexuals vs. pedophiles is irrelevant. The gov't's perspective isn't necessarily right. What exactly is unfair about likening the sexual sins to each other?

I told you the LAW is a teacher and has taught the masses that abortion is a procedure, not a death. So it is that you are saying that if the gov't doesn't view homosexuality similar to pedophilia, that means something to you.

Yes, pedophilia is worse to involve minors. However, I believe most homosexuals idolize the adolescent male, the young man in his prime--just the way heterosexuals lust for the once teen-age Brittany spears --the young women, whether or not she is 17 or 18. Without looking it up, I believe it's safe to say most pedophiles are male with a same sex preference. Be that as it may, I compare them because the Bible specifically denounces homosexual acts. Such acts are preceded by temptation --and such thoughts can be barred at the gate from one's mind --not entertained --but JUST EXACTLY LIKE ADULTERY, PEDOPHILIA, RAPE, INCEST AND BESTIALITY, THE TEMPTATION COMES THROUGH THE LUST OF THE EYES INTO THE BRAIN WHERE IT BECOMES VAIN IMAGINATIONS --and leads to sinful acts --that could've been stopped at the first thought --but instead the thought was allowed to find a home in the head --that led to sin against people and against God.

Christians must not forget that while homosexuality isn't the only sin --or the worst of sins (though the Bible trounces it pretty soundly as something God hates, as rooted in self-love and rejection of the truth about God--believing a lie) --nevertheless homosexuality is one that goes so against God's design plan for our bodies, and His divine image of male and female as one flesh. It is a sin that we are wrongly calling inevitable and unchangeable --when thousands of ex-gays testify otherwise. It is a sin that we are celebrating with parades and pushing to children and asking society to make legitimate in marriage --and every gay couple is a mockery of a real hetero marriage. There is a certain ridiculousness to these "weddings" that make you think of Mardi Gras parades. Because it is unnatural and weird and ....SINFUL.

I know I'm taking a STRONG stand --and that can be misinterpreted as unsympathetic or unkind to gays, transgenders and the like. I actually have enormous compassion, one on one, with a gay who wishes he weren't gay --who really believes he wouldn't choose this orientation. I don't have much sympathy for those who are nasty and hateful about their difference --who delight in it --who jump in the hot tub and want the younger straight guys to join them.