"It's possible not to approve of somebody's choices and to hold fast to that moral stand - but still treat them with love, respect, and understanding as a human being."

That's never been in question. Maybe not every Christian has succeeded in that, but never been a doubt that that is what it is all about.

There is no such thing as modern or post-modern evangelism. There is only actions guided by the Holy Spirit, and actions which are not guided by the Holy Spirit. There is only one Spirit, and there is only one Salvation.

It would be wonderful if everyone could accept both the love of Christ and his admonition to "Go and sin no more." Most of the stories in the gospels are of that miraculous change. A few - like the rich young ruler - tragically find this to be too hard, and he was a 'better' man than I.

I don't expect anyone to be perfect. But God desires us to be perfect. I need forgiveness. God grants us forgiveness.

But only if we are willing to repent. Only if we are willing to try things His way. Faltering and failing, you still have to try.

I'm sorry that that is hard to hear. It's the saddest thing in the world when people hear it and turn away.

Ever gay out there can expect my friendship, my sympathy, my compassion, and if I can offer it my aid. I can do no less. My sins are as great as they, and yet I was - and am - forgiven. I understand what its like to be broken inside. I understand what it is like to fail. I understand what its like to be lonely and rejected. My Savior understands these things too.

There may be some path out there which starts with getting approval and acceptance and doesn't involve change. It might seem like an easy path to walk on. It's easy to think that what we really want is just for someone to say "That's OK." everytime something happens. I don't know where that path goes and I fear to find out. There is only one Way, one Truth, and one Life.

You can have my unconditional love, as best as I am able in broken failing self. You can have my Father's unconditional love, which never fails. What you can't have is unconditional approval, and until people realize that unconditional approval isn't love, then everybodies hearts are going to stay broken.

You said yourself. These are words written by Christians out of the brokenness of thier hearts, for other Christians. They are not weapons to be used against Christians to try to get Christianity to become something that it is not. I know what the writers are going through. We've all gone through those places. But the simple facts of the matter is that sex belongs between a man and a woman with a life long responcible commitment to each other bound by a covenent with God in partnership, and its never going to belong anywhere else. It isn't always clear that it has to be that way, and we are prone to thinking that we know best and that there has to be another way. We all like sheep have gone astray each in our own fashion.

What am I to say? I can't say things that will please your readers. I'm not even sure if I can say what I feel clear enough to be heard. I confess there are plenty of people out there who call themselves Christians who haven't a drop of love in thier hearts. But be as that may, I'm still getting tired of being told by people that I have to change and I have to comprimise, by people who are themselves clearly unwilling to consider change.

The linked articles were very good. Been there, done that in my own life with close friends!

Celebrim, you added something the writers did not say which may cause you to rethink your reply; specifically, the gay friend was not identified as a Christian. I have unconditional love for numerous unsaved friends, which I believe is proper. I also know my love for them will not provide them salvation, and it is always my hope and prayer that they will come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

If a friend claims to be a Christian and continues to live in sin (e.g., a gay lifestyle), then we've got a different situation which wasn't addressed in the articles. I suspect I would handle this relationship much the same as I would a Christian friend who willfully maintains an adulterous relationship. I would still love the person, but clearly express my concern and disapproval regarding their sinful behavior. If living in sin persisted, the relationship would suffer but the love would continue.

It makes me so sad to read these comments. God cannot hate or condemn anyone who loves truly and faithfully. The Bible has maybe 3 million verses on the subject of love and perhaps 7 on homosexuality. Which message do you think Jesus would have believed is more important? -- and remember when answering that Jesus hung out with a prostitute.

Which message do you think Jesus would have believed is more important? -- and remember when answering that Jesus hung out with a prostitute.

He was not endorsing prostitution either.

And btw, a more modern english translation would have called her an ex-prostitute, as the whole point was that she turned away from her old ways, was forgiven, because she turned away and asked to be forgiven.

Jesus is gifting you redemption, not License.

"Celebrim, you added something the writers did not say which may cause you to rethink your reply; specifically, the gay friend was not identified as a Christian."

I'm not sure I see where that matters. You aren't I hope saying that everyone sets thier own standards for what is moral?

"I have unconditional love for numerous unsaved friends, which I believe is proper. I also know my love for them will not provide them salvation, and it is always my hope and prayer that they will come to a saving knowledge of Christ."

Agreed.

"If a friend claims to be a Christian and continues to live in sin (e.g., a gay lifestyle), then we've got a different situation which wasn't addressed in the articles. I suspect I would handle this relationship much the same as I would a Christian friend who willfully maintains an adulterous relationship."

Also agreed.

"I would still love the person, but clearly express my concern and disapproval regarding their sinful behavior."

The only thing that changes between a Christian in sin and a non-Christian in sin is on a case by case basis a Christian can probably bear the strain of chastisement better than the non-Christian, simply because at some level the Christian knows better and understands that you are expressing your disapproval out of concern. But ultimately, no matter the salvation experience of the friend - something we aren't a judge over anyway - I think it still comes down to this:

"If living in sin persisted, the relationship would suffer but the love would continue."

child of god: Greetings brother.

"It makes me so sad to read these comments."

Actually, I could say the same, and I think I will. It makes me so sad to read these comments.

"God cannot hate or condemn anyone who loves truly and faithfully."

Can any of us apart from God love truly and faithfully? If we could love truly and faithfully, then surely our own righteousness would be enough to save us. But God alone is holy.

"The Bible has maybe 3 million verses on the subject of love and perhaps 7 on homosexuality."

Yes, but it is pretty clear on its position in those seven verses. Besides which, while its certainly true that the Bible spends alot of time discussing God's love and mercy, remember that God is also a God of justice. The Bible spends a good deal of time reminding people of God's wrath in judgement lest they forget.

"Which message do you think Jesus would have believed is more important? -- and remember when answering that Jesus hung out with a prostitute.

A prostitute that changed her ways, fell on her face and tears, and begged forgiveness. Jesus healed the sick, lifted up the broken, spoke with the outcasts, but he never was satistfied with leaving people in thier sin. Jesus's compassion on those who confessed thier own need of salvation was limitless, but he also condemned all the self-righteous who did not believe that they needed salvation.

My basic problem with any one who persists in homosexual activity while professing to be a follower of God is that they are operating at much the same level of spiritual maturity as the person who claims to be a follower of God but stands on the street side and jeers, "Jesus Hates Fags". Both are utterly convinced of thier own righteousness, but neither is evidencing an outward character which suggests that the Holy Spirit is indwelling within them. Both seem to want to 'reimagine' God as a being in thier own image who judges only those people they believe are worthy of judgement, hates only those things they believe worthy of condemnation, and approves of every activity that they themselves approve of. We don't get to fashion God. We don't get to pick and choose, and we should be very fearful of describing God only in fuzzy warm terms designed to make us feel good about ourselves. That would truly be God as a opiate for our troubles. But the God of the Bible is no such comfortable God as man might make for himself to justify his behavior in his own eyes.

I tell you the truth brother, I worry for you when you say, "God cannot condemn anyone who loves truly and faithfully." But which of us has done that? Don't we all stand condemned before God? I really worry about Christians of every stripe - evangelical or gay - that seem to think that they only need to live 'a good life' and they'll obtain salvation. I really worry about Christians that dismiss the idea that judgement would ever fall on anyone who is basically 'likable' or 'a good guy' or who gets most of it right. It isn't only the guys walking around shouting 'Repent!' who can be guilty of self-righteousness. It's also the ones shouting back, 'We have nothing to repent of.'

That love manifests in hope and encouragment to change, not acceptance of immorality, even with the standard that we all fall short, you have to try, you can fail, and try again, but still have to try.

Course, none of this stuff is at the root of this conflict ... it isnt even close.

What all the friction is about, is our refusal to normalize perversity, we refuse to redefine the preverse as normalcy, we refuse to pull up the moral anchors, we refuse to join in the cultural marxist drift and civilsation destruction pogrom.

Gay day at disney is a no Families day. Purv park isnt the place for Kids. Commie Central Marin County or Berkely where white haired naked hippies and men in g-strings on a leash parade past 9 year old girls in Che T shirts is something we will never accept, they get arrested when they try that stuff here.

We will never see that as normal, or allow that in front of our kids. we refuse to surrender marrage, an institution for rasing kids and nothing else.

Thats what all this friction is about.
.

Y'all are pretty darn smug, celebrim, raymond. What happens when we prove that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, and that it is not a life style choice?

Also;
Gay day at disney is a no Families day. Purv park isnt the place for Kids. Commie Central Marin County or Berkely where white haired naked hippies and men in g-strings on a leash parade past 9 year old girls in Che T shirts is something we will never accept

Raymond, i know plenty of decent, honorable gay people. If i had children i'd sure a damn site rather trust them being with my gay friends than with you.

Just a small reminder--the guys that kidnap little girls and chop them up into lamb patties, umm, are those guys gay?

Y'all are pretty darn smug,

Smug .. interesting term for stating indesputable fact. its what the text means and says .

100% correct = Smug ?

Usually when you use the term "smug", your making an inference of overconfidence, but lots of things you can state as objective reality in what ever strident degree because you are irrefutable.

This is a case such as that, so "smug" would perhaps apply to you, assuming wrongly, that there was some room to question other than your ignorance.

celebrim, raymond. What happens when we prove that there is a biological basis for homosexuality

A thing for 9 year olds is a life style choice then ? animals ? people that have a thing for rubber and spikes, on a reindeer ? ?

and that it is not a life style choice?

People have gotten help for such maladies, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder before the marxist began to impliment communist goal 26. And people had been cured of their disorder.

CG 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Raymond, i know plenty of decent, honorable gay people. If i had children i'd sure a damn site rather trust them being with my gay friends than with you.

Because your morally twisted, Orewlls inversion of morality, the same thing that allows you to decide at what stage of growth (or aging) is the same Utilitarian ethic promulgated by the Professor Emertus of bioethics at Princton, Peter Singer, whos last contribution to a book comes after the chapter about sex with chickens.

"Adultery, incest, sex with children, sex with animals, arguing against any such sexual behavior becomes much more difficult once we decide that the notion of self-restraint is incoherent." -- Keyes

For some of us, our standards are higher. Not that I can pass Judgement on the whoevers you example, im certain they are nice to their pets. But I must set a moral example for my kids, and moral parents can be rather protective, perhaps you have noticed.

Just a small reminder--the guys that kidnap little girls and chop them up into lamb patties, umm, are those guys gay?

Yes, some are, depends on their motives, defective units come in quite the verity as well as common maladies, they are all sick, some are evil. you gonna call that a lifestyle choice too ?

Not all that chop up kids do their deeds in secret, some work in abortion clinics.

The ability of some to live birth all but the feet (due to a technicality) of an 8 month 3 week infant and then plunge a suction tube in the back pf the baby's little skull is even worse than the cases you mention.

Cause unlike those that murder kids for their mentally sick twisted passion, this ingrate is doing it for money, and murders far more of them.

A contract killer in a white smock ... they get the same contempt from me.
.
We tolerate certain behaviors from adults as along as they are not harming anyone else. But you will have to just excuse a knuckle dragger like me who would consider certain displays infront of my kids as harmfull. I dont want the schools pushing perversion normacly at my kids either.

I refuse Communist Goal #26,, delivered to the CPUSA from the NKVD/KGB, I refuse to Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." to my kids.

Its part of the stated communist program to destroy our society and violates my faith, and I will have no part in it.
.

"We tolerate certain behaviors from adults as along as they are not harming anyone else."

There are exceptions, Raymond. For example, see some of your longer screeds. These strain the tolerance of many with behaviors such as equating homosexuality and communism.

equating homosexuality and communism.

Is that what I said ? ... look again, dont twist what I said.

Communist Goal # 26 Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen

Uncle Cleon is one of those rare people who have had the opportunity to live multiple lives. Cleon was an outstanding FBI agent, working personally with J. Edgar Hoover; he cleaned up Salt Lake City while serving as it Chief of Police; he was a religious scholar, author, and professor at BYU; he was a leader in the fight against communism and founded the Center for Constitutional Studies

The commie goals come from FBI agents working as members of the CPUSA, most of their work is still classified, even as some stuff is being released, such as the verona trascript that vindicated John and Bobby Kennedy and Joe McCarthy.

Now you can twist that around all you want, but that "equating homosexuality and communism" nonsense when what I wrote is quite plain clear and utterly without "nuance", well, Humor, there a word.

Next time, dont be such a quickdraw. cause I think thats what happend.
.

I stand by my comment, Raymond. I don't find your attitude adds to the credibility of the conservative movement I support.

Try cold hard reality ,,, find an error .. a single error.

Just what im particular, do you refute ?

Objective truth has a virtue all its own, and denial for sake of fashion has none.

"Y'all are pretty darn smug, celebrim..."

We clearly have very different definitions of what 'smug' means. If you would please quote what I said that you find 'smug', I'd know better what constitutes 'smugness' to you.

"What happens when we prove that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, and that it is not a life style choice?"

Well, speaking as a scientist I think that that is rather highly unlikely that we will find a biological basis for homosexuality per se, anymore than we will find a biological basis for being turned on by latex, sneazes, or sheep. We will likely find markers that indicate a propensity for homosexuality (in fact we already have), but these markers will be found in hetrosexuals (and they are) and will probably turn out to map for characteristics like degree of sexual plasticity, degree of sexual responce, rather than homosexuality, and certainly not to being 'gay' (which is a relatively modern cultural invention any). So, while we might find things that say you are more likely to be homosexual, we have not and probably never will find something that means you will be homosexual.

That is not a religious answer of course, merely the scientific portion of my brain that deals with genetic sequences on a daily basis kicking in.

But, let's assume for the sake of argument that a marker is found in the genetic code which is exclusively found in homosexuals and is universally found in all homosexuals, and therefore indicates that people really do have no free will in thier sexual response. My suspicion is that in that case society would probably treat homosexuality as a genetic disease, and very likely could be treated by simply introducing into the subject at a suficiently young age a drug which either suppressed whatever misshapen protein was responcible for abnormal brain or endocrine development, or provided whatever protein was missing. The real question then would be whether society allowed people suffering from homosexuality the choice on whether they wanted treatment or whether treatment was forced on them. Obviously, if the drug needed to be administered early enough in development, then the patient would have no ability to make this choice and the guardians or society would make that choice for them.

In other words, if I were gay and wanted to celebrate that lifestyle, I'd very much be hoping that science didn't prove that I was 'made that way'.

But, stop for a second and note something VERY VERY VERY important. Gays are not making the argument that they were 'made that way' for scientific reasons, because it is not a scientific argument. Sure, short sighted gay researchers are all the time trying to prove with some shoddy science that gays are made that way, but the reason for doing so has nothing to do with understanding 'gayness' and everything to do with providing moral ammunition against theists/ creationists. If we were to approach this from a purely rationalist scientific standpoint, the idea that gay's had been granted gayness as the result of some random mutation in thier genetic code would not at all be comforting or helpful to thier case that being homosexual was normal.

No, you are better off assuming that homosexuality is a choice.

And lets be perfectly frank. Common sense backed up by a healthy ammount of practical experience and a little bit of scientific training should indicate to you that it is a choice. You are I, should we so desire, could go out and find a homosexual partner, and human sexual responce being what it is, we could probably have a pretty enjoyable experience on some level. All we'd have to do would be simply open our minds to except that experience. I'm 100% sure that my imagination and voilition is strong enough to manage it.

I simply choose not to.

"What happens when we prove that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, and that it is not a life style choice?"

This is also an awful argument because many unacceptable behaviors probably have a genetic basis. For instance, violent behavior has been proven to have a genetic basis in some men who have double Y chromosomes. Just because they have a genetic tendency toward violent behavior doesn't mean we should normalize such behavior or make excuses for it. I wouldn't be shocked to find that serial killers or pedophiles have some sort of genetic tendency as well. I think this is where nature collides with nurture.

A genetic expression would filter itself out anyway, Gay pairs dont produce offspring.

Every genetic mutation that hampers reporduction in some way would mute itself, congentical defects dont spread when they kill the host too quick, they must lie dormant long enough for reproduction.

celebrim, yeah, im not so sure the angle they are looking for in redefining it into a birth defect.

If that was true, then the last examples would be born before the testing kit was distributed

They would abort every child with the marker, and that would be that.

I started out a total Atheist racist biggot btw.

I was a science nerd/geek before geek was cool, was building hi power RF amps of a killowatt and up before puberty got started, grew up in worship of Segan and Gould, and learned how the universe worked by making electrons my playthings ,,

It was the impetus to learn atomic structure and the nature of matter, and to learn physics in detail.

Which, kinda helped to design stable amps, and later early computer busses that didnt suffer from phase sync problems and microphonics ...

Speed of light is too dang slow when your attempting to get a complete buss cycle to the end of and back when the length and propagation delay thwarts your attempt to get the byte back before the read clock expires.

Today, even the distances across the CPU die are at issue, never mind the problems on the front side buss. thats the reason they are using polyphase (DDR) because you cant otherwise double the clock without cutting the distance in half.

But if you study the universe, you will find god staring back at you. I was quite a leet geek, but in so many other ways .. I was young and stupid.

Not so young any more .. not so stupid, still a geek... see the world differently.
.

Raymond RE #11... Robin is correct to note that you're making an irrelevant argument.

Following Hitler's attack on the USSR (and ONLY after that point), the CPUSA's platform also included opposition to Naziism. Noting that this was exactly what the commies wanted gets us where, exactly?

Nowhere. Hence dumb and embarrasing argument (ot at least, it ought to result in embarassment), as Robin noted.

Gay rights has been a libertarian critique as well as a leftist one, via a mindset that sees the state having no business in the bedrooms of the nation. The difference is that a freedomist isn't interested in using the state's coercive power to force others to go against their own conscience and approve. This is considered especially dangerous when religion is involved (church:state separation works both ways).

I would think that as someone who promotes freedom and less government interference, that you would be more familiar with that aspect of the argument. Many young conservatives are these days, which may explain why families, commitment et. al. show up strongly in their polls as a priority - but gay-related issues seem leave them a lot less interested.

As for "perverse" - I adjudicate that term based on the way people treat others, not their sexual practices. There are aspects of the gay "scene" that are loveless, narcissistic, and destructive. They're fair game for criticism. Then again, so are the relationship practices of not a few heterosexuals I know, which could rightfully be described in the exact same terms.

On the flip side, I know couples of both persuasions whose relationship, coimmittment, and treatment of each other are exemplary. Calling that perverse because of who they chose to go out with strikes me as, well, perverse. Also destructive and counterproductive if you're really trying to shore up society's foundations.

I'm not going to have a lot of respect for arguments like that, and I'll lose respect for the folks making them because it sounds to my ears like hate rather than a real moral objection (actually, the tone mirrors those I often hear from the Left these days). If you have a problem with homosexuality because The Bible/ Koran/ Jewish law says it's wrong and that's you're guiding light, OK that's different.

But tone matters (yours is incredibly hostile), because it reflects what's inside.

That's why I was pleased to see the links noted in my post, describing human rather than political experiences and the ability to act with love for another as a human being first and foremost in one's heart. You read it, but your comments tell me you didn't quite get the concept.

Actually, it's where we all need to start.

Gay rights has been a libertarian critique as well as a leftist one, via a mindset that sees the state having no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

Thats a different argument, im against pot laws because they are a direct violation of the constitution, there is no volstead act for drugs.

Dont mean im pro pot, (even tho hemp bio diesil sounds kinda neat.)

I celebrated the striking down of the sodomy law too, its none of the govts business

Homosexuality as is topical here is a private matter between adults, again, the state has no place inserting itself in that, and the freedom to do, whatever it is you want to do in your private space is pretty dang basic.

Thats a political argument, based, rooted, in the Classical Liberal principle of Freedom and Liberty, freedom from govt medling, as well as the govt having a duty to prevent interference by others in a free mans private affairs

Its a core founding principle of the country.

So the gay man has rights that must be respected, if his is not mine are in danger also.

None of this has much to do with faith other than the faith that resided in those that founded a country based on these principles (they didnt come from no where).

But all of that, is a seperate issue with the moral issue, you can respect the person but condemn the behavior,, inso much as it violates the moral standards of my faith. and violates the rights of a familly to pass on their religion and values to their kids.

The point I made in #11 is a fact, part of an agenda given to the left by the KGB as things to do to undermine and weaken our society and country.

Homosexuality was redefined by the left and droped of the list of mental illnesses when the left got control of the board.

Geoff Metcalf lists them here

The target, was the kids, the moral foundation of the country is the familly, every socialist state has targeted it. with the aim to make man too incompetent to retain his freedom.

The entire chafe point about the Chrsitian / Gay thing has nothing to do with the liberty to do what you want, but the agenda to force immoraity on the kids.

At that point, he has taken license with his liberty and trespassed onto mine. or its the state doing the same.
.
Christianity does not embrace hedonism, its by defintion immoral, defined as immoral by americas founding authority for morality.
.
The rest of the planet might be defining deviancy down, rushing to Embrace Peter Singer but our moral anchors are more fixed.

Frankly the entire issue reminds me of the Summer flap

Reality is anathema to campus feminists, whose careers depend on expounding agitprop as science. Instead of viewing Summer’s assessment for what it entails, the exercise of “individual choice” in combination with Harvard’s long-standing policy of choosing professors based on their actual ability; feminists immediately turned to their traditional subversive political and Freudian psychological techniques.

Where again. reality for good or bad, cant be touched for political reasons, the made up dreamworld must continue instead.

Tammy Bruce told us what was going on

Of course not. We’ll throw that kid on the garbage heap so gay malignant narcissists can feel more “normal” by making kids be just like them. While the gay establishment refuses to address the impact our histories have on our sexual identity, I refuse to let that cowardice take children as its next victims.

We gay adults should do what we can to be happy individuals, as long as we’re decent about it and no one gets hurt. Hijacking the identity of a child is an unforgivable breach of that line. For all of us, enduring the wrath of some malignant narcissists is the least we owe children whose very lives rely on the courage of those of us who know better.

She is another Classical Liberal like me, shes also gay, and an expat from NOW. She was president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women from 1990 1996, and served on NOWs National Board of Directors

The Death of Right and Wrong, Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values By Tammy Bruce Review by Courtney Rosenbladt

Bruce started to notice a pattern of behavior among the Left of which she herself was guilty: many passionate leaders of the Left usually came out of a very traumatic past, such as child molestation or abuse, or an abusive relationship later in life. And usually this type of traumatic experience made them very angry at the world. The problem, she argues, is that they try "to shape our world to mirror their own damaged psyches." And it is their damage that holds them together.

Bruce proposes a diagnosis: a form of pathological narcissism called malignant narcissism. Pathological narcissism is "a pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of all others and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, dominance, and ambition."

When pathological narcissism reaches "the aggressively destructive stage," it becomes malignant narcissism. Malignant narcissism "is very much connected with evil and with a number of clinical forms that evil takes, such as the pleasure and enjoyment in controlling others, in making them suffer, in destroying them, or the casual pleasure in using others' trust and confidence and love to exploit them and to destroy them." Malignant narcissism, Bruce argues, drives the Left Elite.

Bruce claims that, "What I am seeing today in the activist ranks of NOW and in the gay-power elite is something of which I have firsthand knowledge."

She admits that, due to her own damage, she "was subconsciously attracted to the political spectrum that feeds on, exploits, and ultimately projects its demons onto the culture."

She recalls being in NOW board meetings where, if she didn't know better, she would have thought she had walked into a group therapy session.

The problem is not that they have had horrible experiences and talk about it openly (this would seem relatively healthy); the problem is how they face it by not really facing it.

They leave out the final stage of recovery - "the stage where the group is supposed to concern itself with 'reintegrating the survivor into the community of ordinary people.'" But, instead, they remain perpetual victims. The victim's mindset becomes their morality.

What we end up with is a reversal of morality altogether. When everyone is a victim, there is no right or wrong, just victims.

In this worldview, we need to learn to understand the terrorists who attacked us on September 11. "Convicting a woman who kills her children becomes wrong,"

Bruce writes. It is acceptable for a deaf lesbian couple to intentionally create a deaf child. And it is vogue for gay men to seek out partners who have HIV.

One gay man even said, "When you get with someone who has HIV, it's like being with someone greater than you are." In a society where victims are glorified, of course it is.

Ms. Bruce does not endorse a single religion, and she makes this point very clear several times throughout the book. But, she does believe Judeo-Christian ethics are the answer, especially the Cardinal Virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude.

It is to the Left's benefit to destroy Christianity because it endorses a code of ethics that threaten "their hollow agenda." Judeo-Christian ethics teach personal responsibility, honesty, courage, and the one the Left really hates: abstinence.

So, going to dismiss her as a wild eyed cassadra ? I dont, I think she describes an accurate picture of a large portion of whats going on. And its those she is talking about that we have the problem with, that she has a problem with.

For Christian morality, Homosexuality is on a par with Adultery, people do it, for the most part its legal, the state certainly isnt going to stop you. I cant stop you, ill tell you its a bad idea, I dont approve, dont ask me to accept it as normal natural and healthy in the positive affirming agenda laden manner as advocated in communist goal #26

Because then, once you embrace communist goal #26 and the agenda of the left elite that Tammy is warning about, now your talking about something of far more import than simple homosexualty or adultery, now your attempting to undermine the values of my kids.

Thats where the static is. its what the fuss is about. its the friction that caused the ripples in the pond you was looking at that brought you to post on this subject.

Now I want to point at something I was wondering how I could get to, might even sound more on point with the links you featured, you might think i should have gotten here first, perhaps, but it would have been backwards.

If you read What Tammy is attempting to tell us, Both Tammy Herself, those she talks about (not nessisarially the targets of he ire, but those too),,,, AND, the Woman in the weeping hug in one of the stories.

The possibility that your looking at broken people, she is going to need more than a hug (does help tho) to find some peace with her problems, and they are not all a product of her dad in a weak (or typical) moment of disapointment.

No, real breakage there, but we are not allowed to notice, address, consider any breakage, instead its the normalcy agenda.

refusal to accept the normalcy agenda does not mean you give them doses of sadistic bastard, christians dont do that to people in pain.

But it also means that you are allowed to accept that there is breakage.

Its what Tammy has done in herself, she has rejected the normalcy agenda, she is all over and done with the lies, if you read her books, it has done more to heal her hurts than 10,000 years of the normalcy agenda ever could

She would tell you wrongheaded compassion like that isnt compassion at all, your not helping them.

Which of course is a caustic anathma to the current leftist PC doctrine that causes as large a bonfire as the Summer flap where objective reality, what is self evident from brain structure and observed behavior in 10,000+ years of human history and all of our science, that was all tossed overboard for a fraudulent political agenda

There is more to this issue that has been allowed to be discussed, the current leftist orthadoxy is not helping.

The other article stated, the fella found that the more fundmentalist the Christian, the more accepting he found them .. as if thats a surprise,

Well perhaps to those that know nothing about us other than leftist attack propaganda, that exists for the reason Tammy stated above, that paints us all as the same as Terror bomber fanatics or the creeps that dragged that poor fellow behind their pickup truck.

We have words we call those, punks and thugs. but the leftist media points at people like me.

According to leftist propaganda, we are evil incarnate,, well fine no skin off my nose. But not so good for the broken souls looked upon that started this thread.

For those, to dispense with the Lies might help, not that leftist fake crap about genetic markers and holding up broken people as normal.

Tammy isnt the only person that will echo the key features of her story, she is more the rule than the exception, even as she related how many hours she spent with others like her in almost "group therapy", but the point that they was just like her, the rule, not the exception.

Throw away the lies and the fraud, the leftist agenda that revised the medical doctrine for reasons of agenda, throw it all away, forget the normalcy fraud.

Look at the breakage and the pain. that you will often find expressing itself in quite odd ways from emotional quirks to eating disorders, dispense with the political correctness crap, and you will see it.

They can never heal otherwise. the normalcy agenda is politics, its Communist goal #26, it had nothing to do with medicine or benevolent intent. its agenda, not medicine, its a fraud, breakage and pain isnt normal, they cant deceave themselves they are normal, they know they are broken, they can show you the pain, as soon as its politicaly correct to offer it up for some medicine.

I don't defend the tone with which Raymond makes his argument. I don't defend his debating skills, his failure to use proper punctuation, or his inability to identify his audience and employ argumentative devices which make them comfortable.

But neither should he have to defend his tone, debating skills, or the fact that he apparantly can't present his line of thought in a way that avoids upsetting you. He should primarily have to defend his argument, and that he is doing (once you sift out some of the things he's saying out of his own frustration).

Ultimately, all those things are of little importance. The skill of a writer or speaker shouldn't be what persuades or dissuades us. If a person gets in our face and acts like a jerk and says alot of things that get our blood boiling, it may well be true that that person shouldn't have acted like a jerk, but whether someone is a jerk or rude or offensive or not isn't the real point. What matters is whether they are correct. Charisma is not the same as intelligence. It would be wonderful if the people with the best insight were always the people who could best convey thier insight, but it doesn't always work that way.

It's probably impossible for us to do, but we should always hold an opponent's argument in the best light possible. If the opponent's argument contains a logical flaw, could we make the same argument in a stronger way? If we could, would it be persuasive? If the opponent's argument is delivered in a harsh and unfriendly tone, could we make the argument in a more respectful manner? If we could, would it be persuasive?

What I find interesting Joe, is when you attacked Raymond's argument, you basically made three points. First, that Raymond wasn't libertarian enough in his principles for you. But as a practical matter of what Raymond wants to see legally, I can find no basis for that statement. Secondly, you made an claiming that the fact that dismissed claims against homosexual relationships on the basis that hetrosexual relationships were also often flawed. This is logical falacy based on a false connection (a form of non sequitur); whether or not hetrosexual relationships are often flawed has no real influence on the subject. Children make this sort of argument all the time. "Jimmy did it too." is not a defence. It's worth nothing that Raymond could freely admit your point that hetrosexual relationships are often flawed and immoral and not be forced to change his position in any fashion. Thirdly, you said that Raymond's argumentative style discounted his conclusions. This is an argument of style over substance, and it is a form of changing the subject similar to an ad hominem attack.

As far as I can tell, the only thing of substance you really differ on is the definition of 'perverse'. Oxford English Dictionary uses the following: "1. Turned away from the right way or from what is right or good; perverted; wicked. b. Not in accordance with the accepted standard or practice; incorrect; wrong. c. spec. Of a verdict: Against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 2. Obstinate or persistent in what is wrong; selfwilled or stubborn (in error). 3. Untoward, froward; disposed to go counter to what is reasonable or required; hence, wayward, petulant, cross-grained, ill-tempered, peevish."

Feel free to discuss, but right from the start I think I can say that the basic point of contention will be whether or not it is enough for a sexual relationship to be consensual in order to make it moral.

Lastly, why is it that debates on the internet are dominated by the discourse of the most extreme? Must a debate be heated and emotional before it is interesting?

"Secondly, you made an claiming that the fact that dismissed claims against homosexual relationships on the basis that hetrosexual relationships were also often flawed."

Err.. what I was trying to say was something like:

"Secondly, you made an argument that dismissed claims against homosexual relationships on the basis that hetrosexual relationships were also often flawed."

Yeah, my writing sucks, and I wouldnt know how to insert a tone if you rubbed my face in the controls. I once heard say my excuse for writing was based on the early drafts of the Monty Python Argument skit.

We all get some insight as to the logic and reasoning behind our own convictions as well as those of others when the debate is open, frank and to the point. I must say from the arguments I've heard so far concerning alternative lifestyles and Christian beliefs I'm much more informed and have a lot to think about. I thank all of the contributors here for a most interesting discussion.

Celebrim - Thank you for turning over the scientific aspect of the gene pool and potential avenues of approach concerning the identification of such a gene. Some times it's hard to see the forest for the trees and given human's propensity to meddle with nature it completely slipped my mind that as a society we might attempt to change it one way or the other. We are always looking for that gene to change for a desired result so why should this be any different?

Raymond - Regardless of how frustrated you get at times in trying to make your points (as I do myself at times) I have to admit you made light of a few here replete with some very interesting links and tied them all together.

My first take on the topic was that Christianity (religion) was being attacked for not following a credo espoused by belief such as the anomalies of war versus turn the other cheek. For me at least the notion that using Christianity or any religion against itself to initiate a change to that of acceptance of alternate lifestyles versus tolerance now has zero merit.

linsey, This is also an awful argument because many unacceptable behaviors probably have a genetic basis.
I truly cannot believe that you are equivalencing my sweet, stylish homosexual friends with Richard Speck.

Raymond, A genetic expression would filter itself out anyway, Gay pairs dont produce offspring.
Every genetic mutation that hampers reporduction in some way would mute itself, congentical defects dont spread when they kill the host too quick, they must lie dormant long enough for reproduction.

sometimes, there is linkage between a deleterious gene and a beneficial gene complex. The high incidence of homosexuals in the population (given that they do not reproduce) has led to speculation that that just such a linkage exists. Raymond, you obviously know nothing about genetics beyond simple high school mendeleian inheritance, so please shaddup on the subject.

celebrim
hmm, guess i meant assuming that you are right without the research is smug...
Well, speaking as a scientist I think that that is rather highly unlikely that we will find a biological basis for homosexuality per se

so sorry, "scientist", but there is quite a lot of literature pointing to some sort of genetic basis for homosexuality--would you like some cites?

Celebrim, let's address the three.

Raymond asserts that the normalization of homosexuality is a communist goal and must be resisted on that basis. He's crystal clear on that point. That's a wholly illogical argument - and I'm correct in also pointing out to him that the argument for gay rights and even gay acceptance is broader. Indeed, this argument comes in part from his libertarian side of the fence.

No regrets for pointing those things out.

RE: the 'perversity' of relationships across the board, my argument is not to cease and desist against all wrong conduct (do I look like a leftist to you?), but to target the concept more broadly and pursue on a broader level. If we're really about fixing our society's underpinnings, we need to undertake across the board advocacy rather than just harping on gays - and frame all critiques within that broader construct. Otherwise, I (and many others) tend to wonder whether people are serious or just prejudiced. Significant parts of the public image "gay lifestyle" won't come off well in that critique, but they won't be the only ones taking fire by any means.

And formulating those principles broadly strikes me as a good idea. Arguments about "perversity" get us nowhere - unfortunately, they're Raymond's favourite mode (even though, amusingly, he could arguably qualify for Oxford definition #3). "Consensual" neatly removes animals and minors from the approved list, so it has its uses, but it has limits too. We can and should go beyond that on a moral basis, without begging the question of why a given conduct is wrong ("because it isn't definition X or isn't common" begs the question).

Once we're on that ground, I think we're in a much better position to do real good. Pointing out that I think Raymond is blowing this opportunity is also fair game.

And of course, the flip side is that once these broad moral principles are set, it's possible for gays to be on the side of the good guys IMO. Excluding them definitionally doesn't work for me. Or for my religion.

For instance, my rabbi (Reform Judaism) will perform gay marriages. He will not perform a Jewish marriage ceremony between a Jew and a non-Jew. He believes a Jewish marriage is a commitment to live a Jewish life together (which a mixed marriage negates by its nature), and believes it is possible for a gay couple to uphold that. I'm of the same mind.

Your religion/ denomination may vary, and if so, so be it. At that point, we move to the broadly accepted principles noted in the post's links. They require a certain kind of behaviour consistent with Christian principles, WITHOUT mandating any change in moral belief.

Raymond,

The psychological damage/mirror effect of the Left (a phenomenon I've noticed in my personal experience too) is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. It may explain why some leftist homosexuals act as they do - but it does not speak substantively to the argument re: acceptance of gays. Or if it does, it may not be in the way that you think.

You were a lot closer to relevance when he pointed out the situation in the hug story, and talked about real help.

Most of your posts aren't focused on help, however (despite your promotion of the "broken people" thesis), and the issue of "tone" associated with that isn't just aesthetic - it's at the very heart of the message in the links I cite. It's fair of me to point that out.

The truth is that our understanding of the human mind is dim enough that the causal connection between her childhood and her sexuality is best described as a guess, not a real medical diagnosis. It's likewise a guess whether any particular approach would help or "cure" the underlying problem noted in the story, let alone change her sexual choices.

That's the reality of modern psychotherapy for just about ANY issue.

For certain transgressions or personal failures, it's acceptable to remove people's freedom and try various stuff on them in an attempt to improve their choices. But you've said yourself that being gay isn't one of them (and I agree).

Which leaves us with the key question of "what to do?"

Under the "first, do no harm" principle, I say the reaction in the link was spot on given the belief system the writer was starting from. Believe in the power of a loving example to make the world a better place. Show love, don't compromise your moral stand but don't push it either (she knows), and let her come to you if she wants more help than that.

Alas, we are not saints with the power to heal at a word. If a person really is broken inside, causing additional psychological damage is not an act of charity. But we cannot truly see the results of our actions because we cannot see into the other's mind.

A bit of humility and caution before those realities is in order. Hence the importance of kindness and love as priorities, unless one is specifically asked to offer more.

Joe, as you know I consider myself pretty conservative. I find that I endorse your post above wholeheartedly.

"so sorry, "scientist", but there is quite a lot of literature pointing to some sort of genetic basis for homosexuality--would you like some cites?"

By all means, go right ahead.

"Raymond asserts that the normalization of homosexuality is a communist goal and must be resisted on that basis. He's crystal clear on that point. That's a wholly illogical argument -"

Not if you begin with the premise - as Raymond seems to - that everything desired by Communists is by definition a bad thing. Or, put in a little more complex fashion, if you begin with the premise that the cold war was fundamentally a memetic war, and that therefore the propaganda of each side was designed to harm and undermine the culture of the other, then it follows - if the culture of our side was and is worth defending - that it should be defended from the damage which is by definition the goal of those memetic weapons. That is not a wholly illogical argument. It may not be compelling, but the argument doesn't contain any illogical steps once you accept the initial premise that everything that Communists would have desired for America is bad.

"and I'm correct in also pointing out to him that the argument for gay rights and even gay acceptance is broader."

And you've also jumped right into a non sequitur, since this statement doesn't follow from the previous one. From the above, you could argue that the argument against gay rights and gay acceptance is broader (a is accepted as true, but it doesn't prevent b from also being true), but you can't assert that because proposition A is accepted as not true, that proposition B must be accepted as true. All you can assert is that even if communists promoted homosexuality, it doesn't necessarily follow that homosexuality is bad. But you've actually provided no evidence for or against that, accept to dismiss it out of hand.

As for the rest, I'm glad to see that you realize that consensual is not the be all end all of defining the morality of a sexual relationship...

"And of course, the flip side is that once these broad moral principles are set, it's possible for gays to be on the side of the good guys IMO."

Ok, let's for a second imagine that I grant that its possible. So what? Surely, you must also grant that if it is possible that once these as yet undefined broad moral principles are defined that some homosexual relationships will fit in the big umbrella, that it possible that once we have a clear definition of the underlying moral principles that it will turn out that they exclude homosexual relationships?

"Excluding them definitionally doesn't work for me. Or for my religion."

I see. In other words, you are going to axiomatically reject any definition of morality which excludes all homosexual relationships, and you have a religion which in your opinion rejects any definition of morality which excludes all homosexual relationships. Well, Raymond axiomatically rejects any definition of morality which includes any homosexual relationship, and he believes that his religion or ethos rejects any definition of morality which includes any homosexual relationships.

This leaves us at something of an impasse, don't you think? The only way to break down this impasse is to conduct something of a social experiment, in which we split the society and have half of them accept one moral standard and half of them accept the other and after a length of time we compare the two and see which has grown healthier in the same period. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that anyone will agree to such an experiment taking place, since Raymond would not agree to living in your version of the society and you would not agree to living in Raymond's version of the society. Worse yet, Raymond very likely believes that such a social experiment has already taken place on several occassions, and that your side lost and you are just pushing a failed idea.

Incidently, this 'social experiment' model is precisely why I support Federalism, because it means that a culture is never putting all of its eggs in one basket and their is always a particular subculture where people can flee to if they feel that thier local community is becoming unhealthy.

The real problem I have with your argument is not so much that you are advocating something some communist once advocated, but rather you are advocating social change ('gay marriages', 'societal approval of homosexuality', etc.) as if the burden of proof lay on the side of those that opposed social change, rather on the side advocating the social change. It's perfectly alright from a liberal position to suggest that everything needs to be changed and if anything is to not be changed then the burden of proof lies with the traditionalists. As conservative, I reject that. It seems to me that before you recieve societies permission to conduct a social experiment with unknown consequences, you first must establish that the results of the experiment are almost certainly to be positive. I don't feel that you've done so. And note just how difficult such a proof is going to be to conservative audience, because coincidently or not the arrival of the AIDS epidemic follows pretty hard on the heels of the beginning of public promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable alternate lifestyle.

Celebrim, it IS an illogical argument, just a twisted form of argument from authority. I disposed of it in #17.

You know, I've got a lot of Islamists outside who want to destroy our culture. They think our failure to force women to wear burkhas will weaken and destroy us. And the point is what, exactly? You still haven't demonstrated anything except what our enemies think. It may still be true or false.

Let me sum up my case against Raymond as a generic structure:

"X is using a non-sequitur to make his case, and even that non-sequitur leaves so much out as to present an untrue picture on a factual level. Furthermore, X, who claims to follow doctrine L, won't even acknowledge the role his own doctrine has played. This weakens his credibility further. He's also about as far off the spirit outlined in the linked posts as it is possible to be without declaring outright hostility to the linked authors' approach (and he may have done that, but it's hard to tell so I'll offer him the benefit of the doubt)."

Totally valid criticism.

Celebrim, well put.

Another way is to ponder what would be the results If I, Me, got everything I wanted.

Well, very little, except for a reduction in social pressures, without the top down force of the fed.

Remember federalism is another target of the left, concentrated central power is what they want, and the ability to dictate, backed up with govt thugs with guns.

So I Guess Joe and Jinn has dismissed Tammy as a wild eyed cassanda, with no datapoints to consider.

Same old same old, when facts meet leftist faith, the facts are sacraficed. Tammy would seem to refute the genetic hypothisis, since if its genetic, then the histories she refers to cant be a factor.

Well at least it absolves everyone of reponsibility, we can let the gay recruters at our kids, to let them identify the undiscovered members of their community.

In the schools, they are not very far away from that. you should see the literature they are printing for them in the name of "health".

RE: celebrim's other point:

Yes, it is possible that an examination of human relationships could yield a moral argument that (a) led to a conclusion re: homosexuality as an inherently bad thing; and (b) didn't beg the question by saying, essentially "X is bad because X is bad."

Can't say as I've seen a lot of that in the debate over homosexuality. I've seen some in the debate over wider problems in our culture's common family & relationship practices, but not enough to become a coherent and compelling moral narrative that would have broad appeal.

As a conservative myself, I think that's too bad.

I also don't think Raymond's alternating anti-homosexuality arguments re: communism and "perversion" met any kind of moral argument test, or act as anything but a public form of scream therapy. The first is a non-sequitur, the second definitionally meaningless. Note that the dictionary definition you quoted could classify Judaism as a "perversion" (#2, #3) - and was so used, for hundreds of years, with lethal consequences.

So you'll forgive me if I remain unimpressed.

I threw my Rabbi's example in merely to note that contrary moral/religious arguments are possible, for there are arguments toward this issue that go beyond communism, libertarianism, or indeed politics at all. And Raymond's contentions become weaker still, because he can only collapse his arguments to one thing. Ever.

Your religion/ denomination may offer such a more coherent argument, or it may offer a simple argument from authority. At that point, we may or may not have a moral and/or political argument with one another based on either our private beliefs or the views of our respective religious denominations.

Regardless, if one believes in a Judeo-Christian religion and disapproves of homosexuality, the points about conduct as exemplified in the above links kick in:

Approval or political acquiescence isn't required, but basic human consideration and the ability to show empathy and love are both civilly and religiously desirable.

Raymond, celebrim, leaving aside any other arguments you may have with me, do either of you have a basic problem with that proposition?

If the answer is no, let's treat our chat here as finis. Then I'll start another post that will let everyone argue about the rest.

Approval or political acquiescence isn't required, but basic human consideration and the ability to show empathy and love are both civilly and religiously desirable.

Thats a given, its berating the ... where is that in doubt ?

But more is demanded, if Tammy isnt a liar, im unsure if thats your position.

Raymond,

I'll take that point as settled between us, then. and I suspect I wasn't the only person to wonder.

Re: Tammy Bruce's article in #18, I addressed it partially in #27. It doesn't offer any guidance re: the situations linked in the post.

Nor is this a problem with homosexuality per se (remember, 24% of homosexuals polled for George W. Bush). It's a problem with the Left and should be attacked on that basis, using example rather than assertion and focusing on the real target.

But that's something you are generally terrible at.

So, back to my point, the normalcy agenda is a defacto product of the kgb. and the target is the kids. Tammy relates to how that manifests itself today, and again, the target is the kids.

Yes, I see your eyes rolling over there, but it wont make it go away.

I share the Liberarian view you refer to btw, im really hard core on that, they have me on just about everything untill they talk about doing away with the Army FDA and border patrol.

But that same respect for the freedom of everyone else must be recipocal, my acceptance of them wont extend to presenting it to my kids as an equally valued life choice.

Its the same thing Tammy is saying, leave the kids alone, dont try to make more of them like her. According to her, they can, if you let them. And she isnt the only one, what she says is echoed by the others who have left that life of immorality behind.

Not if you begin with the premise - as Raymond seems to - that everything desired by Communists is by definition a bad thing.

Well, Mr.UseShoeAsGavel Kruschev who sent those orders to our enemy within, (Kerry went to Paris to get his orders, that he followed verbatim) ,, if i might hazard a guess,,, he wasnt thinking benevolently about the welfare of our society.

If anything tho, I bet they was quite surprized how robust it was, their minions here still have and promulgate their orthadoxy and agenda, we still see them attempting to undermine our war effort etc.

But we are still here, and their utopia they worhiped is gone. They still exert themselves for our distruction however.

Perhaps one could ponder if our dealing with these issues might be better without being infected by a program designed for our distruction.

Is there a better approch than George Orwells inversion of morality ?

Jinn, In the news recently is something about a 17 year old Boy, a Dog, and two rather young girls

Good luck finding that gentic marker (hmm wonder what the sheep gene would look like) How about Peter singers Chicken-Love Gene.

Perhaps you could let the postmodern generator sequence the dna for you.

Raymond,

You continue to ignore counter-arguments, and simply repeat your earlier points. Fine - I don't need to add anything, and our readers have heard and can judge.

Since you have nothing new to say, however, might I recommend that you close your participation in this thread.

"Raymond, celebrim, leaving aside any other arguments you may have with me, do either of you have a basic problem with that proposition?"

As I said in the beginning, I have no problems with that proposition at all.

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." - Galatians 5:13-26