Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[Columcille]

Actually, as far as moral teachings are concerned, democratic societies determine laws based on the will of competing values. Hence, while your idea of a compromise is to live and let live, the moral fabric of the family is threatened by lasciviousness and what the Church considers free license for all sorts of vices. Hence, there are some who want to impose taxes on soda drinks because they feel it increases gluttony and health problems ***ociated with it; there are some who want to restrict and put limits on how car companies are making vehicles and so hope to manipulate the behavior of citizens to reduce our reliance and dependence on oil. Granted, many of these things are considered noble--but it is the same thing in regards to a competing moral value. You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit. I think such allowances are dangerous to the fabric of society, our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction. I find your moral position to be part and parcel of all our human depravity and it is intrinsically disordered.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage. You have stated so much in the following quote:

There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity), the basis of creating a desirable society rests in the moral boundaries set by the free will of its people and represented in kind. Hence, we see people like Confusius dictating the moral framework of its leaders in creating a more peaceful society. Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide? So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

...the moral fabric of the family is threatened...

...dangerous to the fabric of society...

I suppose all I can say is that I disagree, and that I haven't seen any credible evidence that same-sex relationships are a threat to opposite-sex relationships.

You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit.

Indeed. Partial civil equality is not equality at all.

our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction.

I have no reason to believe that would stop being the case if same-sex marriages were given equal status under civil law.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage.

No, really, I don't. I think the Church is wrong, but I support its right to be as unwelcoming and hostile to gay and lesbian people as it chooses, within the purview of Church members—those who willingly submit to the Church's official teachings.

You have stated so much in the following quote:

The quote doesn't say what you say it says.

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity)

Again—the Catholic Church does not sanction marriage between non-Catholics, or between divorcees. And yet there is no effort to restrict the civil marriage rights of non-Catholics (except when it comes to same-sex couples).

Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide?

That's not a moral law; that's a law governing public safety. Big difference.

So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

I guess I understand where you're coming from a little bit here. I regard the support and permissiveness of torture to be similar to being an accessory to the practice. But again, for me there's a big difference between a practice that harms another and undermines human dignity, and a practice that I dislike but ultimately doesn't affect anyone but the offender.

For example, I regard promiscuity to be unhealthy—but I would never support a law restricting people's private consensual sexual activity. I regard many movies and TV shows to be sexist and degrading—but I would not want to live in a society with an official government censor. I think most fast food is disgusting—but I wouldn't want the government to shut down McDonald's.

In short, I can tell the difference between a moral value and a regulation of the public safety. I understand that some people's understanding of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" differs from my own, and may even conflict with my deeply-held beliefs—and yet welcome them to pursue it.

[Columcille]

It is not my contention to open the eyes of the blind; my only concern is what I believe and why I believe it. Whether you agree with me is not my concern. I rest my belief in the two-fold authority authority of the Church: namely Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible. The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice? Why should I want on judgement day before God tell him that I was an accessory to other's sinfulness? Why should I encourage the alcoholic to drink by giving him money? Why should I loan money to a gambler? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to use taxpayer money to kill innocent children in the womb? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to give the ****sexual an endorsement of an act that is morally disordered per the Scriptures and the Magesterium of the Church indicate?

All morals have consequences, and so in my eyes the moral issue is a safety issue. I will not ever support in good conscience for a candidate who takes your idea of a middle ground.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible.

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice?

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices. I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality. So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices.

In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.

I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality.

I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.

So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?



In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.



I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.



The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

I don't expect you to understand how I feel it undermines the family. I only feel that a public endorsement would influence some heterosexuals to mess around and experience ****sexuality; very much like an endorsement of drugs sends a message that it is ok to fry your brain with narcotics. Even if your agenda is p***ed, I would always make it a point to speak out against it. However, I prioritize this speaking out only as the opportunity presents itself. There are much bigger fish to fry. We are not living in the days of the Pagan Rome, where they used Christians to feed the lions, as torches, and all kinds of other torment. YOu will not see me use violence against ****sexuals, and I am not going to avoid eating at my favorite places or shop at my favorite stores just because there are ****sexuals working there. I just don't support your agenda. I think it is important that the Church police its own believers to stay true the orthodoxy of faith, else it becomes meaningless and contradictory. You are in the world; and as such, you ride the tide of what is en vogue.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I don't expect you to understand how I feel it undermines the family. I only feel that a public endorsement would influence some heterosexuals to mess around and experience ****sexuality;

You're more than welcome to feel however you like about the social consequences of marriage equality. Unfortunately for the position you're arguing, there is no evidential basis in fact that it is the case.

Indeed, anti-equality groups tried to argue that in court last year in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown). "Expert" witnesses were called to testify to the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage, and ultimately failed to provide any. In fact, under cross-examination they were ultimately reduced to saying "I don't know".

very much like an endorsement of drugs sends a message that it is ok to fry your brain with narcotics.

Rabbit-trail, but the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If we put a fraction of the money we do into support, addiction treatment, and safe injection that we do into incarceration, the problems ***ociated with drug abuse would be greatly diminished.

Even if your agenda is p***ed, I would always make it a point to speak out against it.

You're welcome to it. Even Focus on the Family is now saying "we've probably lost" the war against marriage equality.

However, I prioritize this speaking out only as the opportunity presents itself. There are much bigger fish to fry. We are not living in the days of the Pagan Rome, where they used Christians to feed the lions, as torches, and all kinds of other torment.

Indeed. And were such persecution to be resurrected, I'd be standing by your side opposing it.

YOu will not see me use violence against ****sexuals, and I am not going to avoid eating at my favorite places or shop at my favorite stores just because there are ****sexuals working there.

I do appreciate that.

I just don't support your agenda.

My horrible agenda for equal justice under law without deference to sectarian religious beliefs! Heaven forfend!

I think it is important that the Church police its own believers to stay true the orthodoxy of faith, else it becomes meaningless and contradictory.

Fair enough. I still don't understand why you advocate "that the Church police" those who are not its own believers.

You are in the world; and as such, you ride the tide of what is en vogue.

Equality under the law is much more in vogue than when we stoned gays and burned witches. I plead guilty there.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

You're more than welcome to feel however you like about the social consequences of marriage equality. Unfortunately for the position you're arguing, there is no evidential basis in fact that it is the case.

Indeed, anti-equality groups tried to argue that in court last year in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown). "Expert" witnesses were called to testify to the negative social consequences of same-sex marriage, and ultimately failed to provide any. In fact, under cross-examination they were ultimately reduced to saying "I don't know".



Rabbit-trail, but the "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure. If we put a fraction of the money we do into support, addiction treatment, and safe injection that we do into incarceration, the problems ***ociated with drug abuse would be greatly diminished.



You're welcome to it. Even Focus on the Family is now saying "we've probably lost" the war against marriage equality.



Indeed. And were such persecution to be resurrected, I'd be standing by your side opposing it.



I do appreciate that.



My horrible agenda for equal justice under law without deference to sectarian religious beliefs! Heaven forfend!



Fair enough. I still don't understand why you advocate "that the Church police" those who are not its own believers.



Equality under the law is much more in vogue than when we stoned gays and burned witches. I plead guilty there.

The evidences you seek are of a worldly kind, where your own biases are going to be uplifted and marketed and framed in such a way as pleases the world.
I stated that the Church needs to police its own and I further feel to promote its morality in the world. Views on morality can be shared by different groups. I am not suggesting to set up a theocracy by the Church in political affairs. But should a majority of people vote one way or another, then the Church will either suffer minor persecution for its policies as it did when under various regions and times or will enjoy a climate where family values parrallel in line with Catholic morality and are enjoyed and practiced. It is just a matter of policies that the majority want. It seems to me that you want to force the bible belt to be forced to accept gay marriages. Small town America just doesn't like them big city slickers. You already have some states that give you that civil rights agenda to ****sexuals, and I think it should be left to the locality to make these determinations and not be forced and taught as the way it has to be by people who do not share our same values.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The evidences you seek are of a worldly kind, where your own biases are going to be uplifted and marketed and framed in such a way as pleases the world.

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck

I stated that the Church needs to police its own and I further feel to promote its morality in the world. Views on morality can be shared by different groups. I am not suggesting to set up a theocracy by the Church in political affairs. But should a majority of people vote one way or another, then the Church will either suffer minor persecution for its policies as it did when under various regions and times or will enjoy a climate where family values parrallel in line with Catholic morality and are enjoyed and practiced. It is just a matter of policies that the majority want. It seems to me that you want to force the bible belt to be forced to accept gay marriages. Small town America just doesn't like them big city slickers. You already have some states that give you that civil rights agenda to ****sexuals, and I think it should be left to the locality to make these determinations and not be forced and taught as the way it has to be by people who do not share our same values.

Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck



Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

The evidence I seek is based in reality, i.e., that which does not change upon conversion.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
– Philip K. Dіck



Gay people live in the Bible Belt, too. They don't all conform to your stereotypes.

But so you're saying that you'd oppose a cons***utional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman? And you support the repeal of DOMA, since you believe "it should be left to the locality to make these determinations" and not done at the federal level? If so, I'm honestly shocked.

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals. I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church, you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it; I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain. That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth. Gays in the bible belt can try to address the local and state government for their interests, but I think it is a bad policy to force as a federal amendment to make all states accept gay marriages. I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time. I think right now the biggest issue is stop the lazy people from taking advantage of the en***lements, the spending of our government, and the political campaigning that seeks to mudsling while hoping the economy will recover so they can spend more.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.

I'm afraid I don't understand most of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to make is that reality is not affected by your belief or disbelief therein. It's not reality because I believe in it; it's reality independent of my belief or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Columcille

I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals.

Your earlier posts seem to contradict that, in which you implied that gay people are "city slickers" and don't exist in "small town America".

I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church,

So far I'm with you on all counts.

you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it;

No, rather I think that it's unfair that you may have the opportunity to vote on the matter at all.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
– U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain.

Feel free to do so. You will remain free to do so as long as that First Amendment remains intact.

That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth.

That's true, but the price of our living in a cons***utional republic (and not a democracy) is that the majority cannot vote to limit the fundamental rights of a minority.

I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time.

A very strange position, if you ask me. "I oppose this amendment, but would support it if I could." Doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that you believe this matter should be up to local municipalities to decide.

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.


I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

4*‘Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this to all the exiles deported from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5*Build houses, settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce; 6*marry and have sons and daughters; choose wives for your sons, find husbands for your daughters so that these can bear sons and daughters in their turn; you must increase there and not decrease. 7*Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985 (Je 29:4–7). New York: Doubleday.


I am a foreigner, an exile. My citizenship is first the City of God. I am also an American citizen based on government's definition. As an exile in the American Babylon, I am to seek after the welfare of American Babylon as my welfare is dependent on working for the good of the city. As such, I stand up for morals that seek to secure the family unit as the primary and first form of governance within the City of Man. When the State decides by a majority rule to be in agreement with the City of God, then the family is stronger for it. But, as I am also an Exile, American Babylon may decide to enact laws that are immoral. When I stated to you earlier is an understanding that State rights have a choice to accept the ****sexual agenda since that is part of the American experiment. No Federal agency should dictate to the State to accept ****sexual agendas if the majority of representation is against it. In this instance, I am speaking in regards to a City of Man and not the City of God in terms of fairness regarding procedure. The City of God has only one ruler, namely God. There is no room in the City of God for mini-dictators, respect for the creator because of his benevolence in allowing you the conscience understanding that you think, therefore you exist is enough. There is never going to be a perfect society of which you struggle and fight for, because you are only for the City of Man. You'll die like the rest of us, then you lose all. I need to lose all now, in hopes to attain the resurrection through the free gift of Christ's sacraficial atonement.

One would think that "working for the good of the city to which you are exiled" should entail caring about the well-being of those who do not subscribe to your particular version of your particular faith.

You'll remain free (and I'll fight for you to retain this freedom, if necessary) to personally object to marriage equality on religious grounds—to speak out against it, to refrain from taking part, for your church to refrain from blessing such unions. But this isn't a matter of majority/minority. This is a matter of equal justice under the law. This is a matter of religious freedom, particularly for religious people who are gay & lesbian.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Heart2Heart

My relatives and I have had many discussions about ****sexuality, since a person in my family is ****sexual. Unfortunately, one of the family members approve of the behavior, because she believes the person was born with a genetic defect. What is your view on this? Do you agree with the person's belief that a ****sexual is born this way? Do you think it is a genetic defect?

I do not believe it is a genetic defect, but I think the individual who was born with it, is predisposed to practice it. Do you think he or she can control their behavior?

Really makes no difference to God if the person was born that way or not....sin is sin, regardless of how long you have been doing it....

You dont get a p*** because you have a longer history of doing a sin and thinking you were getting away with it...LOL

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Really makes no difference to God if the person was born that way or not....sin is sin, regardless of how long you have been doing it....

You dont get a p*** because you have a longer history of doing a sin and thinking you were getting away with it...LOL

I wrote this about 2 years ago...and its just the same as the way I answer this question today...

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I wrote this about 2 years ago...and its just the same as the way I answer this question today...

Well it is a fine statement. You're bringing it up causes me to think, you or someone thinks the subject lacks fuller disclosure, even to that point? But then again, I'm not a psychologist.

Uh-oh, now I'm likely to get banned for stalking

[alanmolstad]

I don't know what that means. ..but I bring it up because I got a PM message and this is my response

[MichaellS]

Sorry for the interruption then, carry on.