Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

His beliefs aren't radical. They are traditional conservative values. He believes in changing social issues via influence and ideas through his represtatives in Congress. That's the way it is done in America, except with the case of abortion, which was legislated from the Supreme Court. Now you have judges telling law makers what laws they have to make on homosexuality!Liberal ideas are the minority and are radical. You are 100% accurate here. I do see most things in black and white, right and wrong if those things are spelled out in the bible. If it is black and white in the bible, so am I. If it is a grey area not specifically mentioned in the bible, I am flexible.Dobsin, or any muslic cleric, has the right to voice their opinion on social issues in this country. Just because lefties think he is a radical cleric doesn't make him so, and using that phrase IS an attempt to correlate fundamentalist christians with extremist muslims.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

But see, you're wrong. His views may be based on the past views of Christianity, but by no means are they mainstream. THe vast majority of people don't care if a person is gay or not, and certainly don't consider homosexuality immoral. His (and your) views are extremist. Yes, thank God he's not a violent radical. Hes only a step away, but as long as he doesn't cross that line he (and you) have a right to those radical beliefs. You apparently haven't actually read the Constitution. The Supreme Court never made any laws regarding abortion - they only interpreted existing law. If lawmakers disagree with their interpretation, they can certainly make a Constitutional amendment to make things more explicit - but they'd need a lot of support that just doesn't exist. As to "telling Congress what laws they can make about homosexuality," the Supreme COurt EXISTS for the express purpose of ensuring that the laws of Congress are Constitutional - it's their freaking job! If COngress wants to pass a law currently Unconstitutional, they must amend the Constitution - a feat fully within their power should the vast majority of people support it.You see, we have this thing calles "checks and balances" to ensure that no one branch of the government has too much power. THat includes COngress - an out of control majority could wreck havok and ignore the COnstitution entirely if not for the Supreme Court - but the SC cannot overrule a Constitutional Amendment. You see how it works? You'd be surprised at how many "liberals" there are, by your apparent standards. Treating gays as equals and not as "sinners" is not the minority view. And yet many of us interpret the Bible differently than you do. Perhaps theree is more of this "grey area" than you think? Certainly, so long as they are not inciting violence. Even hateful speech is protected to a degree. Appeal to consequence. He IS a radical cleric - the fact that many violent muslim extremists are ALSO radical clerics in no way diminishes that fact, even though you "don't like" having the two connected. Tough.He's a radical cleric, but he's not a terrorist. Nobody is going to change the definitions of terms just because you don't like them being applied to someone who shares your views.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I certainly would hope a member of the US Military would at least have a basic idea of how our governemnt works.Tal - I have only been coming here for the last week, but I see why people jump all over you. You continue to spout right wing rhetoric that is untrue, unjustified and just plain wrong. If you are going to make statements like the one above back it up. If you can't back it up keep it in your closed mind where it belongs.

Haven't read the whole thread but calling Dr Dobson radical is just dumb. He may be goofy from your persepective or not, or whatever, but the fact is he is not radical.A big problem with liberals is they think of themselves as mainstream and conservatives as "far right" when in reality, the country's population is a little more conservative than liberal overall, and in general, "far right" in the way the libs describe things.Put it this way. Bush really is not "far right" but since dems and libs call him that, let's use it for an example. A lot of the country voted against Bush, but most voted for him. Maybe the majority are thus "far right."Basically, any time you disagree with the liberal agenda and are a conservative, you are branded far right, radical, extremist, etc,...Most of the nation can see past such smears and recognizes them for what they are, baseless smears.Too bad the EVC forum cannot, overall, do the same.You think homosexuality is just a natural part of the way someone is, evolved, or the way God made them. Dobson thinks it is a sin.The good thing about this nation is that it is set up so we can disagree, and still not resort to extremism.

Hmm....sexual libertine extraordinare, eh?

His views are extrremist and outside of the mainstrwam. What would you have us call him? Conservatives are exactly the same. Both sides of the political aisle have their whackjobs. Dobson is not the worst of the conservatives, but his views are still radical. He just hasn't totally lost it and gone the way of Phelps yet. He's still an anti-gay bigot, and his views are not the views of the majority - not even the majority of Christians. His view on gay marriage maybe (I disagree with his position, of course, but polls suggest most Christians don't like gay marriage), but not on homosexuality itself. The majority of people don't believe homosexuality is evil, or some sort of disease to be treated or prevented. Elections aren't that simple. Many people are single-issue voters, and would disagree with much of what Bush stands for, but disagree more strongly with his opponent. I know that I, for one, can't remember the last time I would have voted for a president instead of against the other guy. Pot, meet Kettle. Conservatives throw around the word "Liberal" like it's some sort of insult or curse word. Ever heard of Michael Savage? His most recent book is entitled "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." I know I certainly can. But I can also tell when someones views are, in fact, radically outside of the mainstream. Like Dobson. And recent research confirms that Dobson is wrong. A recent study involving flies modified a single gene and completely altered the behavior of the subjects. In other words, they found a "gay swith" in flies that made male flies attempt to mate with other males, and females do the same. I'll post a link later if I can find it again. In any case, homosexuality appears to be at least partially genetic. As to homosexuality being a sin, well, I'm a Christian and I don't believe it's a sin. There is not 11th Commandment that says "Thou shalt not have the buttsex," after all. Except Dobson does resort to extremism. He's not willing to let homosexuals have the same rights and priveledges "good God-fearing straights" can have - he wants a COnstitutional Amendment to make gay marriage illegal. He wants to force his views on others who don't share them. What right doe he or anyone else have to tell a gay person that they can't do what the rest of us can just becuase his religion says being gay is icky?! He can think it's a sin all he wants, but the moment he decided to try to force the issue on others he became extremist.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Prove it. First off, all the polls indicate something like 80% of the nation oppossed gay marriage, which is one reason I suspect Rove advised Bush to make it a campaign issue.It worked.Now, you can cite other evidence where obviously the rest of the nation may disagree with Dobson's characterization of homosexuality, but he is more in the mainstream on gay marriage than the proponents are, and here is the thing.Most Americans are tolerant of homosexuality, but have mixed feelings on the subject. Most don't like the political aspect of homosexuality being used a wedge issue among liberals to demonize conservative religious sentiments as wrong. If they have to choose, they are going to side more with traditional beliefs, even if they don't believe them fully, than they are going to side with pushing homosexuality as a norm and demonizing people who disagree as bigots.Paglia, a lesbian, pointed out the same thing in how the gay movement's political goals were getting in the way of increasing tolerance and creating a backlash among evangelicals, and she was right, and it handed Bush the election in some respects.

Let me add that most Americans don't want their kids to grow up and be gay, and so are in one respect fundemantally in agreement with Dobson in that respect. They may be more tolerant of homosexuality, not think it is a sin, but if they could do something to help insure their child's heterosexuality, most would do so, imo.So on the whole gay issue, on gay marriage, and preference for heterosexuality, the nation as a whole is closer to Dobson than to the gay marriage proponents.That may be tough for you to swallow, but right or wrong, that's how it is.At the same time, most Americans are not of Dobson's religious beliefs in toto, and don't want to broach the subject of "sin", etc,.... But on these issues, he is clearly more in the mainstream, than say, yourself.

Close minded? Let's see how close minded I am.Conservatives being the majority isn't right wing rhetoric, its true. Look at the last election where Liberals lost on all fronts. There is a reason for this. Liberals know their agenda isn't popular enough to win at the ballot box, and the only way they can shape the nation is through activist judges.Evidence gay marriage. 13 States have put the vote to their people to protect marriage from redefintion. States with percentage in favour of the amendments: AR (75%), GA (77%), KY (75%), LA (78%), MI (59%), MS (86%), MO (72%), MT (66%), ND (73%), OH (62%), OK (76%), OR (57%), UT (66%).And that is despite all the media attention. That is how you pass laws.Now let us see how the liberals pass laws.Richard Kramer in San Francisco declared unconstitutional the state law that defines marriage as a union between a woman and a man.Huh? A bedrock social issue such as marriage should be diceded by the American voter, not a judge.Let's look at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The decision purports to defer to the legislature, but then gives the legislature the rationale, guidelines and timeline for their lawmaking.So conservatives can get their agenda moving by putting this topic to a vote by the people (which when you look at the numbers, passed by a huge majority), as it was intended by the founding fathers. The liberals can only get their agenda moving by having judges overrule, then tell the legislature what laws it must pass!Hello./ontopicSo yes, I have a basic idea of how our government works.My question is, if Dobsin, myself, and other conservatives are out of the mainstream, why did the 13 states gets an overwhelming majority in support of the traditional definition of marriage?Those numbers again in case you missed it: AR (75%), GA (77%), KY (75%), LA (78%), MI (59%), MS (86%), MO (72%), MT (66%), ND (73%), OH (62%), OK (76%), OR (57%), UT (66%).Looks like alot of other people are "close minded" too.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

I already did. He believes homosexuality to be a sin, he believes homosexuality is like a "disease" to be cured or prevented. I'm not talking about gay marriage. Gay marriage is indeed a hot topic, and whether it's right or not, you are correct - current polls indicate that the majority does not support gay marriage. However, the majority does not consider homosexuality a sin, and does not look at gays as a bunch of dirty evil sinners. The majority does not believe homosexuality can be cured. The majority, most importantly including modern psychiatry, does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, or other disease to be prevented or cured. Which is my point, and what makes him a radical. Just because he's more in touch with the majority on one issue does not make him less radical. See? We agree. His views are not representative of the majority. As is, most heterosexuals don't like to think too hard about gay sex, becuase it's not attractive to us. THat doesn't mean in any way that most heterosexuals believe homosexuality to be wrong or immoral. Nobody likes the pliticalization of their views. It always turns into some kind of black/white " we oppose everything they say because they are not us" kind of shouting match. The real issue and any honest discussion gets lost in the smear campaigns. That, and people tend not to actually think beyond their gut reaction. But I'm not actually talking about gay marriage. That's not the issue that makes him radical, though his radical views are likely the source of his opinion on the matter. Yes, gay rights movements can actually be harmed by pushing the issue too hard or too fast, as well as flaunting homosexuality. That doesn't mean that gays don't have every right to do so, however. They have every right under the COnstitution as it stands to marry each other, and to have gay prode parades, and to push for equality as quickly and determinedly as they want - they should have had equality in the first place. But you're right, doing what's right before the majority is ready to accept it as right can push equality movements back a few steps.Again, though, not what I'm talking about. Gay marriage does not make Dobson radical. Considering gays to be evil sinners who consciously decide to be attracted to the same gender and "defy God's Will" is what makes him a radical. Being one tiny baby-step seperated from Phelps is what makes him a radical.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Let's see how extremist his views are on homosexual marriage. Wow, looks like 70% of the Population of 13 states are extremist!Or maybe we are the norm. What do you think from those numbers? No we don't, we simply call a liberal a liberal. You liberals are the ones who take it as "a Mental Disorder." Then you come up with other things to call yourself; Centrist, Moderate, but you keep to the same liberal ideas. It isn't that ya'll are ashamed to be liberals, its that Liberal ideas don't work and won't get you elected. Uh-huh..lets look at those vote percentages again...AR (75%), GA (77%), KY (75%), LA (78%), MI (59%), MS (86%), MO (72%), MT (66%), ND (73%), OH (62%), OK (76%), OR (57%), UT (66%). O.OYou are actually gonna use evolutionary science to try to prove homosexuality is genetic?Let's examine what would happen to homosexual genes after 1 generation.They would all die without offspring! They wouldn't pass on their gene. Sure there is, I'll get the verses (again) in a second. There you go. And neither am I and 70% of other americans. That doesn't make us extremist, that makes us mainstream. And again, 13 states have already passed constitutional ammendments that have protected the definition of marriage.This message has been edited by Tal, 08-19-2005 01:20 PM

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

So he's more extreme on the issue homosexuality in general, although you don't show that, but you are more extreme on the issue of gay marriage.Looks to me then like is square in the middle, as far as this issue in terms of comparing the 2 sides debating the subject.Dobson, of course, as a traditionalist is more traditional than the average guy maybe (but maybe not). I am not even sure most Americans in being tolerant of homosexuality don't also consider it an aberration. They just tolerate it.But let's don't quibble over that.Bottom line is Dobson is no more of an extremist than you are, nor probably than most Americans. Most Americans have some views in line with the majority and some that are not. That's normal, not extremism.Now, that doesn't make the majority right, and I'm not here to debate homosexuality, but by your definition of extremism, he is not an extremist.By a normal definition, someone resorting to extremist methods, he is not an extremist either.This message has been edited by randman, 08-19-2005 01:28 PM

That's what I believe. Am I radical?No, I'm not, because I believe homosexuality is just one sin But we are all sinners and imperfect. I'm not better than homosexuals on any level. I believe they need Jesus just like everyone else, including me.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill

Prove it. Your opinion is wrong. On gay marriage, yes. But that's not what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should read a bit more. I'm well aware of "the way it is." And yeah, I think the majority is wrong in this instance, and I think the views are bigotted. It's really not any different from the interracial marriage issue a few decades ago. I feel confident that society will eventually be ready for gay marriage, just as it eventually came to accept interracial marriage. It's not "tough to swallow" that the average American is a bigot and an idiot. I see evidence of that every day at work. Well, the idiot part anyway. It's just unfortunate. He is more "mainstream" than myself with regards to gay marriage, yes, if recent polls are to be believed. But the remainder of his views on homosexuality are not mainstream - they are extremist. It is these views that make him a "radical cleric," not his opposition to gay marriage.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yep. Your view is not held by the majority, and is extremist.You're still entitled to it, of course. If you believed being black was "just one sin" you would also be an extremist radical. "Just one sin" does not make you any less radical. Your (or Jesus) "forgiveness" of them is irrelevant. They don't need forgiving because it's not evil. Only a biblical inerrantist would believe that passage to be the Word of God. I certainly don't, and I'm not alone.You can use the same "forgiveness" to excuse murder and rape. They are "just two sins," after all. The fact that you put homosexuality on the same level as crimes like these (sins) makes you radical.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.