Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

There seems to be different types; wouldn't you say?There is no doubt the flaming, feminized gay man exists and suggests a possibility of gender identity crisis, or maybe not.What are your honest thoughts as someone more acquainted with the community?

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?

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.

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

So when you disagree with the majority, you are not an extremist, but they are idiots, but when Dobson disagrees with the majority he is an extremist, even a "radical cleric"?LOLAnd you see no contradiction here in your principles or the way you describe people?

It's interesting Shraf, and quite offensive to many African-Americans, that you equate the situation with homosexual Americans with the experience and plight of black Americans.Black America was very much so (and still is in a far, far smaller manner) discriminated against in the worst possible ways, at least for America.The average homosexual earns more than the average heterosexual. The idea that America is discriminatory overall towards homosexuals is absurd.Now, I can agree that a few, small areas need to be addressed, namely things like visitation and life decision rights for "partners." It seems to me the civil union route satisfies those needs just fine.It also seems to me the issue has been seized upon to demonize traditional social conservatives that see homosxuality as a sin, and imo, that is deeply unAmerican and troubling because the whole effort to try to force people to adopt the exact same values is wrong, imo. The idea of America is that different factions could co-exist peacefully.The Left, imo, wants to remove that concept and demonize those that think homosexuality is a sin, and that's what's wrong.The implication is that if you think homosexuality is wrong, you cannot be tolerant of homosexuals, and that's totally wrong. Adultery and fornication are sins too, and preached as sinful just as much, but adulterers and fornicators are tolerated, but not by telling them it's OK.The push for gay marriage instead of just civil unions strikes me as a push to normalize homosexuality at the exclusion of conservative beliefs in the Bible, and moreover, more of a political campaign to demonize social conservatives.Imo, that's wrong.It's not analogous to civil rights for minorities because there is no codified and systematic discrimination, imo, against homosexuals, except in the ministry and even there, plenty of closet homosexuals seem to be proliferating.

Jar, I don't see it that way. I watch political developments very closely, and this is a wedge issue pushed by the Left to try to demonize their opponents.

Actually, Dobson and company talk MORE about the destructiveness of adultery, divorce, abuse, godly principles for raising kids and having a good marriage, tons of marital advice, and even talk of premarital sex, and things like pornography more than they do about homosexuality. His show is Focus on the Family and generally talks of family issues from an evangelical perspective.As far as the church I attend, no one winks at adultery, and there are far more comments from the pulpit against adultery and say, pornography, than homosexuality, by say an order of 500 to 1.It's not that they agree with homosexuality. It's just that it isn't the major or even a large side issue within the church.This message has been edited by randman, 08-20-2005 09:17 PM

Jar, frankly I am not interested in debating the subject. If you know it so well, why don't you honestly present the other side's argument and then knock it down.One argument I have heard is that the reason government recognized marriage as an institution was because it had a viable interest in favoring marriage for the sake of the family, specifically so that children would be protected and their fathers held more accountable to them.Now, I realize on margin, that one can make an argument that plenty of gay families have children too, but at the same time, there is no reason for a gay couple's union to produce offspring. The motive on a statistical level just is not there to confer the same protections via recognizing marriage that existed for government to do so historically with heterosexual unions.Truthfully, conferring benefits for married people and married people with children is discrimination against single people, but is justified in order to help the parents raise their children, just in case they have children and if they do (considering heterosexual unions often produce children), and to recognize the family as the basic unit of a society.In general, the concerns I have seen with homosexual unions can be addressed adequately by civil unions.

why are you asking me?You tell me.

Omni, Dobson is not primarily a political activist. maybe you did not realize that.Btw, I am not a regular reader of Dobson, but have heard him over the years. I have to travel a lot and tend to check out various TalkRadio and news, from the very liberal NPR, which has good shows but is very liberal poltically, to Limbaugh, Christian ministry shows, and the whole lot.I suspect other policy issues involve abortion, limited government, opposition to using eminent domain to take churches and other private property for shopping malls, and the rest of the typical conservative views.

Jar, maybe you are getting this backwards. Why should the government recognize homosexual marriage?You claim it is a "right", but it's never been a right in the sense you are discussing. In fact, it is still a right. A homosexual can marry, just has to be someone of the opposite sex since that is the definition of marriage.So we have a long-standing definition. You think the definition should be changed. Others think the definition should remain the same.You claim they are wrong, but let's say they are. So what?Why should the government grant preferential status to homosexual unions in the first place? What compelling interest is there for doing so?I explained the compelling state interest historically for governments, kings, or whatever, recognizing marriage officially.I really don't see the same compelling state interest, although some have argued it, claiming it could help foster homosexual monogamy, which in turn can be more stable, less likely to spread infectious diseases, etc,..Can you tell me in your words why the State should recognize and protect homosexual unions with the marital status? Why not civil unions, for example?Or why anything?

Jar, are just going to completely ignore the whole issue and proclaim dogmatism?First, homosexual couples are not being oppressed, are they?Secondly, while I doubt homosexual marriage would affect my marriage, I really cannot say if the slippery slope argument is valid or not.Can you?But irregardless of the argument against homosexual marriage, you have still offered no compelling State interest for homosexual marriage either. So from someone not as emotionally invested in the issue, as you obviously are, I would just have to say that there is little reason to change the status quo.There is no proof changing the definition of marriage will be harmful in the long run, and there is no compelling State interest for changing the definition of marriage in the first place either.