Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

randman:

quote:

---

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.

---

Really? Preached as just as sinful?You mean Dobson, Inc. have been rolling out jesus-this-disgusts-me whoopee jamboree sessions about adultery and fornication, too, and the mainstream media have been ignoring them? That's just wrong, imo.So your church, randman, like most conservative Christian churches, is full of both fornicators and adulterers, gays and lesbians, joined hand-in-hand in worship, and the pastor stands by the door and greets each in turn: "Bob, you know being adulterously blown by your secretary Barbara at lunch-time is sinful and damanble, right?" And the other parishioners hallelujah chorus, "Yeah, Bob! Stop getting head from Barbara, okay? We love you, and you're always welcome here, but you have to change your ways!"Then Andy. Pastor--"Andy, you know blowing Stevie in your long-term faithful relationship is sinful and damnable, right?" Hallelujah chorus: "Yeah, Andy! Stop blowing Stevie, okay? We love you, and you're always welcome here, but you have to change your ways!"Sure. The stench of hypocrisy that keeps wafting out of fundie churches is a leftie conspiracy, a commie stink bomb planted under the cross.Well, as long as the left practices "no codified and systematic discrimination" (was lynching codified and systematic?) against fundies, they have no grounds of complaint, in your opinion.

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

I believe you don't see it that way.The issue is really simple. How can a couple's same-sex marriage affect another couple's bisexual marriage?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

randman:

quote:

---

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.

---

Gosh, that's great! What are his public policy and legislative iniatives concerning adultery and fornication?

None of that has anything to do with the question I asked."How can a couple's same-sex marriage affect another couple's bisexual marriage?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Because unless it can be shown that a couple's same-sex marriage can have an affect on another couple's bisexual marriage there is no justification for the Christian Right's continued campaign to enact laws to proscribe and limit the rights of others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

Sorry but none of that has anything to do with the question.Does a couple's same-sex marriage have any affect on another couple's bisexual marriage?If there is no adverse affect, there is no justification for oppressing the same-sex couple.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Can they get married?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

randman:

quote:

---

Omni, Dobson is not primarily a political activist. maybe you did not realize that.

---

I am aware that Dobson is demanding that political candidates agree or face his corporation's wrath. He has set foot into the political/policy sphere, seeking to see his religious views writ large into law, elections, and appointments. He spent a great deal of time, effort, and money developing a power base, and now he seeks to cash it in for political clout. Perhaps you did not realize that? It is a well-trod path for American zealots; in the end, they usually self-immolate, but first they do great damage.I don't care if he tells his followers that red is blue and up is down, but I care a great deal about his efforts to impose his views on others.