Obama Endorses Homosexuality

Fine. All you need to do is acknowlege that I haven't attempted to normalize sin or excusing homexual behavior.

I never commented on whether it was a good move or not, and never commented on whether I "want" it or not. I suspect it won't have an effect one way or another, since homosexual activity will continue to be grounds for discharge, and rightly so. Interestingly, Christans generally opposed "don't ask don't tell", and here we are years later, with Christians are opposing its repeal.

 

In order for it to be a benefit, it would have to grant to them something it does not grant to all. But in fact, if the "don't ask, dont' tell" policy were lifted, a gay man would be subject to the same rules as a straight man, which is: if you fornicate, you're out. Now, whether they currently enforce that rule is a different topic altogether.

 

Folks, right here is one example of the reasons the liberals are taking over, and will(?) succeed barring a direct intervention from God!

The ORIGINAL policy was
1) You stated up front (if you didn't lie) whether or not you were a Q----
2) If you answered in the affirmative, you were refused enlistment into the Armed Forces - end of problem for the military
3) Clinton came along and declared that you could NOT be asked this question; ergo a Q---- could legally enlist. BUT the stigma was still there, so they (the Q-----) were reluctant to advertise the fact.
4) Now the (0) wants to allow (force?) the stigma to be erased so that if you are a Q----, you not only can enlist, but you can now flaunt your deviancy, expecting no negative reaction from others.

So John, you are correct in your statement, BUT, you neglect to put the facts in context. Now IF you go back to the ORIGINAL system, then there will be no opposition from the Christians; well most Christians anyway.

THIS MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT YOU APPEAR TO SAY; that the Christians are just being tantrum throwing little kids.

This is typical of the way the left has gotten its agenda - ask for $1,000 when all you really want is $100, so when the Rs balk and refuse to give the $1,000, the Ds start calling for compromise and eventually settle on $100, and claim that they (Ds) have really conceded to the Rs.

Unfortunately, this has been so subtle that the Rs have not, until recently, realized that they gave up far more that they thought.

I personally believe that should the conservatives (please note that I DID NOT specify Rs), take control in '10 & '12, there should be a policy of NO COMPROMISE until we at least get back to a true constitutional form of Gov't. 'Course I ain't holding my breath!!!

 

And everyone here so far agrees that anyone who who engages in homosexual conduct should be discharged forthwith. And for the record, heterosexual fornication is grossly unnatural and indecent, according to scripture. It even calls it an abomination. If we say some fornicators are okay, and some aren't, we're being inconsistent.

But you're okay with some fornicators being in the military, even though they lack character. I'm saying it's not okay for any fornicators being in the military, because anyone who fornicates lacks character.

 

Oh, please The folks here who oppose lifting DADT aren't generally saying they support a rollback to pre-clinton policy. They do, however, support a policy of "if you want in, keep it to yourself". I myself haven't states support or opposition to a lifting of the ban myself.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for a Christian to support keeping DADT. I'm simply noting that we're not consistent about how we as Christians decide who does and doesn't get into the military. IMO, if a guy fornicates, he fornicates, and whom he fornicated with shouldn't make his action any less of an amonination, nor should it make a difference in his ineligibiltiy.

 

Really???

I have not seen any discussion on this phase of this topic, and I was just pretty much assuming that my view was the typical conservative Christian view - if you have seen otherwise, please point it out for me.

Also if I have mis-spoken re:the Christian view, then I apologize to any Conservative Christian that does not agree with me!

(I know, I know, DON'T ASSUME!! )

 

The difference is that homosexuality is a whole lifestyle, even a subculture. It has a certain worldview and in the case of those who profess to be Christians in this lifestyle, a way of interpreting the Bible to support that behavior.

Imo, although all sexual sin is sexual immorality and is wrong, the way homosexuality is advancing today as a worldview, culture, and cause separates it from the other sexual sins in that it is more threatening in a broader way.

For example, are there adultery clubs in schools? Or fornication clubs? No, but there are the LGBT clubs. Do kids read books like, "Mommy has a secret lover?" No, but they read about "Heather's Two Mommies."

It's an animal of another stripe.

 

Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of Sodom. They refused, and were destroyed. It does seem there is sin, and there is abomination. There is no way to know what would have happened if the men took Lot's daughters, but I do not believe God sees homosexuality on the same level as immorality.

 

I think I'm going to save this so that every time someone on the BB starts talking about other sexual sins, I can post this. There is a difference in how homosexuality is advancing into "normalcy" by virtue of how it is being promoted and endorsed vs. the other sins brought up.

 

Well said.

 

You would just be wasting your time. They know it already but choose to ignore it. Some hyper intellectuals like to feign objectivity so they make crazy arguments. Others all but condone the lifestyle. They really don't care to hear it.


Although very well said.

 

I see your point but in my mind, it is never a waste of time to present the truth and counter arguments against it, no matter what the reasons may be of those who post such statements. Sometime people are reading these threads who never post and may need to hear the truth. I post with them in mind as much as anyone else.

Thanks! And thanks to what Targus said.

 

Bolded mine

Amen, and this is probably the main reason I still read/post on this board.

When that which is an abomination to God, is excused in the name of "tolerance, love and 'God just created them this way' ", there needs to be the challenging of this heresy. Another issue is abortion!

While there are many other things here that are "not kosher" IMHO, these two are simply a bast@rdizing of His word and need be countered.

 

My point was not that you shouldn't post it but that it matters not to those on this board who lend support to homosexuality however vague.

 

Were not the same sorts of arguments made against having black people in the military? Was HST also wrong for integrating the Armed Forces?

 

No, those were not the same sort of arguments at all. One has to do with race and the other with behavior that is condemned as immoral by God.