Posted on 07/16/2005 12:12:46 PM PDT by gopgen
Were you there last October advising John Edwards's wife when she said Cheney's daughter was "fair game" when Kerry compulsively brought up her sexual orientation on national
television? You can't see the forest for the trees, dude.
That's what I hate about this whole thing, it's a bid to pit the far right against the rest of the party. And it seems to be working.
Can I vote for you, please?
People can be born with all kinds of tendencies, but have to rein in the temptation to turn a tendency to a hardened set of destructive behaviors. This applies to those born alcoholics, sex-driven, depressive, or any other tendency.
Speaking for myself, Christians are expected to renounce the self and "die to sin". "Be transformed by the renewing of your mind." We are taught that "if your right eye offend you, pluck it out" -- meaning, don't let your addiction to any worldly thing stand in the way of observing God's laws. We are also taught that to follow Christ, we must be prepared to renounce the influence of relatives, even our parents, if their ways interfere with following Christ. In doing so, you renounce the sin, but not necessarily the sinner.
The minds of of those who follow God should be stronger than the sentimental ties of emotion in this life.
Couple things. You state:
"See, I think you are born with a predispostion to being gay."
That is your opinion. Opinions are fragile things, subject to change if the person holding them is willing to have an open mind and read and learn. Here's an article with a lot of info on the thread about the root causes of homoesxuality. Keep in mind that if homosexuality were inborn, there would be no - zero - former homosexuals. Turns out there are tens of thousands of former homosexuals. The mainstream media does not want their stories to be told.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420619/posts
Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences
Here is another link to a vast number of organized and categorized articles about homosexuality, including many on the causes. If you want to hold opinions about the topic, you'd do well to read up. I have been studying the issue for more than 15 years, and it's clear as a bell that it is not genetic, not inborn, and that people can change.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts?page=592#592
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)
Thirdly, you made this utterly ridiculus statement:
"Do you really want to purge the party of homosexuals? They are not welcome?"
Are you trying to pick a fight, or what? I never thought or said that. What I am opposed to is the homosexual agenda, especially forcing pro-homosexual legislation via the courts, and the indoctrination of children in schools.
The more conservative homosexuals the likes of Tammy Bruce, the better, and the more they vote Republican, the better.
Spewing venom? What are you talking about?
You've never had a relative who did/said things you disagreed with or considered wrong? You've never had a child who did wrong things?
I can love someone even if I disapprove or disagree with them. Love doesn't mean you have to think everything that person does is right. IOW, real love doesn't stop just because the other person isn't perfect.
Sheesh.
I can't speak for all Catholics, but it seems to me that if the guy does a good job, and doesn't try to get the senator to push his agenda, I don't have a problem with him being hired.
We must hate the sin, but love the sinner. It seems to me that Sen. Santorum is doing just that. Certainly, there are some jobs where hiring such a man could be a problem, but a communications position doesn't seem among them. The commies responsible for making an issue out of this guy's personal life ought to be ashamed of themselves.
There are many legitimate beefs conservatives may have with Sen. Santorum, like his support of Sen. Specter in the primary, and his voting against the 2,000 previously-promised Border Patrol agents.
You accuse me of posting to this thread because someone pinged me to it.
I started posting on this thread because I saw it on the sidebar.
I think you need something constructive to occupy your mind.
Nah. I'm far right, and I think this is a non-issue.
The spewing venom I was referring to was those who describe gays as vile or despicable, etc. If that were your child would you use the same terms? That is the question.
I don't think asking someone how they would react if they had a gay in the family is mean at all. Just think about it. Or do you really believe it can't happen in your family?
Protect states:
"Further, IMHO, Sexuality and abortion have no place on a politcal platform."
He/she also uses the word "homophobes" in a serious mannter.
Maybe you aren't really a Republican? You sure aren't a conservative. Part of the Republican platform is respect for life; the pro-abortion party is the Democrats. You didn't know this?
Good, glad to know those tactics won't work across the board. I know we saw it with Mary Cheyney, but glad to be reminded of it!
Do we have to agree with every plank to vote Republican? Or should I stay home in 2008?
Yours is the best post on this thread.
Invasive personal questions are not proper on a forum like this.
If someone steals, I can call the ACT of theft despicable. That doesn't mean I hate the person. Similarly, I can call the ACT of same sex sodomy despicable, especially if performed in a public place such as a park, beach or parade, or if described to children, without hating those who perform it.
What do you think of teaching children in grade school that homosexuality is natural and normal, and tell kids as young as 11 and 12 how homosexuals achieve sexual gratification? This is not a rhetorical question; I think people reading this thread would like to know your answers.
I'm just wondering what other planks you disagree with.
Conservatives don't want the government in ANYBODY'S bedroom.
Thanks for the outburst.
From the tone of it, I'm fairly certain this will be lost on you, but here goes: Santorum is one of those hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner types on this issue.
You call him a "hypocrite" for standing by a loyal staffer. He can well stand by his belief of "disapproving" of a "lifestyle"--yet still be friends and colleagues with those who live that lifestyle.
While we're at it, I completely disagree that Traynham's personal life is fair game, because he's in a "public position." That's crap. You and I never heard of him before this. Are you saying anyone connected to Santorum, in any way--since HE'S a public figure--gives up their right to privacy?
Santorum didn't engage in "defending a homosexual" because it would "benefit" him. He spoke out against the Dem ops who would drag someone's name throught the dirt in order to smear him. I look on it as standing up for a friend.
I usually read all the posts before responding, but yours was so over the top and off the mark, I had to pop back immediately. I'm going to read the rest now, and I fully expect to take pleasure in all the posts that will no doubt kick you in your unreasonable butt.
If homosexuals kept their private life in the bedroom, no one would know or care. What we don't want is their sex life in schools K-12, all over TV, in the marriage license bureau, in the military, in sensitivity training sessions in public institutions including schools and universities, on public streets, on beaches, in parks, and on and on and on.
But you know this.
That's where the platform planks come in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.