I think the proper line that we should all strive for is toleration, without proactive endorsement. She does not handle this tension well at all.
I think the proper line that we should all strive for is toleration, without proactive endorsement.
And if it would be that way, I would be happy to live that way. But that's not good enough:
- They managed to have the DSM changed so that homosexuality is no longer considered a parasexual abberation. In fact, there is talk that in the forthcoming DSM-V, they are going to classify "homophobia" as a type of psychosis. Ponder that one a bit: if you don't fully accept the homosexual agenda, once this next update to the DSM is released, you will be considered to be mentally ill per the medical community (and, theoretically, could be committed to a mental institution)(You question that? Take a look at some of the hits on this Google search)
- They wish to educate our children that their behavior is normal and that opposition to their behavior is abnormal. Numerous threads on FR posted about that (look at kw: homosexual agenda)
- There have been frequent court cases in Canada's Human Rights Court over the years about ministers from multiple denominations being fined and muzzled as a result of speaking out against homosexuality (in an ecclesial sense). Now that our country has passed the latest civil rights bill, expect to see that over here in increasing amounts.
- And more...
There's a whole lot more than tolerance that we're talking about here...
posted on 12/13/2009 9:57:25 AM PST
(Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson