Free Republic

OK so instead of “on their own” - would “not allowed to step foot in a church” fit? Are people who have non-homosexual mental disorders allowed?

Having a mental disorder does not necessarily mean a lack of self control. Someone might have anger problems and want to slap everyone he/she disagrees with. To act on that desire would be a problem, right? In the same way, acting on the mental disorder of homosexuality is a sin.

You said, “It is wrong to assume the church is positioned to treat homosexuals....or for that matter alcoholics or gluttons. All should be getting the professional help they need first and foremost.”

I can’t believe you really believe this. First of all, the church is chock full of FAT people, as well as people who spend excessive money on vanity while they thumb their nose towards a world of people who are hungry, thirsty, enslaved, and in pain. Gluttony is rampant in the American church. Secondly, its sounds like you are saying that alcoholics (and other addicts) can be invited to church, as long as they are receiving professional help first and foremost. So why would that not apply to homosexuals?

So all sinners are accepted into your church -except- those who have a mental disorder that causes them to lust after their own sex?

It IS a mental disorder. I have known a few homosexuals in my lifetime. They do NOT choose to be gay! That doesn’t mean there is a gay gene or that it should be accepted as normal. Some people have bi-polar disorder. Did they choose it? Of course not! Should the church ban all people who have a mental illness? NO!!!!!! We should help them!!!!! It is not helpful to tell them that they are on their own and that Jesus loves everybody except them.

“When did it become acceptable to encourage or at best just stand by without uttering a word of disagreement when it comes to children engaging in sexual activity ESPECIALLY self destructive and intrinsically disordered sexual activity that comprises homosexual sex?”

I don’t remember posting anything that even comes close to what you say here. Uttering a word of disagreement is not what I was objecting to. I object to the complete shunning of anything homosexual by the church simply because it is homosexual. I absolutely disagree with kids having sex of any kind.

“This push into the BSA is all about imposing acceptance of evil upon children.”

All the more reason for them to have a Christian influence in their lives - to combat the lies they are being told by the gay-pride deceivers who tell them that the only way to feel better about yourself is to give in (or actually dive iin) to the temptation.

I completely agree with you, caww. However, I think there is a problem with the double-standard that I see in a lot of posters on FR - namely that if someone is caught in ANY sin except for homosexuality, there seems to be a program in the church to help them through it towards healing or deliverance, or whatever it is that denomination teaches. Alcoholism, drug addiction, lying, gluttony, dishonoring your mom and dad, and heterosexual sex addiction... apparently a Christian can do any of these, multiple times (because they are “struggling with it”), and suffer through the cycle of sin-repent, sin-repent, and still be accepted by the church. But, by God, if you have a mental disorder that makes you lust after your same sex, you are banished and shunned from the church.

Those who are pushing for universal acceptance of “FLAMING” homosexuality, meaning forcing their mental disorder on the church in order for us to proclaim that God is suddenly OK with sin... I’m with you! They should not be accepted as part of the church (although I think they should be considered a very challenging mission-field).

If you read my post, I think it was an honest take on the situation. I don’t think it is wise to thoughtlessly shun anything that has to do with homosexuality. There are people who are suffering from what up until recently was considered a mental disorder, who need spiritual counsel. I think most of them KNOW that it is wrong, but they jump into the agenda of ‘gay-rights’ because it is so much easier than fighting their disorder.

Agreed. It is the act and promotion of homosexuality that should be fought against. Those who struggle with temptation should be guided through it towards the healthy, God-inspired, and God-designed life of holy matrimony or holy celibacy - whether the temptation be homo or hetero.

Wouldn’t it be better if the Boy Scouts issued a clarification to their ruling stating: “Any boy regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, will be accepted into a den. Any boy who sexually harasses another boy will be kicked out. Period.”

I had my kids in scouts for a year and the only mention of sex in the material was a notice that kids should be aware of anyway: that if someone (anyone) says they want to take pictures of you naked or touches you inappropriately, that you need to run away and get help. Doesn’t this still apply?

I believe we are ALL worthy of death and it is only by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ that we are able to approach our perfectly holy God.

That being said, someone who suffers from a mental disorder that causes them to lust after someone of their own sex, but abstains from acting on that desire is WAY different from someone who suffers from the same disorder but insists that the rest of us call it “normal” and openly practices and advocates their own sexual immorality. Such people, it seems, would like very much for God to just bend the rules for them and their sickness - so that they would not have to use any sort of self-control. A hetero-sexual struggling with lust of the flesh can’t simply demand that God overlook adultery or fornication just because its hard to resist temptation.

But anyway, I disagree that homosexuality is a greater sin than others, but perhaps we differ on what is meant by “homosexuality”. A mental disorder or a sexual hedonistic advocate of/for that disorder?

preface: I am a Christian and I am absolutely NOT a fan of the rabid pro-homosexual agenda.

That being said, as I was thinking about this issue, a question came to my mind that I think is worth asking:

“Would you ban a boy or girl from coming to your church’s youth group if you discovered he/she was living a homosexual lifestyle?”

In other words, “Is there a sexual-preference litmus test that will determine whether or not one is worthy of attending your church? Is the sin of homosexuality greater or more egregious than the other typical sins that we all commit on any given day?”

I would agree Dean has the best shot against Bush, but not because of his political record or his policies. I think Americans are more interested in leadership qualities today - especially how a leader talks. Clinton's speaking abilities were the only reason he was as popular as he was. Bush would be maybe the most popular president of the last 50 years if he was a dynamic orator (which he is not). The fact that Bush's popularity ratings are so high despite his relatively poor speaking ability tells me that people agree with his leadership decisions.
Anyway, Dean, even though he comes off as angry when he's speaking, doesn't try to be someone he isn't. Gephart (as well as Gore and Daschle, by the way) sound like they are trying so hard to have some kind of presence about them. It's like they will say anything, whether it is truthful or not, in order for people to think of them as strong leaders.

By the way, I think if Dean had a couple screws in his neck he's be a dead ringer for Frankenstein...