Posted on 07/14/2007 12:24:48 PM PDT by madprof98
As a member of the United Methodist Judicial Council, physician James Holsinger voted with the majority to affirm Methodist teaching that bans practicing homosexuals from ordination. Holsinger also wrote a white paper for the denomination 16 years ago on the health hazards of gay sex and on the biological complementarity of the human sexes.
Should that bar him from serving (as President Bush desires) as U.S. surgeon general? It's not surprising that homosexual-activist groups like Human Rights Campaign think so. But most of the major Democratic presidential candidates agree.
[snip]
The Bush administration didn't exactly rush to Holsinger's defense. "That was not his belief. It was not his opinion. It was a compilation of studies that were available at that time," a spokeswoman said. "Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved."
[snip]
Where does that leave biblical Christians? We may soon come to the point where supporting a sexual ethic based on an orthodox reading of Scripture becomes part of our cross to bear.
The early church did not shy away from proclaiming a biblical sexual ethic in the midst of a promiscuous and perverted culture, but we don't have evidence to suggest that licentious Romans said, "See how these Christians hate homosexual behavior." Instead, non-Christians reportedly said, "Look how they love one another."
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Why is it not permissible to criticize homosexuality?
Here’s what gets me — There is a lot of talk in recent years about “safe sex” and criticism of heterosexuals who are promiscuous and spread sexually transmitted diseases. They are spreading diseases and having unplanned pregnancies, and are criticized for doing so. Random heterosexual sexual behavior can have bad consequences.
Why then, can’t we criticize the homosexual behaviors that spread diseases and have bad consequences? Why can’t we talk about certain dangers of homosexual behavior, just as we’re allowed to speak about certain dangers of certain heterosexual behavior?
I think there is a double standard involved, and we’re not supposed to criticize anything related to homosexuality, even if it has to do with dangers to their health. Instead of focusing on risky behaviors, all too often the homosexual community lashes out at people like Ronald Reagan who allegedly didn’t do enough to fight AIDS.
This seems to be getting awfully close to a religious test, especially when the paper he wrote that is being used in the litmus test was written for his Methodist denomination.
We've learned that the human sexes aren't actually complementary?
I hate to say this, but I hope Bush pulls the nomination. The United Methodist Church needs him to stay on the Judicial Council. We are just starting to turn back the tide, and he is a reliably sane vote.
We have lost this battle even while the vast majority agrees with us because we have allowed them to define all the terms and set all the boundaries. We are too weak and too compromised to win even though they are so obviously in error. It’s going to get much worse until God decides He has been patient with us long enough.
RFK Jr. also called anyone who questioned the scientific theories of man made global warming a “traitor” to the US government (there is no other kind of treason).
The Stalinists on the Left are getting ready to criminalize political dissent.
Thay, thouldn’t that be thibboleth?
You've never been married, have you?
The Left claims that Reagan didn’t do “enough” to stop AIDS.
Here we are over 20 years later with more money thrown at this disease than any other and still there is no cure.
How much spending should Reagan have authorized and how would it have stopped the activity of gay drug users having random sex encounters in bath houses?
What would a "win" look like, and how do we know God wants that outcome? Seems to me that He wants only that we remain pure, and proclaim the truth in and out of season ... and nothing prevents us from continuing to do those things.
You are spot on, I have raised this point on many occasions, there is a conspiracy of silence in the media when it comes to educating the population about the health dangers of homosexuality
There are lethal medical consequences of engaging in male homosexual behavior.
These various behaviors cause trauma to the rectum; contribute to the spread of AIDS; increase incidences of oral and anal cancer; and result in serious infections due to the ingestion of fecal matter. Anal intercourse tears the rectal lining of the receptive partner, regardless of whether a condom is worn, and the subsequent contact with their own fecal matter leads to a host of diseases. Other diseases to which active homosexuals are vulnerable can be classified as follows:
Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).
Increased morbidity and mortality is an unavoidable result of male-with-male sex--not to mention the increased rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, suicide and other maladies that so often accompany a homosexual lifestyle.
A 1998 study suggested that a homosexual lifestyle, on the average, shortens one’s lifespan by roughly 20 years. It is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction.
And RFK Jr. is a convicted drug user/abuser.
He thinks he is morally superior because he is a good Democrat and worships at the altar of Al Gore.
Well, many of us think we’re morally superior to RFK Jr. because we stay away from mind altering drugs, and we don’t think we’re above others because of having a last name such as Kennedy.
So in a pissing contest about moral superiority, how does RFK Jr. really stack up?
You've never been married, have you?
That's complEmentary not complImentary ... and I've been married long enough to know the former is always true and the latter occasionally.
The problem is that we don’t have any politicians who are willing to stand up and fight this garbage head on. That’s the problem. The only way this will become a litmus test is if we LET IT.
Touché!
Those are good questions. It’s so easy to see ourselves as in a “battle” and to imagine that what we are put here for is to “win.” In war, absolutely. But with regard to Christians’ place in society? We strive for justice and oppose injustice, but there really is no such thing as “winning.” We will never eradicate abortion, for instance, but good Christians will continue to strive to make it illegal. God will judge the Kennedys, Cuomos and Pelosis, and the Bernardins, Mahonys, McCarricks, and Wuerls who sided with evil, and many who have sided with what is good.
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.