Was [PLUG-TALK] I don't like a certain change on plug...

[Darkhorse]

> Yes, and that's because the heterosexuals of the world would run over 
> and sweep aside the homosexuals.

Are you paranoid or something?  I have a very good homosexual friend. 
He's very kind.  He never pushed homosexuality on me which
I frankly appreciate.  I would not be surprised if he chooses to live
as a brother with the men he has purchased property with.  No matter
what your sexual orientation, you can choose how to live your life.
Everyone needs to live their life with an eye toward God.
 
> >  We aren't talking about standing up against
> >those who will physically attack a homosexual or deny a homosexual 
> >basic human rights when we're talking about gay pride day.  If gay 
> >pride day was about ensuring the same safety for a homosexual that 
> >your average hederosexual is aassured and making sure the homosexual 
> >can mix with others in society with the least amount of tension
> >possible, I might be able to support it. Unfortunately, it's about
> >creating tension with a message, 
> >"we're gay and you better take notice of it."  Society owes the gay
> >something and is going to lose if it doesn't pay up.  To those
> >gays who feel this way, fat chance.   
> >  
> >
> For some, it is about getting "in your face". For others it's just 
> letting "us" know that "they" are there and won't be forgotten about.

Equality goes out the window if the discussion turns to lifestyle.

> Remember when King George was taxing the Americans, and we threw the tea 
> in the harbor? We were letting him know that we were being ignored and 
> we weren't going to stand for it.

George Bush won, he got a mandate from the 
American people by taking both the electoral and the popular vote. 

> >We have had President's day, Veteran's day, etc. far longer than
> >any gay pride day.



> And that makes it less important? What about MLK Jr day? Is that less 
> important because it's been around less time?

MLK Jr. Day is important because it's a legitimate holiday.
 
> >  And that's assuming gay pride day is recognized
> >by the nation as a whole.  It isn't, no act of Congress etc. 
> >  
> >
> Neither was Earth day for quite some time.

Earth Day is also a legitimate holiday and Teddy Roosevelt put a lot
of land into National Parks.  There are environmental Republicans,
Libertarians, Socialists, etc.  I'm a strong environmentalist.

> >Lifestyle is different than skin color and does not fall under 
> >the discrimation umbrella the same way.  Lifestyle is something 
> >people can and do judge.  Unlike physical attributes such as 
> >skin color, lifestyle can and usually does follow a person's 
> >character.
> >
> So you are saying people "choose" to be gay? Um, you are more ignorant 
> that I had originally thought.

Identifying as a homosexual is not a problem morally.  The problem comes
in when you demean marriage and attack society for your own selfish
desires by becoming a sexually active homosexual.

> >  The marriage debate was not about equality.  The 
> >gay agenda is not about equality in hiring and personal 
> >safety for homosexuals, it's about making the Will and Grace 
> >world where casual homosexual sex is common and preferred 
> >a reality.

> Well, in my perfect world, casual sex is a good thing. Two people get 
> together and just make each other feel good. Sex produces some of the 
> most powerful endorphins, similar to many drugs. Which is probably why 
> organized religion says sex is bad.

Casual sex rejects that humans are monogamous creatures and that deep
emotional scars can be left by using someone without marriage and
without any openness to their needs and to God.  Their are many
monogamous species, birds that fly over 1000 miles apart for months
rejoining each other their fidelity is so strong.  There are marriages
between men and women that are over fifty years old, neither partner
guilty of ever straying at any point.  We are monogamous, not
polygamous.  Sex isn't a drug unless you're abusing it.  Homosexual
marriage does not work, homosexual attraction doesn't lend itself to the
committment needed to sustain a marriage.  Some homosexuals try to buy
up property, animals, etc. together, but there's always the possibility
of a younger suitor coming along and proving to be more interesting. 
With age you're attractiveness, no matter what you're sexual orientation
is, declines.  If you're in a traditional marriage that's solid, you've
long since bonded in ways that render losing your good looks a moot
issue.
 
> >  The gay agenda is clearly about casting sex as a
> >recreational activity that should be equally accepted if it's 
> >between homosexual or hederosexual partners.
> >  
> >
> Sex IS a recreational activity. The stigma against sex is so wrong, but 
> people don't see what's right in front of their nose.

Only at appropriate times between married people who are open to life. 
Otherwise, it's an abusive activity that doesn't deserve any positive
recognition from society.

> >Promiscuity shouldn't be promoted at all in my opinion, 
> >regardless of whether it's homosexual or hederosexual.
> >  
> >
> And, as you can see, I have no problem with promiscuity, as long as all 
> involved are consenting adults, and those consenting adults use protection.

Protection doesn't always work.  No human made material will ever be
flawless.  Even if protection were flawless, it wouldn't even begin to
address the emotional and psychological damage inflicted on someone when
they are used.  Natural Family planning is more affective than
contraception anyways.  There is no 100% effective method, abstinence is
always going to be important.  Natural family planning is open to life. 
It doesn't please God when people take the pleasure but refuse to give
Him an opportunity to create new life.  I always consider using
contraceptives morally wrong with the exception being those that can be
used to restore sexual function when they are used for that purpose. 
Most contraceptives don't have any restorative potential and some are
abortifacients.

> >If you want to be proud of a homosexual be proud of those who loved the
> >Catholic church and lived a lifestyle in accordance with it's teaching
> >producing some of the most profound art of all time.
> >
> So tell me, does the bible condone or condem homosexuality?

See Sodom and Gomorrah.

Their is a big difference between being homosexual and what the bible
condemns.  Being hederosexual is no more an excuse for being sexually
abusive and permiscuous than being homosexual is.  You
are misinformed and misguided Russ Johnson.

     --  Michael Robinson