I noticed a few "Republicans" have said that her lesbianism would not be a problem for them. Of course the Obama's deny here homosexuality. Why, when it seems obvious even "conservatives" are saying the social issues, like sexual perversity, are no longer issues of importance, do they care?
I suspect we will have a "transgendered" coming up for confirmation next.
Homosexual "marriage" is coming, I don't see anyone willing to fight it anymore.
"This exposes a divide between Christian conservatism and generic conservatism."
I think there's always been a divide, but the divide is growing greater since the Libertarians have, unfortunately, found a home in the Republican Party.
These former Ross Perot voters were never conservative to begin with, but instead of the conservatives (Christian and Generic) influencing the Libertarians on the importance of the social issues, Libertarians have infected conservatives with their anarchistic attitudes toward government, isolationist foreign policy, and libertine morality.
I honestly don't know which is worse Liberals or Libertarians, but one this is sure, Conservative Christians are without a party.
I don't understand. Do you have a problem with Kagan being a lesbian or being unregenerate? What makes her any different from the rest of the judges who are unregenerate that are sitting on the Supreme Court? The question for me is, 'Can an unregenerate person be a valuable judge that sits on the Supreme Court?' If that is the case possible then Kagan's sexuality has no bearing on the conversation.
Her lesbianism ipso facto makes her a social liberal who will abuse her position (if confirmed) to force her deviant values on society at large. I don't believe in giving sexual perverts power over the rest of us.
So I guess if a candidate is Republican, who supports family values, but isn't regenerate, that that would be better?
To clarify, all homosexuals aren't social liberals by default. Some call themselves Christians, some are just extremely Right wing and some are both. I've also met many homosexuals who could care less about gay marriage rights.
Aren't you equally worried by an unregenerate person imposing mediocre values on our society? Why are we singling out this woman for her sexuality when clearly she can do no worse than another unregenerate person? You call her a sexual pervert, but doesn't that include any man or woman who engages in extramarital sexual activity? When you single her out aren't you raising one sin over another?
"So I guess if a candidate is Republican, who supports family values, but isn't regenerate, that that would be better?"
Yes, that would be better. It's a question of public policy. Which policy prevails.
"To clarify, all homosexuals aren't social liberals by default. Some call themselves Christians, some are just extremely Right wing and some are both. I've also met many homosexuals who could care less about gay marriage rights."
i) Of course they're social liberals. Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.
ii) And don't play dumb. Kagan didn't get to be dean of the Harvard law school by being a social conservative.
iii) Moreover, social liberals go into law and politics because social liberals are social engineers who use abuse their authority to remake to the social order to their liking. That's what they do. We see it all the time.
iv) Case in point: consider Kagan's infamous attempt to kick military recruiters off campus.
"Aren't you equally worried by an unregenerate person imposing mediocre values on our society?"
You set up a false dichotomy. Was I commending unregenerate nominees? No. I also opposed the nomination of Sotomayor.
But we're talking about public office. Public policy. So that's what matters.
"Why are we singling out this woman for her sexuality when clearly she can do no worse than another unregenerate person?"
To the contrary, some unregenerates subscribe to traditional social conventions.
"You call her a sexual pervert, but doesn't that include any man or woman who engages in extramarital sexual activity? When you single her out aren't you raising one sin over another?"
The Bible raises some sins over others as a matter of public policy. Not all sins are crimes. Read the OT. That's because some sins are more culturally destructive than others.
i) I don’t see Homosexuality as either a “liberal” or a “conservative” lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts. Again, I have to point out that there are Homosexuals that claim traditional values, like gay couples that have been married for years, and have kids, and go to Church. Even their views on the Bible are “quasi-conservative,” they just choose to ignore the parts that talk about homosexual acts as being sin. If anything, Homosexuality has been pushing to be seen as a more traditional movement in the past 10 years. But I’m assuming this would go back to some sins being worse off in the public forum.
ii) I’m not playing dumb. Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be. Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.
iii) Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture. Frankly, I’m hoping that more Orthodox Christians engage law and politics, just like these “socially liberal engineers,” so that we can influence culture and society as well.
iv) I don’t see that as a “liberal” move.
“You set up a false dichotomy. Was I commending unregenerate nominees? No. I also opposed the nomination of Sotomayor. But we're talking about public office. Public policy. So that's what matters.”
You’re right. You are not commending unregenerate nominees, but you are arguing that some unregenerate nominees are better than others based on their public policy perspectives. My point is, how can we decide a person’s value in public office based solely on their sexuality? If you’re arguing for a generic form of conservatism and that person is a moderate, doesn’t that fit with your criteria?
“Yes, that would be better. It's a question of public policy. Which policy prevails…To the contrary, some unregenerates subscribe to traditional social conventions.”
So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant “culturally destructive” sins, then they would have your vote for public office.
I don't know man. I guess I just disagree with your idea that homosexual acts is considered more destructive in the public forum then let's say morally-therapeutic theology that makes Jesus less than savior and generic conservatism is all about that. To me a candidate's sex life isn't as important to me as much as that political candidate's ability to keep Church and State separate. Let people have gay marriage, just don't tell me I can't preach against it as a sin like this: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/05/street_preacher.html
“I don’t see Homosexuality as either a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’ lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts.”
I didn’t say anything about her party affiliation. That’s your non sequitur, not mine.
“Again, I have to point out that there are Homosexuals that claim traditional values, like gay couples that have been married for years, and have kids, and go to Church. Even their views on the Bible are ‘quasi-conservative,’ they just choose to ignore the parts that talk about homosexual acts as being sin. If anything, Homosexuality has been pushing to be seen as a more traditional movement in the past 10 years.”
I’m conversant with the propaganda. I’ve read Andrew Sullivan et al. But you’d have to have a few roos loose in the top paddock to be taken in by that.
“Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be.”
A lesbian dean of Harvard law school who serves in Democrat administrations (Clinton, Obama) is a blue-ribbon social liberal.
“Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.”
To be honest, I don’t think it’s an intellectual virtue to make oneself artificially stupid (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell). I don’t feel the obligation to deny the obvious.
“Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture.”
And liberals enter politics to liberalize the general culture.
“My point is, how can we decide a person’s value in public office based solely on their sexuality?”
Kagan is not a hypocrite. She’s living out her values (such as they are).
Of course, there are other considerations which are sufficient to disqualify her, such as her mistreatment of military recruiters.
Cont. “So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant ‘culturally destructive’ sins, then they would have your vote for public office.”
i) That depends on the available pool of candidates, which candidates are electable, &c.
ii) And the question at issue is not whether they commit socially destructive sins. The question is whether they treat socially destructive sins as a civil right. Kagan is a social activist.
“I don't know man. I guess I just disagree with your idea that homosexual acts is considered more destructive in the public forum then let's say morally-therapeutic theology that makes Jesus less than savior and generic conservatism is all about that.”
If a SCOTUS nominee was bent on finding an inalienable right to “morally-therapeutic theology” in the Constitution, that would be a relevant comparison.
“To me a candidate's sex life isn't as important to me as much as that political candidate's ability to keep Church and State separate.”
Needless to say, Barry Lynn, the ACLA, &c., don’t believe in church/state separation. Rather, they believe in church/state separation. Rather, they believe in subordinating the church to the state. Secularizing the public square. Criminalizing Christian expression.
“Let people have gay marriage…”
Why? Should they also be allowed to adopt children?
Steve said – “Of course they're social liberals. Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.”
James said – “I don’t see Homosexuality as either a “liberal” or a “conservative” lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts.”
Steve said - “I didn’t say anything about her party affiliation. That’s your non sequitur, not mine.”
Steve you said, “Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.” My point is that it cannot be considered a liberal lifestyle since people from any political party can commit Homosexual acts. I shall restate it in a different way: Whether someone is politically liberal or conservative they can engage in a Homosexual lifestyle. My statement is not a non-sequitur. Did I somehow misinterpret your statement?
Steve said – “I’m conversant with the propaganda. I’ve read Andrew Sullivan et al. But you’d have to have a few roos loose in the top paddock to be taken in by that.”
Taken in by what? The fact that there are homosexuals who are in the Republican party? That’s a fact. They may want more rights, as in gay marriage, but they subscribe to the same generic conservatism that other Republicans adhere to.
Steve said - "roos loose"
I think I'm beginning to understand your disparaging remark now. "screws loose" hahaha. But the Aussie part of Kangaroos Loose doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
James said - “Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be.”
Steve said - A lesbian dean of Harvard law school who serves in Democrat administrations (Clinton, Obama) is a blue-ribbon social liberal.
The fact that she served in the Clinton administration only verifies that she is moderate and not a raging liberal as you claim.
James said -“Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.”
Steve said - “To be honest, I don’t think it’s an intellectual virtue to make oneself artificially stupid (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell). I don’t feel the obligation to deny the obvious.”
Steve, that is the second ad-hominem attack that you have used in defense of Harvard’s Deans being liberal. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, please provide some evidence or examples defending your position. For the second time, I am not feigning stupidity or ignorance. I actually do not know Harvard’s School of Law’s political affiliation. I know that Harvard and Yale’s Theology programs are extremely liberal, but that is a far as my knowledge goes. Please be more respectful.
James said - “Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture.”
Steve said - “And liberals enter politics to liberalize the general culture.”
Please define your term “liberalize.” Do you mean all liberals go into politics to make the general culture into one that has no moral center or that they go into politics to make America into a welfare state? Both my options are ridiculous stereotypes. I feel your statement is of the same ilk.
James said - “So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant ‘culturally destructive’ sins, then they would have your vote for public office.”
Steve said – “The question is whether they treat socially destructive sins as a civil right. Kagan is a social activist…If a SCOTUS nominee was bent on finding an inalienable right to “morally-therapeutic theology” in the Constitution, that would be a relevant comparison.”
This country has made it an inalienable right to practice homosexuality. Are you talking about re-criminalizing homosexuality?
Steve said – “Why? Should they also be allowed to adopt children?”
Yes. Yes they should. Again this is because I’m basing my opinion on the understanding that homosexual acts are on par with any other person who is unregenerate and commits sin. I am willing to listen to your claims that homosexual acts are considered more “socially destructive” then other sins, but I need to see a case built. The way I see it, the OT does criminalize homosexual acts, but that is in a Theocratic state run by God’s holy people, who all agree that the state should be run on principles based on biblical polity.
Paul, in Romans 1:26 –32, talks about homosexuality and other qualities of the unregenerate man i.e. greed, envy, insolence, arrogance etc., that begin with turning away from God (Romans 1:18). I notice that Paul says that their practices are worthy of death (Romans 1:32) and in Romans 2:1, he confronts homosexuality within the Church (I’m assuming the “you” Paul is talking about are the people he originally addressed his letter to). He does not call out for an actual penalty of death on the believer (or unbeliever), but he does warn them that they are storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 2:5). Paul begins with talking about the unregenerate and then goes to rebuke those in the Christian community. I don’t see him distinguishing homosexuality from any other sins of the unregenerate man (Romans 2:3) or calling out for a penalty. Would it be safe for me to assume that homosexuality is on par with all other unregenerate persons who commit sin? I am open to correction and to your understanding, please make a case.
The reason I think homosexuals should be able to adopt children is because if they adhere to “nominal” family values why should they be disqualified? Atheists can adopt children. People who worship money can adopt children. I would feel bad for those kids, but the qualification by the state to adopt children isn't based on the adoptive parents faith, it’s based on the idea that they would be “good” “loving” parents. We would have to legislate what “good” and “loving” is in order to deal with children being adopted by unregenerate parents.
I don’t believe we have a right to legislate our faith in our nation’s laws because we are a nation that is made up of many different faiths (and even those with no-faith). I DO believe that as Christians we must worship and obey Christ, and preach it everywhere we go. I believe the “fight” to change legislation must be loving. We should not mock people who are in sin, but approach them with the truth in Love and be honest with them that our God calls them to repentance. I believe it is from our relationship to Christ, which will be plainly seen by everyone around us, that will cause the change that we want in our culture, so much so that we as a nation will want make the choice to legislate orthodox Christian beliefs.
Thanks again for taking the time to write to me Steve. Please, be kind in your response. I will listen.
does this really surprise anyone?
ReplyDeleteI noticed a few "Republicans" have said that her lesbianism would not be a problem for them. Of course the Obama's deny here homosexuality. Why, when it seems obvious even "conservatives" are saying the social issues, like sexual perversity, are no longer issues of importance, do they care?
ReplyDeleteI suspect we will have a "transgendered" coming up for confirmation next.
Homosexual "marriage" is coming, I don't see anyone willing to fight it anymore.
This exposes a divide between Christian conservatism and generic conservatism.
ReplyDelete"This exposes a divide between Christian conservatism and generic conservatism."
ReplyDeleteI think there's always been a divide, but the divide is growing greater since the Libertarians have, unfortunately, found a home in the Republican Party.
These former Ross Perot voters were never conservative to begin with, but instead of the conservatives (Christian and Generic) influencing the Libertarians on the importance of the social issues, Libertarians have infected conservatives with their anarchistic attitudes toward government, isolationist foreign policy, and libertine morality.
I honestly don't know which is worse Liberals or Libertarians, but one this is sure, Conservative Christians are without a party.
I don't understand. Do you have a problem with Kagan being a lesbian or being unregenerate? What makes her any different from the rest of the judges who are unregenerate that are sitting on the Supreme Court? The question for me is, 'Can an unregenerate person be a valuable judge that sits on the Supreme Court?' If that is the case possible then Kagan's sexuality has no bearing on the conversation.
ReplyDeleteHer lesbianism ipso facto makes her a social liberal who will abuse her position (if confirmed) to force her deviant values on society at large. I don't believe in giving sexual perverts power over the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteWhoa...
ReplyDeleteSo I guess if a candidate is Republican, who supports family values, but isn't regenerate, that that would be better?
To clarify, all homosexuals aren't social liberals by default. Some call themselves Christians, some are just extremely Right wing and some are both. I've also met many homosexuals who could care less about gay marriage rights.
Aren't you equally worried by an unregenerate person imposing mediocre values on our society? Why are we singling out this woman for her sexuality when clearly she can do no worse than another unregenerate person? You call her a sexual pervert, but doesn't that include any man or woman who engages in extramarital sexual activity? When you single her out aren't you raising one sin over another?
This does not compute.
"So I guess if a candidate is Republican, who supports family values, but isn't regenerate, that that would be better?"
ReplyDeleteYes, that would be better. It's a question of public policy. Which policy prevails.
"To clarify, all homosexuals aren't social liberals by default. Some call themselves Christians, some are just extremely Right wing and some are both. I've also met many homosexuals who could care less about gay marriage rights."
i) Of course they're social liberals. Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.
ii) And don't play dumb. Kagan didn't get to be dean of the Harvard law school by being a social conservative.
iii) Moreover, social liberals go into law and politics because social liberals are social engineers who use abuse their authority to remake to the social order to their liking. That's what they do. We see it all the time.
iv) Case in point: consider Kagan's infamous attempt to kick military recruiters off campus.
"Aren't you equally worried by an unregenerate person imposing mediocre values on our society?"
You set up a false dichotomy. Was I commending unregenerate nominees? No. I also opposed the nomination of Sotomayor.
But we're talking about public office. Public policy. So that's what matters.
"Why are we singling out this woman for her sexuality when clearly she can do no worse than another unregenerate person?"
To the contrary, some unregenerates subscribe to traditional social conventions.
"You call her a sexual pervert, but doesn't that include any man or woman who engages in extramarital sexual activity? When you single her out aren't you raising one sin over another?"
The Bible raises some sins over others as a matter of public policy. Not all sins are crimes. Read the OT. That's because some sins are more culturally destructive than others.
i) I don’t see Homosexuality as either a “liberal” or a “conservative” lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts. Again, I have to point out that there are Homosexuals that claim traditional values, like gay couples that have been married for years, and have kids, and go to Church. Even their views on the Bible are “quasi-conservative,” they just choose to ignore the parts that talk about homosexual acts as being sin. If anything, Homosexuality has been pushing to be seen as a more traditional movement in the past 10 years. But I’m assuming this would go back to some sins being worse off in the public forum.
ReplyDeleteii) I’m not playing dumb. Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be. Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.
iii) Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture. Frankly, I’m hoping that more Orthodox Christians engage law and politics, just like these “socially liberal engineers,” so that we can influence culture and society as well.
iv) I don’t see that as a “liberal” move.
“You set up a false dichotomy. Was I commending unregenerate nominees? No. I also opposed the nomination of Sotomayor. But we're talking about public office. Public policy. So that's what matters.”
You’re right. You are not commending unregenerate nominees, but you are arguing that some unregenerate nominees are better than others based on their public policy perspectives. My point is, how can we decide a person’s value in public office based solely on their sexuality? If you’re arguing for a generic form of conservatism and that person is a moderate, doesn’t that fit with your criteria?
“Yes, that would be better. It's a question of public policy. Which policy prevails…To the contrary, some unregenerates subscribe to traditional social conventions.”
So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant “culturally destructive” sins, then they would have your vote for public office.
I don't know man. I guess I just disagree with your idea that homosexual acts is considered more destructive in the public forum then let's say morally-therapeutic theology that makes Jesus less than savior and generic conservatism is all about that. To me a candidate's sex life isn't as important to me as much as that political candidate's ability to keep Church and State separate. Let people have gay marriage, just don't tell me I can't preach against it as a sin like this: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/05/street_preacher.html
Steve, I thank you for some honest discourse.
JAMES SAID:
ReplyDelete“I don’t see Homosexuality as either a ‘liberal’ or a ‘conservative’ lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts.”
I didn’t say anything about her party affiliation. That’s your non sequitur, not mine.
“Again, I have to point out that there are Homosexuals that claim traditional values, like gay couples that have been married for years, and have kids, and go to Church. Even their views on the Bible are ‘quasi-conservative,’ they just choose to ignore the parts that talk about homosexual acts as being sin. If anything, Homosexuality has been pushing to be seen as a more traditional movement in the past 10 years.”
I’m conversant with the propaganda. I’ve read Andrew Sullivan et al. But you’d have to have a few roos loose in the top paddock to be taken in by that.
“Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be.”
A lesbian dean of Harvard law school who serves in Democrat administrations (Clinton, Obama) is a blue-ribbon social liberal.
“Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.”
To be honest, I don’t think it’s an intellectual virtue to make oneself artificially stupid (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell). I don’t feel the obligation to deny the obvious.
“Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture.”
And liberals enter politics to liberalize the general culture.
“My point is, how can we decide a person’s value in public office based solely on their sexuality?”
Kagan is not a hypocrite. She’s living out her values (such as they are).
Of course, there are other considerations which are sufficient to disqualify her, such as her mistreatment of military recruiters.
Cont. “So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant ‘culturally destructive’ sins, then they would have your vote for public office.”
ReplyDeletei) That depends on the available pool of candidates, which candidates are electable, &c.
ii) And the question at issue is not whether they commit socially destructive sins. The question is whether they treat socially destructive sins as a civil right. Kagan is a social activist.
“I don't know man. I guess I just disagree with your idea that homosexual acts is considered more destructive in the public forum then let's say morally-therapeutic theology that makes Jesus less than savior and generic conservatism is all about that.”
If a SCOTUS nominee was bent on finding an inalienable right to “morally-therapeutic theology” in the Constitution, that would be a relevant comparison.
“To me a candidate's sex life isn't as important to me as much as that political candidate's ability to keep Church and State separate.”
Needless to say, Barry Lynn, the ACLA, &c., don’t believe in church/state separation. Rather, they believe in church/state separation. Rather, they believe in subordinating the church to the state. Secularizing the public square. Criminalizing Christian expression.
“Let people have gay marriage…”
Why? Should they also be allowed to adopt children?
Steve said – “Of course they're social liberals. Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.”
ReplyDeleteJames said – “I don’t see Homosexuality as either a “liberal” or a “conservative” lifestyle since people from either party can engage in Homosexual acts.”
Steve said - “I didn’t say anything about her party affiliation. That’s your non sequitur, not mine.”
Steve you said, “Homosexuality is a liberal lifestyle.” My point is that it cannot be considered a liberal lifestyle since people from any political party can commit Homosexual acts. I shall restate it in a different way: Whether someone is politically liberal or conservative they can engage in a Homosexual lifestyle. My statement is not a non-sequitur. Did I somehow misinterpret your statement?
Steve said – “I’m conversant with the propaganda. I’ve read Andrew Sullivan et al. But you’d have to have a few roos loose in the top paddock to be taken in by that.”
Taken in by what? The fact that there are homosexuals who are in the Republican party? That’s a fact. They may want more rights, as in gay marriage, but they subscribe to the same generic conservatism that other Republicans adhere to.
Steve said - "roos loose"
I think I'm beginning to understand your disparaging remark now. "screws loose" hahaha. But the Aussie part of Kangaroos Loose doesn't make sense to me. Please explain.
James said - “Kagan is considered to be a social moderate who has right-wing leanings…at least that’s what I’ve heard her reputation to be.”
Steve said - A lesbian dean of Harvard law school who serves in Democrat administrations (Clinton, Obama) is a blue-ribbon social liberal.
The fact that she served in the Clinton administration only verifies that she is moderate and not a raging liberal as you claim.
James said -“Also, you made a blanket statement that Deans of Harvard Law School are obviously liberal. To be honest, I do not know that to be true.”
Steve said - “To be honest, I don’t think it’s an intellectual virtue to make oneself artificially stupid (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell). I don’t feel the obligation to deny the obvious.”
Steve, that is the second ad-hominem attack that you have used in defense of Harvard’s Deans being liberal. If it is as obvious as you claim it is, please provide some evidence or examples defending your position. For the second time, I am not feigning stupidity or ignorance. I actually do not know Harvard’s School of Law’s political affiliation. I know that Harvard and Yale’s Theology programs are extremely liberal, but that is a far as my knowledge goes. Please be more respectful.
James said - “Again a blanket statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives enter politics to change society/culture.”
Steve said - “And liberals enter politics to liberalize the general culture.”
Please define your term “liberalize.” Do you mean all liberals go into politics to make the general culture into one that has no moral center or that they go into politics to make America into a welfare state? Both my options are ridiculous stereotypes. I feel your statement is of the same ilk.
James said - “So if I may recap your thoughts; what you’re saying is that as long as the candidate adheres to a public policy that favors Orthodox Christian values, and does not commit flagrant ‘culturally destructive’ sins, then they would have your vote for public office.”
Steve said – “The question is whether they treat socially destructive sins as a civil right. Kagan is a social activist…If a SCOTUS nominee was bent on finding an inalienable right to “morally-therapeutic theology” in the Constitution, that would be a relevant comparison.”
This country has made it an inalienable right to practice homosexuality. Are you talking about re-criminalizing homosexuality?
James said - “Let people have gay marriage…”
ReplyDeleteSteve said – “Why? Should they also be allowed to adopt children?”
Yes. Yes they should. Again this is because I’m basing my opinion on the understanding that homosexual acts are on par with any other person who is unregenerate and commits sin. I am willing to listen to your claims that homosexual acts are considered more “socially destructive” then other sins, but I need to see a case built. The way I see it, the OT does criminalize homosexual acts, but that is in a Theocratic state run by God’s holy people, who all agree that the state should be run on principles based on biblical polity.
Paul, in Romans 1:26 –32, talks about homosexuality and other qualities of the unregenerate man i.e. greed, envy, insolence, arrogance etc., that begin with turning away from God (Romans 1:18). I notice that Paul says that their practices are worthy of death (Romans 1:32) and in Romans 2:1, he confronts homosexuality within the Church (I’m assuming the “you” Paul is talking about are the people he originally addressed his letter to). He does not call out for an actual penalty of death on the believer (or unbeliever), but he does warn them that they are storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 2:5). Paul begins with talking about the unregenerate and then goes to rebuke those in the Christian community. I don’t see him distinguishing homosexuality from any other sins of the unregenerate man (Romans 2:3) or calling out for a penalty. Would it be safe for me to assume that homosexuality is on par with all other unregenerate persons who commit sin? I am open to correction and to your understanding, please make a case.
The reason I think homosexuals should be able to adopt children is because if they adhere to “nominal” family values why should they be disqualified? Atheists can adopt children. People who worship money can adopt children. I would feel bad for those kids, but the qualification by the state to adopt children isn't based on the adoptive parents faith, it’s based on the idea that they would be “good” “loving” parents. We would have to legislate what “good” and “loving” is in order to deal with children being adopted by unregenerate parents.
I don’t believe we have a right to legislate our faith in our nation’s laws because we are a nation that is made up of many different faiths (and even those with no-faith). I DO believe that as Christians we must worship and obey Christ, and preach it everywhere we go. I believe the “fight” to change legislation must be loving. We should not mock people who are in sin, but approach them with the truth in Love and be honest with them that our God calls them to repentance. I believe it is from our relationship to Christ, which will be plainly seen by everyone around us, that will cause the change that we want in our culture, so much so that we as a nation will want make the choice to legislate orthodox Christian beliefs.
Thanks again for taking the time to write to me Steve. Please, be kind in your response. I will listen.