Palin's church promotes prayer to make gays straight

[leekohler]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-palin-gays,0,2899903.story

OK conservatives, should what Palin's church does be held against her? Should she quit her church like Obama did? Can't have it both ways guys...

Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

"You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.

Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the "Love Won Out" Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.

Palin, campaigning with McCain in the Midwest on Friday, has not publicly expressed a view on the so-called "pray away the gay" movement. Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin's church, was not available to discuss the matter Friday, said a church worker who declined to give her name.

Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional. But her reluctant support didn't win fans among Alaska's gay population, said Scott Turner, a gay activist in Anchorage.

EDIT- typo on her name in my thread title! Sorry! Can some nice mod fix it for me?:o

[Peace]

Lee you should know that's part of the right-wing evangelical platform. They truly believe they can do it.

[Sky Blue]

This would probably energize the base more.

[leekohler]

Lee you should know that's part of the right-wing evangelical platform. They truly believe they can do it.

I can still ask the question. And I think it's a fair one. Why shouldn't I think that she's a religious nut?

[Peace]

I can still ask the question. And I think it's a fair one. Why shouldn't I think that she's a religious nut?

Well because ALL right-wing evangelicals are nuts.:D

[leekohler]

Hmm...I'm betting the conservatives stay away from this one.

[és:]

I pray that places like this would ***** off. It hasn't worked yet, but I'll keep the faith.

[Kardashian]

I'd try and screw the Vicar.

[és:]

I'd try and screw the Vicar.

I'd love to turn up to one of these places dressed like this:

http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/village-people/glen.jpg

[Sky Blue]

I'm really hoping someone of Palin's skeletons are questioned either at the VP debate or in a live interview.

[arkitect]

I'd try and screw the Vicar.

Ya think?
I'll pass, thanks.
http://wasillabible.org/staff%20photos/Larry.jpg

[és:]

I'm really hoping someone of Palin's skeletons are questioned either at the VP debate or in a live interview.

I heard that she has been made 'unavailable' for interview for the next two weeks whilst she takes a crash course in foreign policy and places outside 'meraku. Not that she should have anything to worry about, having lived somewhere that boarders Russia.

So it'll have to wait!

[SMM]

Maybe you should start a prayer movement to make more gays. Please do not include me - my wife would never allow it. :D

[Queso]

You know what? I think it's working. Fanny for me from now on. Thanks Alaska!! :)

Interesting how this group is another with the acronym WBC? What is it with those initials and gays? Is it some weird code?

Pray away Teh Ghey!! It's catchy, that you have to admit :p

[BoyBach]

Not that she should have anything to worry about, having lived somewhere that boarders Russia.


Wait until her advisors/supporters take a look at a map and realise that they've been underplaying their hand on her foreign policy experience.

133717
Double the countries equals double the experience! :eek:

[ucfgrad93]

I can still ask the question. And I think it's a fair one. Why shouldn't I think that she's a religious nut?

Same reason why Liberals/Democrats don't think Obama's association with Rev. Wright or his church is a big deal.

Hmm...I'm betting the conservatives stay away from this one.

You lose.;)

[leekohler]

Same reason why Liberals/Democrats don't think Obama's association with Rev. Wright or his church is a big deal.



You lose.;)

Except that Palin has actually passed legislation against gays. I don't see where Obama has passed any legislation to favor his pastor's views.

Just a minor detail, that.

Yeah, I lost the bet- but that wasn't a very good answer.

[ucfgrad93]

Except that Palin has actually passed legislation against gays. I don't see where Obama has passed any legislation to favor his pastor's views.

Just a minor detail, that.

Link please.

[Prof.]

There's a professor at Wheaton College who helps parents that take their gay children to see him so he can turn them straight. He says "thru Prayer and counseling gays can be cured". Cured - as if being gay is some sort of disease.

Bible bangers have a vivid imagination.:rolleyes:

[Beric]

As a Evangelical Christian conservative, the Bible says "go and make disciples", not "go and make heterosexuals". I still believe gays are wrong, but my first agenda isn't close to making them "straight". When Christians focus on issues like this, it makes me upset.

[leekohler]

Link please.

Sure- here ya go:

http://www.examiner.com/x-391-Denver-Gay-Examiner~y2008m8d29-Gov-Sarah-Palin-Pretty-and-pretty-antigay--a-winning-combination-for-McCain

Prior to being elected governor, Palin supported the 1998 constitutional amendment barring marriage for same-sex couples and has said she would support a ballot measure overturning a state supreme court decision mandating benefits for domestic partners of state employees
She is close to “traditional values” groups, like Family Research Council, because she is strongly anti-choice Marriage and Relationship Recognition

Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment on marriage.
In addition, she told the Daily News that she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said “honoring the family structure is that important."
While she followed the Court’s decision and he also signed legislation –her first legislative act as Governor of Alaska—to put the issue on the April 2007 ballot for a nonbinding advisory vote. This was the only issue on the ballot and that election cost the state taxpayers $1.2 million. This measure passed, but the legislature did not follow the public’s advice and it chose not to take any further action to overturn the court’s decision. · She did, however, veto legislation passed by the state legislature in 2006 that would have prohibited providing DP benefits to state workers, in defiance of the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling. She did this after the Supreme Court had already ruled and the Attorney General (Republican) advised her that the legislation was unconstitutional. Palin went on to state that, as a matter of policy, she was in favor of the bill. Ties to Anti-LGBT Groups
She will be honored alongside anti-gay Representative Michelle Bachman (R-MN) at an event at the 2008 Republican Convention, the “Life of the Party,” sponsored in part by long-time opponent of GLBT rights, Phyllis Schlafly.

[skunk]

I still believe gays are wrong.Wrong about what? :confused:

[Prof.]

Wrong about what? :confused:
About the whole "penis goes into the vagina" part.:p

[Beric]

Wrong about what? :confused:

I don't agree with what I believe they choose to do.

[skunk]

I don't agree with what I believe they choose to do.And what is it that you believe they choose to do?

[leekohler]

As a Evangelical Christian conservative, the Bible says "go and make disciples", not "go and make heterosexuals". I still believe gays are wrong, but my first agenda isn't close to making them "straight". When Christians focus on issues like this, it makes me upset.

I still don't know how one disagrees with another's existence, but whatever.

[Prof.]

Any one see this?:rolleyes:

I kissed a girl and I liked it then I went to hell. (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=33466)

[Queso]

I don't agree with what I believe they choose to do.
So we shouldn't work, shop, travel, watch TV, play music, exercise etc? Where in the Bible is that banned? :confused:

[leekohler]

BTW, her name is "Palin", not "Paslin".

If you'd taken the time to read my OP, you'd see that I addressed that with a mod. :rolleyes:

So we shouldn't work, shop, travel, watch TV, play music, exercise etc? Where in the Bible is that banned? :confused:

No! We are the most evil thing on the planet! We are the boogeyman! We are pure evil and not to be trusted ever!

[kavika411]

EDIT- typo on her name in my thread title! Sorry! Can some nice mod fix it for me?:o

I believe you, as the creator of the original post, are able to fix it yourself. First, go to "edit." Then hit the "go advanced" button. At that point, I believe you can edit the title.

[Queso]

No! We are the most evil thing on the planet! We are the boogeyman! We are pure evil and not to be trusted ever!
Oh in that case I'm all for what they're doing. Do you think they'd rather we burned ourselves at the stake or would a simple self-stoning suffice?

[mkrishnan]

That's correct -- if you edit the title of the original post in the advanced editing view, it should fix the thread title most of the time. The only time it may not work is if the thread title doesn't already match the title of the first post. But that's a situation only a moderator/administrator would have created in the first place (sometimes happens with thread merges).

I don't have a right-wing evangelical platform, but the day prayer makes Lee straight is the day I'll give up coffee.

[pointycollars]

And what is it that you believe they choose to do?


He's just saying he personally doesn't agree with it. I could say the same thing about anything I don't agree with - but note that he never said he was trying to convert them to being heterosexual. He's not being a dick about it and I think that's respectable compared to some Christians who are outright hostile toward gays.

[és:]

BTW, her name is "Palin", not "Paslin".


I think you'll find that it's ''pawlenty'', actually.

[scotthayes]

I still believe gays are wrong

I totally agree with you... A leather hat and mustache is just so wrong.

Of course the right wing won't have an issue with her church promising to turn gays straight.

But I'd like to put an order in... Do you think they will pray for my hair to grow back so I'm not balding on top :D

[és:]

As a Evangelical Christian conservative, the Bible says "go and make disciples", not "go and make heterosexuals". I still believe gays are wrong, but my first agenda isn't close to making them "straight". When Christians focus on issues like this, it makes me upset.

Not as upset as it makes me to know that some people, in the 21st century, still believe it 'wrong' to be gay.

What upsets me even more is selective quoting of holy books.

[gibbz]

I just had to post a vent about this topic.

I grew up in conservative Oklahoma in a Southern Baptist church. We were told how gay people are wrong and should be prayed for to cure them. We were told that we must stop this gay movement as they are sinners and are polluting our society with their debauchery. We were told, they don't deserve the rights of straight people. I was all too happy to follow along with this, until I started thinking for myself.

The first item I thought about was the glaring resemblance of our societies behavior towards homosexuals and the race wars of the 60s. Caucasians were denying people rights because they were different. Caucasians were violent, both physically and verbally. Sounds pretty similar doesn't it?

Next, I thought about what our government was based on in part, freedom of religion (which includes no religion). In doing so, we pushed for separation of Church and State. Examples can be seen in not teaching creationism, saying Merry Christmas, etc. Yet, it seems this is overlooked when it suits people politically. Look at George Bush when he ran on the ideals of banning gay marriage. A main argument was that it was morally devoid based on religious principles. We were told that marriage is a religious institution between a man and woman. Now wait, I just thought we were separating the two. All of a sudden we denying rights to citizens due to the distinction between what is religious and not? Separation between Church and State should exist in all circumstances. Religious arguments have no place in politics, period. This is why it seems logical that the government should no longer recognize marriages, but rather civil unions across the board. If someone wants to get married and call it a marriage, then great, I will. As far as the government goes, it should be blind to this distinction and only recognize any AND ALL such institutions as a civil union.

Thirdly, I decided, ok, I will consider even the religious arguments of the Evangelicals as a basis to "hate" gays. The main claim is that homosexuality is a sin and these people are evil. Really? I ask these people and the posters in this forum, have you lied, stolen, coveted, or anything else considered a sin? If so, and the answer is yes as the Bible tells the Evangelicals, then you ARE NO BETTER in the eyes of God. The Evangelicals' Bible says that God places no sin above another. So that argument is out. Next, I believe there is a nice story where Jesus told those who wanted to stone a person, "You without sin, cast the first stone." Or there is "Judge not, lest you be judged." This is simply another example of fear-mongers picking and choosing scripture to backup their bigoted views. I say how dare you proclaim religious authority when your own religion says that you are seen the same in God's eyes. Again, your main argument is out.

So it seems that the bashing of gays, and I even include statement where people say "I think gays are wrong" as bashing, is ludicrous and completely hypocritical. I say you only live once, so be happy. I myself will follow God's calling to love everyone as yourself.

[leekohler]

He's just saying he personally doesn't agree with it. I could say the same thing about anything I don't agree with - but note that he never said he was trying to convert them to being heterosexual. He's not being a dick about it and I think that's respectable compared to some Christians who are outright hostile toward gays.

Fair enough. Thanks for posting. Wait a sec- an open minded person for Cincinnati? :D

[pointycollars]

"Judge not, lest you be judged."

Maybe they don't care if they are judged, because they are confident that they've done nothing wrong? Or, they simply believe it isn't a matter of judgment, because to them, the judgment has already been made by God that it's wrong, so they don't feel like they are judging at all?

I completely agree about having the government recognize, for legal and tax purposes a form of civil union that applies to any couple that is independent of any religious or moral code, and letting the churches decide who they would like to sanction as "married", since, let's be honest, religions invented the concept of marriage as we know it so they hold the intellectual property rights to it :)

[pointycollars]

Fair enough. Thanks for posting. Wait a sec- an open minded person for Cincinnati? :D

Haha. We do exist, and in great numbers.

[NT1440]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-palin-gays,0,2899903.story

OK conservatives, should what Palin's church does be held against her? Should she quit her church like Obama did? Can't have it both ways guys...



EDIT- typo on her name in my thread title! Sorry! Can some nice mod fix it for me?:o

come on lee, lets lead by example here and keep their churches out of this. I really dont give a damn about it. Her policies should be her downfall, not guilt by association.

[pointycollars]

come on lee, lets lead by example here and keep their churches out of this. I really dont give a damn about it. Her policies should be her downfall, not guilt by association.

Unfortunately, religion seems to play heavily into the current political climate in this country, and there is a huge number of people who believe that a candidate's personal religious beliefs and their policy decisions are inseparable.

[NT1440]

Unfortunately, religion seems to play heavily into the current political climate in this country, and there is a huge number of people who believe that a candidate's personal religious beliefs and their policy decisions are inseparable.

Hence the lead by example part, its time that we finally stop stooping to their levels.

[pointycollars]

Hence the lead by example part, its time that we finally stop stooping to their levels.

It seemed like we were heading in the right direction back in the 1990's. Sometimes I wonder, what the hell happened?

[atszyman]

Hence the lead by example part, its time that we finally stop stooping to their levels.

Because not stooping to their level worked so well in 2000, and 2004?

I think we should create a checklist of scandals on both sides and scratch them off and see who has more left.

Obama has Rezko, so we'll scratch off Abramoff, Keating, or Grant Woods.

Obama has Wright, so we'll scratch off Parsley or Hagee.

We'll go through their flip-flops on each side and cross off comparable ones.

We can do the VPs the same way.

Any bets on which side has more stuff left over once the cancellations are done?

[leekohler]

Hence the lead by example part, its time that we finally stop stooping to their levels.

I guess my point is that her religion actually does inform her policy as I noted earlier. That's what I find scary.

[NT1440]

Because not stooping to their level worked so well in 2000, and 2004?



Again, getting to the whitehouse is the main goal, but i still dont think that dems should start throwing mud around and smearing people just to get into office.

I just dont beleive in fighting dirty.

[leekohler]

Again, getting to the whitehouse is the main goal, but i still dont think that dems should start throwing mud around and smearing people just to get into office.

I just dont beleive in fighting dirty.

Is this a smear? Talking about her record and how she's got a history of using religion to inform her policy is fair game.

[atszyman]

Again, getting to the whitehouse is the main goal, but i still dont think that dems should start throwing mud around and smearing people just to get into office.

I just dont beleive in fighting dirty.

I used to have the same attitude, but I've become even more cynical in these last few years.

I do, however think that we need to quit focusing on Palin since it gets us into a situation where we're not really hurting McCain, after all she's the #2 spot on the ticket, and start bringing up real issues and responding in-kind when attacked. They bring up Rezko, we get to bring up Keating, Abramoff, and Woods. I'm sick of the Dems losing because they took the high ground and didn't bother to respond to the mud which allowed for just enough to stick and change some voters' minds.

[NT1440]

I guess my point is that her religion actually does inform her policy as I noted earlier. That's what I find scary.

true, but it would be better if you pointed out her crazy policy instead of her religion. I HATE what religions have done to the world (actually they pretty much shaped it up until the last 3-2-100 years) and most religions themselves. I don't think that we should use them as political weapons however.

[kavika411]

Because not stooping to their level worked so well in 2000, and 2004?

I think we should create a checklist of scandals on both sides and scratch them off and see who has more left.

Obama has Rezko, so we'll scratch off Abramoff, Keating, or Grant Woods.

Obama has Wright, so we'll scratch off Parsley or Hagee.

We'll go through their flip-flops on each side and cross off comparable ones.

We can do the VPs the same way.

I don't know if you are being humorous or not, but I once again find your logic and reasoning dead on. If we could agree on/check off the things you mention above, we could dispense with legions of future posts that don't move us any closer to Truth. I'm afraid we will continue, however, to remind each other of the other's hypocrisy, and double-hypocrisy ad nausea.

[skunk]

He's just saying he personally doesn't agree with it.No, he isn't. He is saying "homosexuals are wrong". I would still like to know in which way he thinks they are "wrong". Do they love incorrectly? Do they have poor taste in accessories? Do they mess up some neat, pigeon-holed fantasy? Or are they wrong because at any time of the day you could be minding your own, Christian, heterosexual business and - aargh!!! - find yourself within contagious distance of one, unawares? Or did they perhaps weakly and irredeemably "choose" to surrender to something that he consciously and with strength of spirit "chose" not to be when he caught himself eyeing up someone of the "wrong" gender in his formative years? This inquiring mind would like to know.

[freeny]

Because not stooping to their level worked so well in 2000, and 2004?

You are 100% correct.
I believe that unless the Dems start getting dirty they are screwed... And the Reps know this...

They should start by taking that Palin clip of her stating that the Iraq war is gods work and make a commercial playing it over and over... Palin = religious nutcase...

The Obama supporters should get off their high horses and start kissing the asses of the Hillary supporters pdq if they know whats good for them and this country. This election is only 2 months away.

Im sorry, but the "high road" is the road to failure...

[Kardashian]

I don't agree with what I believe they choose to do.

Choose? No.

Sadly, we're all born this way. It's a terrible, terrible infliction that we have to live with our whole lives. Prayers, verbal abuse and discrimination won't change the fact we don't love the bacon strips.

It's there when we're brought into the world. FACT.

Fortunately, the same can't be said of narrow mindedness. That is a choice.

[leekohler]

true, but it would be better if you pointed out her crazy policy instead of her religion. I HATE what religions have done to the world (actually they pretty much shaped it up until the last 3-2-100 years) and most religions themselves. I don't think that we should use them as political weapons however.

Her crazy policy is in this thread as well, pointed out by me.

And sorry, but fair is fair. They threw this gauntlet down themselves. We don't start fighting, we're gonna lose.

[NT1440]

Im sorry, but the "high road" is the road to failure...

Im sorry too, that this is how the world has come to be.:(

[NT1440]

Choose? No.

Sadly, we're all born this way. It's a terrible, terrible infliction that we have to live with our whole lives. Prayers, verbal abuse and discrimination won't change the fact we don't love the bacon strips.

It's there when we're brought into the world. FACT.

Fortunately, the same can't be said of narrow mindedness. That is a choice.

There is nothing wrong at all with being gay, whether u were saying it tounge in cheekly or not.

[pointycollars]

No, he isn't. He is saying "homosexuals are wrong". I would still like to know in which way he thinks they are "wrong". Do they love incorrectly? Do they have poor taste in accessories? Do they mess up some neat, pigeon-holed fantasy? Or are they wrong because at any time of the day you could be minding your own, Christian, heterosexual business and - aargh!!! - find yourself within contagious distance of one, unawares? Or did they perhaps weakly and irredeemably "choose" to surrender to something that he consciously and with strength of spirit "chose" not to be when he caught himself eyeing up someone of the "wrong" gender in his formative years? This inquiring mind would like to know.

The reasons he believes they are wrong would not make any sense to someone who is not an Evangelical Christian, so it's no use asking him to explain himself.

[skunk]

There is nothing wrong at all with being gay, whether u were saying it tongue in cheekly or not.Oi, potty-mouth! This is a family forum! Keep your smutty homosexual innuendo to yourself!



;)

[skunk]

The reasons he believes they are wrong would not make any sense to someone who is not an Evangelical Christian, so it's no use asking him to explain himself.No harm in offering him an opportunity, though...

[NT1440]

Oi, potty-mouth! This is a family forum! Keep your smutty homosexual innuendo to yourself!



;)
my bad skunk, ill watch wat i do with my mouth from now on;)

[és:]

I believe that unless the Dems start getting dirty they are screwed...

I agree with that.

They should start by taking that Palin clip of her stating that the Iraq war is gods work and make a commercial playing it over and over... Palin = religious nutcase...


I agree with this more. Could you imagine what people would say if this was an Iranian saying that Allah is telling them to attack America. There would be uproar.

That was a sick comment and she should be ripped to shreds for it. It was disgusting. The more I see and hear of her, the more disgusted I get.



Fortunately, the same can't be said of narrow mindedness. That is a choice.

I'm definitely using that little beauty.

[Kardashian]

There is nothing wrong at all with being gay, whether u were saying it tounge in cheekly or not.

No offense, but as someone who is openly gay, and proud of it - I don't need to be reinforced that my own 'choice' (:rolleyes:) is the correct one.

I deal with most things through humour, whether it be tounge in cheek, or not.

:)

[NT1440]

No offense, but as someone who is openly gay, and proud of it - I don't need to be reinforced that my own 'choice' (:rolleyes:) is the correct one.

I deal with most things through humour, whether it be tounge in cheek, or not.

:)
sry, it just really annoys me when i see people having to defend who they naturally are

[atszyman]

I don't know if you are being humorous or not, but I once again find your logic and reasoning dead on. If we could agree on/check off the things you mention above, we could dispense with legions of future posts that don't move us any closer to Truth. I'm afraid we will continue, however, to remind each other of the other's hypocrisy, and double-hypocrisy ad nausea.

I am logical to a fault, ask my wife...

If we could do scandal canceling, get the media involved and let them know which ones are OK to talk about, in theory at least one side would only be left with the issues to talk about, and maybe, just maybe we might have an election where the issues are the main focal point.

Im sorry too, that this is how the world has come to be.:(

We're all sorry about it, but it's not going to change this election cycle, so we're stuck with it the next 60 days and taking the high road has not been a good strategy in the past.

[Kardashian]

Aren't most religions about:

1. Love
2. Devotion
3. Acceptance/Equality - Love thy neighbour, yadda yadda

Which funny when you 'turn' gay because..

1. The love you want to give someone is defined as wrong, or dirty, because some old contradictory book says so.
2. The religion you were devoted to, and spent hours conforming to by going to Church etc, turns its back on you and outcasts you.
3. The whole 'treat others as you want to be treat/love thy neighbour' stance goes out the window. You're not accepted, and you're not being treated equally or fairly.

Having faith is lovely, and something to pull energy and strength from - but following an outdated, narrow minded religion(s), being preached to from a set of rules which were written when the world was a very different place -- no thank you.

How can the very backbone of Christianity be based on the equal love that God has/had for all his disciples, and then go so far as to expel some of these disciples, who he loves/loved so much, for living their lives happily - the way he supposedly wants/wanted them too.

[CalBoy]

He's just saying he personally doesn't agree with it.

Agree with what exactly?

As I recall, he hasn't denoted a particular position, philosophy, etc, with which one can agree with.

It's the equivilant of me saying that I don't agree with conservative white males from the United States.
He's not being a dick about it and I think that's respectable compared to some Christians who are outright hostile toward gays.

No, he's not being a dick, but his position is ignorant and that is far more destructive. No one (or at least anyone with sense) takes prayer as a "cure" for homosexuality seriously, but the kind of silent bigotry held by Beric is very destructive for everyone, not just homosexuals.
The reasons he believes they are wrong would not make any sense to someone who is not an Evangelical Christian, so it's no use asking him to explain himself.

Then his position is not very good at all. If he can't describe his position in an objective and logical way, it isn't very useful as a philosophy is it?

[pointycollars]

Aren't most religions about:

1. Love
2. Devotion
3. Acceptance/Equality - Love thy neighbour, yadda yadda


Those are present in religions, sure. But that's not all that they're about. They also concern themselves with providing a means of understanding the world around you through mythology, tradition and social order. This is where you begin to see why they believe society should be shaped a certain way - because that's how they understand the world. Read Joseph Campbell :)

[és:]

Aren't most religions about:

You're forgetting the unwritten 11th commandment; 'the above list is null and void if you like to do men'. Number 12 is 'don't worry about number one if there is oil to be had.

[Nicolecat]

Just because her church has such a strong standing on this issue, doesn't necessarily peg her as having the same views.
Has she made a public standing (herself) on this issue...?

Plus, if going to that church is giving her what she needs to be a strong leader...then I would encourage her to stay there (not leave it, due to one difference in views....that is if she doesn't agree with them). Everyone should be able to feel happy with being 'fed' their religious views (whatever they may be)...and not be targeted as possibly being a wrongful political leader.
This goes for Obama as well...if either of them were to publicly leave the church, then that would be admitting that they were ashamed of the religious views they once held (or helped the church uphold). I don't like people changing their mind due to other people swaying their views. If you believe in something...uphold it...whatever that may be.

Unfortunately, the political people are very watchful of how they portray their religious views...

It's America!...they should be able to practice WHATEVER religion they so choose.

Dude, I mean seriously...In my wedding party there were a few Methodists, Baptists, 2 Muslims, 1 Catholic, 1 Budhist, and an Atheist. They are still my friends...just because they have differing views on who's going to Hell or not doesn't make them any less of a good person.

[NT1440]

Just because her church has such a strong standing on this issue, doesn't necessarily peg her as having the same views.
Has she made a public standing (herself) on this issue...?


you mean besides voting against gay rights?

[atszyman]

You're forgetting the unwritten 11th commandment; 'the above list is null and void if you like to do men'. Number 12 is 'don't worry about number one if there is oil to be had.

What about the women? Or do they get to have a loophole as long as there's a webcam?

[Nicolecat]

you mean besides voting against gay rights?

Well...I did pose the question. I haven't researched her very much, as of yet.

Support yourself with links or factual reference.
Otherwise, your just blowing steam.

[pointycollars]

Just because her church has such a strong standing on this issue, doesn't necessarily peg her as having the same views.

She must believe something close to what her church's standing is. Why would someone attend a church whose standing on issues didn't align with their personal beliefs?

[NT1440]

What about the women? Or do they get to have a loophole as long as there's a webcam?

Woman have no significance in the original incarnation of religions such as christianity. It was only after the majority considered woman equals that they became truly accepted. The same will happen with homosexuals and other "nondesireables".

[NT1440]

Well...I did pose the question. I haven't researched her very much, as of yet.

Support yourself with links or factual reference.
Otherwise, your just blowing steam.

well if you had read the thread before asking the same questions.....


i do beleive it was only a page ago lee pointed out her anti-gay legislation.

[leekohler]

Well...I did pose the question. I haven't researched her very much, as of yet.

Support yourself with links or factual reference.
Otherwise, your just blowing steam.

See post #21. There is a link there. Also, you might want to read a thread before assuming no such link has been posted.

[shinji]

Any one see this?:rolleyes:

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=133719&stc=1&d=1220901765

I kissed a girl and I liked it then I went to hell. (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=33466)

lmao

the taste of her cherry chaaaapstick...

[EricNau]

They're just trying to help. :rolleyes:

[Nicolecat]

well if you had read the thread before asking the same questions.....
i do beleive it was only a page ago lee pointed out her anti-gay legislation.

See post #21. There is a link there. Also, you might want to read a thread before assuming no such link has been posted.

I'm sorry...I never make any educated judgments based on 1-2 articles. If there is more that can back up your views...by all means, slap me with them.
I did read the thread...the Chicago tribune article & the examiner.
I did not jump to conclusions...or assume these were completely true or factual.

I simply need more hardcore evidence, before reaching a decision as to my standing. That's it.

Thanks.

Not to mention...the first post had a link. :D

[leekohler]

I'm sorry...I never make any educated judgments based on 1-2 articles. If there is more that can back up your views...by all means, slap me with them.
I did read the thread...the Chicago tribune article & the examiner.
I did not jump to conclusions...or assume these were completely true or factual.

I simply need more hardcore evidence, before reaching a decision as to my standing. That's it.

Thanks.

Not to mention...the first post had a link. :D

So actual documentation of political views by the press isn't "factual" enough for you? Really? What do you need? Palin to walk up to you and tell you to your face? You got your links. You want more, go look it up on the net- there's plenty.

[Mac-Addict]

***It's not what I'm used to, just wanna try you onn, I'm curious for youu, caught my attentionn.. I kissed a gir..*** ^^ Screw Religion. Screw Sarah Palin. Screw McCain.

Obama 08 FTW.

Come on guys, if we keep giving these attention whores the attention that they want, then they are just going to carry on because they are provoking a reaction. But on the other hand I suppose it's good to dig up some of Palin's skeletons.

Also McCain is against net neutrality. 'Nuff Said.

[Nicolecat]

So actual documentation of political views by the press isn't "factual" enough for you? Really? What do you need? Palin to walk up to you and tell you to your face? You got your links. You want more, go look it up on the net- there's plenty.


So your telling me that the "press" has never been mis-informed.

I always look something up to confirm the validity of it, before I assume
anything.

I mean seriously, how hard is it to find more links referring to her legislative standings...
One (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048513733097089.html) Wallstreet Journal
Two (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/oprah-says-no-to-palin-and-gets-an-earful/?scp=1&sq=palin's%20gay%20standing&st=cse) New York Times (...on Oprah refusing to interview Palin...due to her views)
Three (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5738780) ABC News

Excerpt from link Three (abc news)
...Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional...

She'll have to go through checks and balances...to get anything passed.
Plus, did you see John Mccain's mom...he's not croaking anytime soon. :D

[leekohler]

So your telling me that the "press" has never been mis-informed.

I always look something up to confirm the validity of it, before I assume
anything.

I mean seriously, how hard is it to find more links referring to her legislative standings...
One (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048513733097089.html) Wallstreet Journal
Two (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/oprah-says-no-to-palin-and-gets-an-earful/?scp=1&sq=palin's%20gay%20standing&st=cse) New York Times (...on Oprah refusing to interview Palin...due to her views)
Three (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=5738780) ABC News

Excerpt from link Three (abc news)
...Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional...

She'll have to go through checks and balances...to get anything passed.
Plus, did you see John Mccain's mom...he's not croaking anytime soon. :D

But she'll try. Don't think for a second she won't. That was my main point anyway. Here's more for you:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/27958514.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUl

Sarah Palin's record shows a strong faith in Bible and prayer. She supports teaching creationism, outlawing abortion and banning same-sex marriage.

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA - In June, long before she was selected as the Republican nominee for vice president, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin attended a gathering at the Wasilla Assembly of God, her former church.

Speaking to the college-age graduates of the church's Master's Commission ministry, the governor reminisced about growing up in the fellowship -- "getting saved here, getting baptized" -- and urged the new disciples to help fulfill the church's mission, as well as certain destinies for America and Alaska.

Pray for the construction of the $30 billion natural gas pipeline, Palin told them. Pray for the military men and women overseas, "that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Later, senior pastor Ed Kalnin -- with Palin standing at his side -- spoke about tapping into Alaska's natural resource wealth to fulfill the state's destiny of serving as a shelter for Christians at the end of the world.

"I believe that Alaska is one of the 'refuge states' -- come on, you guys -- in the Last Days," Kalnin said, raising his arm to underscore his point. "And hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to this state to seek refuge. And the church has to be ready to minister to them."

Scary stuff.

[skunk]

Here's more for you:<mad rant from Palin and minister>
Scary stuff.I have to assume that she is daft as a brush.

[Nicolecat]

But she'll try. Don't think for a second she won't. That was my main point anyway. Here's more for you:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/27958514.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUl

Scary stuff.

Any one person's religious standing isn't going to sync well with everyone, unless the govt made there to be only one legal religion.
I don't believe in all her views (after reading more)...but I do believe she's a good v.p. elect.

I never liked it very much to have religion rammed down my throat...but she evidently feels strongly about something. She has the right to speak it....and if enough of America doesn't like it, they have the right to vote for Obama. :o

I have to assume that she is daft as a brush.
I hope you mean Palin. :rolleyes:

[Kardashian]

assume

I almost burst something inside I laughed so hard.

[NT1440]

Any one person's religious standing isn't going to sync well with everyone, unless the govt made there to be only one legal religion.
I don't believe in all her views (after reading more)...but I do believe she's a good v.p. elect.

I never liked it very much to have religion rammed down my throat...but she evidently feels strongly about something. She has the right to speak it....and if enough of America doesn't like it, they have the right to vote for Obama. :o


I hope you mean Palin. :rolleyes:
what was it in your readings that made her a good VP in you eyes?

[skunk]

I hope you mean Palin. :rolleyes:Yes, I do. I haven't made up my mind about you yet. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Just this past weekend, I attended a gay wedding, for friends of ours who've been together for around 15 years. They decided to get married now that the State of California doesn't prevent it. At the reception I had to tell them that I was looking for signs of the fabric of society unraveling, but hadn't seen any yet. We got a good laugh out of that.

Palin is a hard right wing, blood-and-guts ideological Republican all the way down the line, probably the most completely immoderate person left or right I can recall being on any presidential ticket in decades. The election only needs to be about whether a person with such fringe views should be in the White House. Probably little more than 20% of the electorate would think so.

[skunk]

The election only needs to be about whether a person with such fringe views should be in the White House. Probably little more than 20% of the electorate would think so.Nice to see you back in the snakepit, IJ.
If only US elections were susceptible to such eminently logical analysis. Unfortunately a great deal more than 20% of your electorate appear to be certifiably insane, so I'm taking nothing for granted.

[leekohler]

Any one person's religious standing isn't going to sync well with everyone, unless the govt made there to be only one legal religion.
I don't believe in all her views (after reading more)...but I do believe she's a good v.p. elect.

I never liked it very much to have religion rammed down my throat...but she evidently feels strongly about something. She has the right to speak it....and if enough of America doesn't like it, they have the right to vote for Obama. :o




And why exactly do you thik she'd be good?

She has the right to believe whatever she wants, but if tries to use those beliefs to infringe on others' rights, she's not fit to be VP.

[Eraserhead]

Hmm...I'm betting the conservatives stay away from this one.

Well they've got their Daily Telegraph reading to complete first ;).

[Nicolecat]

I think she rounds out the Republican ticket...here's a few reasons why.

The Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/x-673-Education-Examiner~y2008m9d3-What-Has-Sarah-Palin-Done-for-Education-in-Alaska)

Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/)

realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html)

Something else to consider is the opposition...
Is Obama/Biden the better pic over Mccain/Palin? Here are a few articles, that I feel address that subject as well.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)

Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html)

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-16-obama-experience-cover_x.htm)


However, it is alwasy easier to find people against something...as opposed to the abundance of articles (for both sides) at what they lack. :p

[leekohler]

I think she rounds out the Republican ticket...here's a few reasons why.

The Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/x-673-Education-Examiner~y2008m9d3-What-Has-Sarah-Palin-Done-for-Education-in-Alaska)

Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/)

realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html)

Something else to consider is the opposition...
Is Obama/Biden the better pic over Mccain/Palin? Here are a few articles, that I feel address that subject as well.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)

Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html)

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-16-obama-experience-cover_x.htm)


However, it is alwasy easier to find people against something...as opposed to the abundance of articles (for both sides) at what they lack. :p

Is anyone saying Obama is perfect? No. Certainly not me. And if you'd been around these forums longer than you have, you'd know that. However, I'd be more than happy to give him a chance. McCain has just tilted completely to the right with Palin as his pick. The reasons I believe she's completely and utterly unfit have are already being discussed. You can vote for McCain and her if you like. No one is completely good or evil. But I'll take Obama's shortcomings over Palin's and McCain's any day.

[Nicolecat]

This could be a never-ending go-round...and thus, I'm stepping off my soapbox. Unfortunately, you're right...there are shortcomings on both sides.

btw...
Just because I've only started posting recently...doesn't mean I haven't been around longer than that (There are many lurkers turned posters).

[leekohler]

This could be a never-ending go-round...and thus, I'm stepping off my soapbox. Unfortunately, you're right...there are shortcomings on both sides.

btw...
Just because I've only started posting recently...doesn't mean I haven't been around longer than that (There are many lurkers turned posters).

True. So- have you been around? ;)

[imac/cheese]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-palin-gays,0,2899903.story

OK conservatives, should what Palin's church does be held against her? Should she quit her church like Obama did? Can't have it both ways guys...


Praying for someone you believe is mired in a sinful lifestyle is a good thing in my opinion. But of course, if you don't believe in God, praying doesn't make much sense to you, and if you don't believe homosexuality is sinful, praying for homosexuals is offensive.

In my opinion, the main difference between Palin's church and Obama's church is that a large portion of Palin's supporters would agree with her pastor's view while the majority of Obama's supporters would not agree with Rev Wright.

[CalBoy]

and if you don't believe homosexuality is sinful, praying for homosexuals is offensive.

No, the offensive part is the refusal to believe that it is not a choice.

Once the Christian whackos get that straight, they'll realize that prayer is futile and actually try to love their children as they are (one might say, as god made them).

[leekohler]

No, the offensive part is the refusal to believe that it is not a choice.

Once the Christian whackos get that straight, they'll realize that prayer is futile and actually try to love their children as they are (one might say, as god made them).

Exactly- they refuse to understand that no matter what they do, gay people are gonna exist. Gay people are gonna ******* too, raise kids, hold jobs, go to work, etc. They can try to make our lives as hellish as they want, but we're not going anywhere. Ultimately, it's a battle they'll lose on every front, especially the moral front. Once they get it through their thick heads, they'll be horrified at what they did for so long and try to sweep it under the rug. And I'll forgive them, but I'll never forget what they did.

[imac/cheese]

No, the offensive part is the refusal to believe that it is not a choice.

Once the Christian whackos get that straight, they'll realize that prayer is futile and actually try to love their children as they are (one might say, as god made them).

Praying for someone to get out of what the Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle is loving. Praying for anyone is loving and no prayer is ever futile.

[skunk]

Praying for someone to get out of what the Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle is loving. Praying for anyone is loving and no prayer is ever futile.I'm afraid not. Praying for someone can be arrogant, condescending, vain and futile. It depends why the prayer thinks the prayee needs praying for. Of course the existence or not of any addressee, omnipotent, interested, English-speaking or of like mind, for the prayer does also have a bearing on the futility or otherwise of the exercise.

[iShater]

Praying for someone to get out of what the Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle is loving. Praying for anyone is loving and no prayer is ever futile.

+1

[leekohler]

Praying for someone to get out of what the Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle is loving. Praying for anyone is loving and no prayer is ever futile.

Beliefs are offensive when they ignore reality- and what we're talking about in this thread is just that. Her church is aligned with James Dobson's group that does far worse than just "pray" for gays. They use non-scientific hocus-pocus that has already been debunked and shown to cause psychological damage in many of the people on whom they use it.

[atszyman]

Praying for someone to get out of what the Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle is loving. Praying for anyone is loving and no prayer is ever futile.

Unless your praying for them to be something different than they are. Would you not find it futile and ignorant if a church started praying for the minorities in this country to suddenly turn caucasian?

How is praying for gay people to become straight any different?

[BoyBach]

Exactly- they refuse to understand that no matter what they do, gay people are gonna exist. Gay people are gonna ******* too, raise kids, hold jobs, go to work, etc.


That might be true, but a religion told me that you're all going to hell.

[Macaddicttt]

What they should be praying for is teenagers who can't keep their pants on until they're married. Then they wouldn't be holding a double standard.

But then again, praying that gays be "cured" is a fundamental misunderstanding of homosexuality. Really, if they wanted to pray about anything, they should be praying that gays don't have extramarital sex (including all homosexual sex because Christianity doesn't accept gay marriages). Then they'd demonstrate a better understanding of homosexuality (i.e. as something that isn't "cured"), and then finally we could hold them to that double standard of praying against one kind of extramarital sex but not another.

If they're going to stick their nose into sexual issues (wow, that was a bad mental image), they should at least understand them and tackle them more comprehensively. Evangelicals spend way too much time attacking "teh gay" rather than dealing with much bigger issues (i.e. teenage pregnancy, poverty, violence, racism, sexism). I'm reminded of something someone once said... Something about removing a splinter from someone else's eye when you have a plank in your own... Hmm... Now where is that from? :rolleyes:

[CalBoy]

Praying for someone to get out of what the Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle is loving.

No, that is not what love is at all.

Love is accepting your children, countrymen(and women), fellow citizens, etc, for who they are.

Love perseveres despite our differences. Praying for change doesn't demonstrate love, it demonstrates arrogance and only conditional acceptance, which isn't love at all.

Praying for anyone is loving and no prayer is ever futile.

So in other words, if I pray for you to become gay (one more fish in the sea if you will), is that loving as well? Or would you call it futile?

Suppose I prayed to get better grades rather than actually studying. Would that not be futile?

[imac/cheese]

Beliefs are offensive when they ignore reality- and what we're talking about in this thread is just that. Her church is aligned with James Dobson's group that does far worse than just "pray" for gays. They use non-scientific hocus-pocus that has already been debunked and shown to cause psychological damage in many of the people on whom they use it.

You have told us many times in this forum that someone can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't impinge on your rights. Prayer in no way affects your rights. I don't think you should be offended that they are praying for you. When they cross the line and affect your rights with their views, that is when you should be upset.

Unless your praying for them to be something different than they are. Would you not find it futile and ignorant if a church started praying for the minorities in this country to suddenly turn caucasian?

How is praying for gay people to become straight any different?

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and the Bible depicts homosexuality as sinful. The Bible doesn't say it is sinful to be non-caucasion. Therefore many Christians see homosexuals as people mired in a sinful lifestyle and therefore wish to pray for them.

What they should be praying for is teenagers who can't keep their pants on until they're married. Then they wouldn't be holding a double standard.

Many do, but I agree this is an issue where we could definitely pray a lot more.

But then again, praying that gays be "cured" is a fundamental misunderstanding of homosexuality. Really, if they wanted to pray about anything, they should be praying that gays don't have extramarital sex (including all homosexual sex because Christianity doesn't accept gay marriages). Then they'd demonstrate a better understanding of homosexuality (i.e. as something that isn't "cured")....

I agree completely.

...Evangelicals spend way too much time attacking "teh gay" rather than dealing with much bigger issues (i.e. teenage pregnancy, poverty, violence, racism, sexism). I'm reminded of something someone once said... Something about removing a splinter from someone else's eye when you have a plank in your own... Hmm... Now where is that from? :rolleyes:

I agree once again. In my experience, Christians often focus on homosexuality because it is often not something they experience. It is easier to point the finger at homosexuals then it is to point the finger at divorcees. Especially since the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as the general public. That topic hits a lot of nerves.

No, that is not what love is at all.

Love is accepting your children, countrymen(and women), fellow citizens, etc, for who they are.

Love perseveres despite our differences. Praying for change doesn't demonstrate love, it demonstrates arrogance and only conditional acceptance, which isn't love at all.


So in other words, if I pray for you to become gay (one more fish in the sea if you will), is that loving as well? Or would you call it futile?

Suppose I prayed to get better grades rather than actually studying. Would that not be futile?

You can love a homosexual unconditionally and still pray for them to change their behavior. If you are praying for someone else to learn about Jesus and grow closer to the Savior, you are not doing so in some sort of selfish or unloving manner. Unconditional love means that you love the person even though you do not like the behavior that person engages in.

Praying for me to become gay is not loving (in my opinion) since you would be doing it out of spite or selfishness. If you actually thought my life would be a lot better is I were a homosexual and you cared only for my life, then I would consider your prayer loving but misguided.

[Queso]

Praying for me to become gay is not loving (in my opinion) since you would be doing it out of spite or selfishness.
Recognising that you are gay and realising you can be yourself and act as you were intended to is wonderful, liberating, and healthy for the mind. Everyone should get that feeling, and the sooner in their life the better.

Christians* are the selfish and spiteful ones (in my opinion) for attempting to push their priorities into the lives of others however unwanted. They pay lip service to the concept of doing it out of love, but in reality it's simple bigotry. This nonsense they spout about sin just codifies their bigotry and gives them something to hide behind when rightfully challenged about the lack of reason behind their prejudice. Pray for each other's mental health if you must pray for something. Leave the rest of us to get on with life without this nonsense background noise.

*not all, just the ones included in this same old same old...

[skunk]

You have told us many times in this forum that someone can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't impinge on your rights. Prayer in no way affects your rights.Actually, if you believe in the efficacy of prayer, then praying for someone who is happy to be who they are to be changed in their very nature against their will is akin to assault.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and the Bible depicts homosexuality as sinful. The Bible doesn't say it is sinful to be non-caucasion. Therefore many Christians see homosexuals as people mired in a sinful lifestyle and therefore wish to pray for them.Actually, wrong again. The OT suggests in many places that one cannot be chosen unless one is Semitic, i.e. non-Caucasian. As for homosexuality, times change: there was no such classification in biblical times, so the very word is meaningless in a biblical context. Other behaviours in the bible, such as mass murder, genocide, the abuse of women, internecine warfare and slavery, were regarded with equanimity. To single out a loving relationship between two people of the same gender in these circumstances for particular opprobrium is nothing short of obscene.

[Peterkro]

I agree once again. In my experience, Christians often focus on homosexuality because it is often not something they experience. It is easier to point the finger at homosexuals then it is to point the finger at divorcees. Especially since the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as the general public. That topic hits a lot of nerves.



I would have thought the rate of Homosexuality amongst Christians would be similar to the general public,unless of course you have access to some studies I'm unaware of.

[atszyman]

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and the Bible depicts homosexuality as sinful. The Bible doesn't say it is sinful to be non-caucasion. Therefore many Christians see homosexuals as people mired in a sinful lifestyle and therefore wish to pray for them.

But you'd be sparing them from a life of intolerance, bigotry and persecution. The underlying idea is that it is completely futile, idiotic and ridiculous to pray for someone to be changed from the way that God made them.

You can pray that they avoid sinful behavior, but not that they be made straight, and at that rate I'd pray for less sinful behavior out of our politicians since they seem to manage to pull off most of the seven deadly sins on a daily basis which is more of an insult to God than two people of the same sex sharing a loving encounter in the privacy of their own home.

[skunk]

In my experience, Christians often focus on homosexuality because it is often not something they experience. It is easier to point the finger at homosexuals then it is to point the finger at divorcees. Especially since the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as the general public. That topic hits a lot of nerves.

I would have thought the rate of Homosexuality amongst Christians would be similar to the general public,unless of course you have access to some studies I'm unaware of.Bingo. I think the word is not so much "experience" as "admit to".

[leekohler]

I agree once again. In my experience, Christians often focus on homosexuality because it is often not something they experience. It is easier to point the finger at homosexuals then it is to point the finger at divorcees. Especially since the divorce rate among Christians is about the same as the general public. That topic hits a lot of nerves.

Speaking as a homosexual who was raised by evangelicals, I can assure you that they experience it just like everyone else. They just don't talk about it, unless it's to say horrible, condemning things. Ted Haggard anyone?

[imac/cheese]

I would have thought the rate of Homosexuality amongst Christians would be similar to the general public,unless of course you have access to some studies I'm unaware of.

What I was saying is that the general public has a divorce rate of about 50% which is mirrored in the Christian community. That means a sermon about divorce hits a lot more nerves than a sermon about homosexuality.

I don't doubt that the rate of homosexuality among Christians mirrors the general public as well.

[CalBoy]

You can love a homosexual unconditionally and still pray for them to change their behavior.

What behavior is that exactly?

Foolish me always thought that sexuality was a state of being as opposed to an actual continuous and repeated set of actions.

And let's get something straight here (no pun intended). If you love someone, you wouldn't ask them to change something that is fundamental to their very being, that is what they are, that is their raison d'être.

When you get married, you don't take vows to change the other person do you? Do you swear to make your spouse lose weight, get a better job, have larger breasts, etc? Or do you love the person for who they are?

Love is fully unconditional, and praying to change something that makes someone what and who they are is not love, it's bigotry.

If you are praying for someone else to learn about Jesus and grow closer to the Savior, you are not doing so in some sort of selfish or unloving manner.

What if you have a secondary or tertiary motive to convert more followers to your cause and thus increase your political power or the coffers of your church, or both?

What if you pray for others to find the same 'savior' as you because you fear change? What if you are xenophobic? Are these still acceptable forms of prayer? I thought not.

Something tells me that Palin and the rest of the religious right cares little for my soul relative to the political and monetary powers they gain by exploiting my status as a minority.

Unconditional love means that you love the person even though you do not like the behavior that person engages in.

Again, what behavior are we talking about here?

And, what's more critical here, is that love understands who and what we are and respects that. People who genuinely love accept people for who they are and don't want them to change (especially when the attribute that needs to be changed is so utterly static that it's laughable to think that any human or other agency could change it).

Praying for me to become gay is not loving (in my opinion) since you would be doing it out of spite or selfishness.

I agree, which is part of my point. ;)

If you actually thought my life would be a lot better is I were a homosexual and you cared only for my life, then I would consider your prayer loving but misguided.

Funny, I would say the exact same thing to Palin and her church. ;)

[imac/cheese]

What behavior is that exactly?

A man sleeping with a man in the manner one does with a woman.

Foolish me always thought that sexuality was a state of being as opposed to an actual continuous and repeated set of actions.

Sexuality itself is not a sin based on the Bible. The sin is the actual sex. Though Jesus would go as far to say the lust of the heart is a sin as well.

And let's get something straight here (no pun intended). If you love someone, you wouldn't ask them to change something that is fundamental to their very being, that is what they are, that is their raison d'être.

When you get married, you don't take vows to change the other person do you? Do you swear to make your spouse lose weight, get a better job, have larger breasts, etc? Or do you love the person for who they are?

Love is fully unconditional, and praying to change something that makes someone what and who they are is not love, it's bigotry.

Lots of people try to change those they love. They try to help them see the errors of their ways and improve themsleves. If you are not a Christian and do not see homosexual behavior as sinful, then the attempts to change a person is offensive. I understand that. I also understand that most homosexuals see their sexuality as intrinsic to who they are and not some choice that can be changed. I know I can't change my sexuality.


What if you have a secondary or tertiary motive to convert more followers to your cause and thus increase your political power or the coffers of your church, or both?

What if you pray for others to find the same 'savior' as you because you fear change? What if you are xenophobic? Are these still acceptable forms of prayer? I thought not.

Something tells me that Palin and the rest of the religious right cares little for my soul relative to the political and monetary powers they gain by exploiting my status as a minority.

All prayers are acceptable in my mind. If you are praying, you are talking to God and the Holy Spirit can work in your life. If your prayers have different motives than love, they are not loving prayers, and they are selfish. If you are just praying for more political power or more money, then you really don't care about the people you are praying about. That doesn't mean that God won't hear your prayers and it is very possible that he will use one's own prayer to reveal one's selfish motives to instigate change from within.

The people who pray fearing change are not praying because they fear abstract change. They are praying because they fear that the change will drive people further from God and that society will accept more lifestyles and behaviors that are unacceptable in God's eyes. That is a very real fear for many Christians.

You would be surprised by how much many Christians actually care for your soul. I don't know what Palin's motives are, but I doubt her desire is simply to exploit you for personal gain. But then again, I don't know for sure. On the flip side, I have been surprised how many immature Christians are hateful and angry towards homosexuals that have done nothing to the Christian.

I personally do not pray for the "straightening" of homosexuals. I do pray that those who do not know Jesus develop a relationship with Him. Once that person has a relationship with Jesus, the Holy Spirirt will convict them of the sin in their life and help them overcome.

[Queso]

The people who pray fearing change are not praying because they fear abstract change. They are praying because they fear that the change will drive people further from God and that society will accept more lifestyles and behaviors that are unacceptable in God's eyes. That is a very real fear for many Christians.
Oh, the "thin end of the wedge" argument. Yeah, that's valid. You can tell by the way Spain now allows polygamous marriages between men and their donkeys :rolleyes:

[edesignuk]

She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.In a modern world what place does someone with these views have? It's scary.

[Queso]

In a modern world what place does someone with these views have? It's scary.
The Oval Office apparently.

[leekohler]

I personally do not pray for the "straightening" of homosexuals. I do pray that those who do not know Jesus develop a relationship with Him. Once that person has a relationship with Jesus, the Holy Spirirt will convict them of the sin in their life and help them overcome.

Wow- Well, you've pretty much guaranteed that I'll never go near religion again with that statement.

In a modern world what place does someone with these views have? It's scary.

George Bush IS our president at the moment.

[edesignuk]

George Bush IS our president at the moment.oh yeah, good point :o

[CalBoy]

A man sleeping with a man in the manner one does with a woman.

Let's keep our terms straight here; Palin's church prays that I stop being gay, and that I stop having sex with men. If it was only about the latter, then the nature of the discussion would be focused in that way.

Sexuality itself is not a sin based on the Bible. The sin is the actual sex. Though Jesus would go as far to say the lust of the heart is a sin as well.

Indeed, which makes me wonder why Palin's church is trying to change my sexuality, and my practice. You might argue that Christianity doesn't condone sex before marriage and that's why gay people shouldn't have sex (since they can't get married) but that's not at all what Palin's church hopes for.

Lots of people try to change those they love.
Perhaps in minor and trivial ways ("Please take out the trash honey," or "Use a coaster!" or "For the tenth time, our anniversary is on the 14th!" etc), but not in life altering ways (imagine if your wife told you to be 2 inches taller or to be smarter; that's the order of change we're talking about here).
They try to help them see the errors of their ways and improve themsleves.

And here's the line I was waiting for. You, like many other Christians, you think that homosexuality is an error in one's self as opposed to a simple state of being that is beyond all control.

Unless you don't actually believe this and you admit that praying for such a change is as futile as it is insulting.
I also understand that most homosexuals see their sexuality as intrinsic to who they are and not some choice that can be changed.

No, we don't "see" anything, we know.

I know I can't change my sexuality.

Ditto. And that's the crux of the issue.


All prayers are acceptable in my mind.

Very well, I should at once begin to pray to make you homosexual, as it is clearly acceptable.
If you are praying, you are talking to God and the Holy Spirit can work in your life. If your prayers have different motives than love, they are not loving prayers, and they are selfish.

So once again, if you are praying to change someone just so they fit your image of society, isn't that selfish?

My life is perfectly fine, and the only people who actually make it worse are people like Palin who stand in the way of my right to equal treatment.

That is selfish on the part of Palin and those like her.

If you are just praying for more political power or more money, then you really don't care about the people you are praying about.

My thoughts exactly.

That doesn't mean that God won't hear your prayers and it is very possible that he will use one's own prayer to reveal one's selfish motives to instigate change from within.

We're still waiting on Bush, Rove, and a whole team of other evangelicals. Do let us know when god tells them how selfish and destructive their behavior is.

The people who pray fearing change are not praying because they fear abstract change. They are praying because they fear that the change will drive people further from God and that society will accept more lifestyles and behaviors that are unacceptable in God's eyes.

I'm curious if these same people who pray (like Palin) pray for the clothing industry to not make clothes from two different threads, or for everyday simple gardeners to not plant two different crops side by side (oops, I've done that too-better stone me to death in the town square), or for fathers to sell their daughters into slavery.

That is a very real fear for many Christians.

Yes, as it is for every other xenophobic and bigoted person on the face of the planet. Christians just get the added excuse of "god told me so" to shield them from chastisement.

You would be surprised by how much many Christians actually care for your soul. I don't know what Palin's motives are, but I doubt her desire is simply to exploit you for personal gain.

Hmmm...we've always known Palin to be such an honest and caring politician...:rolleyes:
On the flip side, I have been surprised how many immature Christians are hateful and angry towards homosexuals that have done nothing to the Christian.

You forget: we exist. ;)

I do pray that those who do not know Jesus develop a relationship with Him. Once that person has a relationship with Jesus, the Holy Spirirt will convict them of the sin in their life and help them overcome.

It'll be rather hard to develop a relationship with someone who's been dead for nearly 2,000 years.

I'd much rather have a strong relationship with my own conscience and externally refined sense of ethics as opposed to religious dogma that has been used for millennia for political and military manipulation.

But that's just me.
In a modern world what place does someone with these views have? It's scary.

You forget that we're talking about the US here. We won't be in the 21st Century for another four decades. :rolleyes:

[imac/cheese]

Wow- Well, you've pretty much guaranteed that I'll never go near religion again with that statement.

Let's not be disingenuous Lee. You know my comment had nothing to do with you avoiding Christianity. I do hope you change your mind at some point.

And here's the line I was waiting for. You, like many other Christians, you think that homosexuality is an error in one's self as opposed to a simple state of being that is beyond all control.

Though I am pretty sure I can't change my sexuality from straight to gay, I do know of several people who have changed their's. Sexuality is such an unknown aspect of a person to say that it is beyond all control is a very big statement to make. It is definitely a part of our personality but people change all the time based on thier experiences, their age, their habits, and their beliefs. I personally do not believe that our sexuality is given to us at conception. I see it as something that develops as we experience life and changes throughout life. [/QUOTE]

Very well, I should at once begin to pray to make you homosexual, as it is clearly acceptable.

Any talking to God on your part will be fine with me.

So once again, if you are praying to change someone just so they fit your image of society, isn't that selfish?

My life is perfectly fine, and the only people who actually make it worse are people like Palin who stand in the way of my right to equal treatment.

That is selfish on the part of Palin and those like her.

This is an aspect of Christians that many people don't seem to understand. We actually believe that people are going to go to hell if they die without trusting in Jesus. So we pray for people to get to know Jesus so they can trust in Him. Praying for someone's eternal soul is not at all selfish. If the person I am praying for is already a Christian, I will pray that they make the changes needed to grow closer to Christ. If they are not a Christian, I pray that they will make the changes needed to learn to trust Him. Those are not prayers that I make to better my own life in any way.

Palin (and those like her) are in no way affecting your life by praying (unless God answers their prayers) except for the fact that you get to write responses about it in this thread. Praying for you doesn't hurt you in anyway. Making legislation, on the hand can definitely affect you. For the record, I am for equal rights (partly because of comment Lee and others have made in these forums).

We're still waiting on Bush, Rove, and a whole team of other evangelicals. Do let us know when god tells them how selfish and destructive their behavior is.

I too am waiting. Hateful behavior has never helped anyone come to Christ.


I'm curious if these same people who pray (like Palin) pray for the clothing industry to not make clothes from two different threads, or for everyday simple gardeners to not plant two different crops side by side (oops, I've done that too-better stone me to death in the town square), or for fathers to sell their daughters into slavery.

Most Christians are under the understanding that the Law that the Jews followed that included such things as different fabric in clothing and different crops does not apply to Gentiles as discussed by Paul recorded Acts. Men sleeping with men is mentioned in the Law along with child sacrifice and beastiality but it is also mentioned in the New Testament in several places where we are called on to abstain from such behavior. So I really doubt anyone is praying for the clothing industry to keep from making stretch jeans.

It'll be rather hard to develop a relationship with someone who's been dead for nearly 2,000 years.

He was only dead for 3 days. ;)

[leekohler]

Let's not be disingenuous Lee. You know my comment had nothing to do with you avoiding Christianity. I do hope you change your mind at some point.

I was being quite serious. It's that kind of attitude that is such a turn-off.



Though I am pretty sure I can't change my sexuality from straight to gay, I do know of several people who have changed their's.

Those people are called bisexuals. And they can do whoever they want.

So- you can't change your sexuality, but other people can? Is it only you who can't change? What's wrong with you? Why can't you be gay?

[CalBoy]

Though I am pretty sure I can't change my sexuality from straight to gay, I do know of several people who have changed their's.

Do you know that they genuinely changed their orientation, or merely claimed as such at the point of a gun or other coercive pressures?

I wonder why you think some people are magically enhanced to be able to change their orientation at will, and why that trait isn't more prevalent in our population, since it would arguably be a genetic advantage.

Sexuality is such an unknown aspect of a person to say that it is beyond all control is a very big statement to make.
It's an even bigger statement to say that it can be manipulated by feeble human prayer.

Again, if your sexuality (and mine, and Lee's, and probably everyone else who frequents MR) can't be changed, why would anyone's be so changeable?

That view is not only illogical, it's nonsensical.

It is definitely a part of our personality
Quite the contrary. I've met gay people who are rude and gruff, and straight people as well. Conversely I've met straight people who are pleasant and gay people who are as well.

Sexual orientation governs sexual orientation. While it might have a correlation with other traits (eg an eye for design or fashion in gay men), these are by no means always present, and they do not constitute a personality but rather a skill set.

but people change all the time based on thier experiences, their age, their habits, and their beliefs.

Indeed, many parts of ourselves change over time, but there are a few traits which remain static no matter how much time has passed.

Without intervention, for example, I will continue to be a human male with brown eyes and black hair, and you will remain a caucasian.

In twenty years, those things will not change, and neither will your attraction to boobs or mine to strong cheek bones.

I personally do not believe that our sexuality is given to us at conception.

You needn't believe it because it is factually provable. If you remain ignorant of the facts in spite of them, that speaks to your desire to remain behind the times.

And for the record, only about 50-60% of sexual orientation is fully governed by genetics. Additional sources of variation include temperature of the womb, chemical inputs on the part of the mother, and other environmental factors during pregnancy (especially the earlier part of pregnancy).

While we have yet to fully explain the other factors, the genetic component has a strong evolutionary history to it for gay men. The sisters of gay men tend to be more fertile and produce more breast milk, which helps to explain why the genes persist (as a gay man's sisters will pass on these genes to their gay sons and straight daughters).

I see it as something that develops as we experience life and changes throughout life.

Well too bad, because that's not what it is. Tell me exactly when you decided that you had enough life experience to decide that you liked women. Why did you reject men? Do we smell? Have too much hair?

I personally never made the choice. If I had been given a choice, you can bet I wouldn't have chosen to be even more disadvantaged than need be.

Thanks to people like Palin and her church, I have to work twice as hard to get half as far. And when I do finally get there, I'll have a government barreling down on me reminding me that I am a second-class citizen unworthy of the same legal rights and protections as someone like you.

Any talking to God on your part will be fine with me.

Sorry, I only worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the sky.

At least he uses pirates to stop global warming (or did anyways).



Praying for someone's eternal soul is not at all selfish.

I agree that on an individual level it is not selfish.

However, on a macro social scale, this reasoning is actually more important politically as it has allowed leaders to wage wars, murder, and reject the humanity of others.

The only reason I don't like Palin's church and their prayers now, is because they are doing the same thing again.

Palin (and those like her) are in no way affecting your life by praying

No, but they are not only praying; they are legislating as well. Moreover, they are spreading false "science" and "facts" that are distorted to achieve a primarily political goal.

(unless God answers their prayers)
Frankly I'm not too worried. ;)

For the record, I am for equal rights (partly because of comment Lee and others have made in these forums).

I'm glad. :)

At least you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. When Palin and her church are as well, let me know.


Most Christians are under the understanding that the Law that the Jews followed that included such things as different fabric in clothing and different crops does not apply to Gentiles as discussed by Paul recorded Acts.

Surely we can exclude that infamous part of Leviticus then?

Unless we can parse the Bible to fit our needs.
but it is also mentioned in the New Testament in several places

I'm not actually too familiar with the New Testament, so could you please give me the specific books and chapters/verses for me to look these up?

I wasn't aware there was more in the New Testament.

He was only dead for 3 days. ;)

On the contrary, if that's what you believe, he had been dead for 3 days. ;)

Unless I'm mistaken, he has very much left this earthly plane now, so I can call him "dead" for our purposes (ie, you can't speak to him in person-only in your prayers).

[és:]

So- you can't change your sexuality, but other people can? Is it only you who can't change? What's wrong with you? Why can't you be gay?

I can't answer that for him, but let us all pray for him.

[imac/cheese]

It's an even bigger statement to say that it can be manipulated by feeble human prayer.

I find this statement interesting. If there is no god but the FSM as you believe, of course prayer couldn't change anything. It couldn't change anything simple, let alone something this complex. Yet it is obvious that Christians believe in more than the FSM. In that case the prayers might come from a feeble human, but they are heard by an all powerful God. Nothing is impossible for an all powerful God.

And for the record, only about 50-60% of sexual orientation is fully governed by genetics. Additional sources of variation include temperature of the womb, chemical inputs on the part of the mother, and other environmental factors during pregnancy (especially the earlier part of pregnancy).

While we have yet to fully explain the other factors, the genetic component has a strong evolutionary history to it for gay men. The sisters of gay men tend to be more fertile and produce more breast milk, which helps to explain why the genes persist (as a gay man's sisters will pass on these genes to their gay sons and straight daughters).

From what I have read in a variety of studies, there seems to be a lot of contradicting evidence about the affect of genetics governing homosexuality. Is this 50-60% number that you quote the accepted percentage in the scientific community or is it from a single study? I would love to see the study(ies) that were done to determine that number. The nurture versus nature argument has been one that has interested me for quite some time and I always enjoy reading more about it when I get the chance.

No, but they are not only praying; they are legislating as well. Moreover, they are spreading false "science" and "facts" that are distorted to achieve a primarily political goal.

This thread was about her church praying for people and whether she should have to disown her church becuase of their actions. Her church is not legislating.

I'm not actually too familiar with the New Testament, so could you please give me the specific books and chapters/verses for me to look these up?

I wasn't aware there was more in the New Testament.

Jude chapter 1 talks about Sodom and Gomorrha and going after strange flesh. 1 Corinthians chapter 6 talks about homosexual offenders. 1 Timothy chapter 1 mentions homosexuals in reference to a variety of sins. Romans chapter 1 mentions homosexuality and is (I think) the only place in the Bible where female homosexuality is mentioned.

Unless I'm mistaken, he has very much left this earthly plane now, so I can call him "dead" for our purposes (ie, you can't speak to him in person-only in your prayers).

Jesus is very much alive in this world. Though to people who do not know Him, it is hard to understand how much impact and influence He can have in our lives.

[Dagless]

A prayer to stop you being gay?

How ****ed up is this church?

[leekohler]

A prayer to stop you being gay?

How ****ed up is this church?

VERY- Google search James Dobson and Focus on the family, or just Love Won Out. The things there will chill you to the bone.

[iShater]

I'm surprised so many people are surprised. Most conservative traditions believe the same thing, but don't advertise the prayer.

[scotthayes]

Reading comments in this thread makes me glad I'm an atheist.

I have friends who are gay (both male and female), friends who are Christians, friends who a Muslim and friends who are atheist. I judge those people for who they are not how a book tells me to judge them. Why can't people just accept people for who they are and stop trying to change them???

[it5five]

The whole "being gay is a choice" thing religious nutbags like to trot out is ridiculous.

The idea of a having sex with a man isn't appealing to me. Just as the idea of having sex with a woman isn't appealing to Lee, for example.

I'd like to know why religious nuts think people "choose" to be gay? So they can be collectively **** on by our fundamentalist christian government? So they can be teased/beat/killed by their peers throughout school? Or is it some anti-christian conspiracy by these "liberal gays" to destroy "family values"? I'm genuinely interested in knowing the answer to this.

Oh, and anyone who says they "changed" their sexual orientation through prayer/psychology/whatever is full of it.

[skunk]

I'd like to know why religious nuts think people "choose" to be gay?Because they think they "chose" to be heterosexual. Of course the obvious corollary to this conviction is that at some point they found themselves attracted to their own sex and rejected those feelings. God only knows for how many of them that "choice" will hold.

[CalBoy]

I find this statement interesting. If there is no god but the FSM as you believe, of course prayer couldn't change anything. It couldn't change anything simple, let alone something this complex. Yet it is obvious that Christians believe in more than the FSM. In that case the prayers might come from a feeble human, but they are heard by an all powerful God. Nothing is impossible for an all powerful God.

Of course you know that the FSM is merely a parody atheists use to exemplify the weaknesses in a theistic belief, but disregarding that, let's examine the foolishness of praying to a "god" to begin with.

Even if there is/was a being with the power and scope similar to the Christian definition of 'god,' (and this is a big if, remember) there is no guarantee that s/he/it will actually bother to listen to anyone, let alone a handful of people out of some 6.5 billion.

The simple statistical facts indicate that on the basis of issues pressing the world, turning gay people straight would be amongst this god's last priorities. The roughly 5 billion people in the world who don't have access to clean water would probably rank more importantly on this god's list if that god was to listen to human prayer.

Or perhaps this god would attempt to feed the majority of children in the world who starve daily.

Or perhaps this god would free the nearly 4 billion people in the world who live under repressive governments.

Or perhaps, even if this god was somehow more US-centric, s/he/it would attempt to help the ~47 million people in this country without health insurance.

Or perhaps s/he/it would help the roughly same number who are below the poverty line.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

The fact is, this interest is so narrow, and desired by so few, that any god with half an ounce of sense would first tackle more pressing matters. Even if s/he/it eventually decided to help gay people, the decision might be to coerce governments into granting equal rights and dispell bigotry, not to change what that god might have wanted to begin with (ie some gay followers).

From what I have read in a variety of studies, there seems to be a lot of contradicting evidence about the affect of genetics governing homosexuality.

Science has very much settled itself on the 50-60% range.

Religion has not. Go back and read those studies which offer a different view. If they are from a largely nonsecular source, or older than 4 years, their worth is very much in doubt.

Is this 50-60% number that you quote the accepted percentage in the scientific community or is it from a single study?

I've seen several studies now, and each one varies between that range (which is why I included a range as opposed to a set percentage).

I would love to see the study(ies) that were done to determine that number.
I'll link more later when I have more time. Rest assured that the studies were carried out by respectable institutions and were based primarily on twin studies.

This thread was about her church praying for people and whether she should have to disown her church becuase of their actions. Her church is not legislating.

I'd be curious to see the impact of her church on elections and legislating. Something tells me they are bedfellows.

Jesus is very much alive in this world. Though to people who do not know Him, it is hard to understand how much impact and influence He can have in our lives.
The only thing the concept of god can do for an individual is reveal the path to our own internal ability to love and understand. Some might find value in god in this way, but it is not god which acts as the agent of comprehension, it is your own mind. Trust yourself to think rationally and logically, and you won't need religious symbols to guide your path.
God only knows for how many of them that "choice" will hold.

I'd say the record isn't very good.

A few reverends, Congressmen, even a senator now.

It seems they are louder when they are further in the closet.

[smwatson]

I have never quite managed to comprehend that morons like the people who suggest sexual orientation is a matter of choice are allowed to have prominent roles in society. Let alone be a country's leader.

It is an embarrassment to the human race.

[Queso]

I have never quite managed to comprehend that morons like the people who suggest sexual orientation is a matter of choice are allowed to have prominent roles in society. Let alone be a country's leader.
Just factor in religion and the question becomes a lot less stressful on the synapses.

[Much Ado]

Because they think they "chose" to be heterosexual. Of course the obvious corollary to this conviction is that at some point they found themselves attracted to their own sex and rejected those feelings.

Or were frightened by them. It would make sense that the most homophobic people once had feelings for someone of the same sex, and didn't know how to deal with it, provoking a negative reaction.

Or it this giving too much benefit of the doubt?

[leekohler]

Here's link to Dobson's site, Love Won Out. It's most insane drivel you'll ever read. It's extremely twisted- you've been warned.

http://www.lovewonout.com/questions/

Are you here to "cure" gays?
Absolutely not. The only time you’ll ever hear the word “cure” used in relation to our event is by those who oppose Love Won Out. They also like to claim we want to “fix” or “convert” gays and lesbians and that we believe people can “pray away the gay.” Such glib characterizations ignore the complex series of factors that can lead to same-sex attractions; they also mischaracterize our mission. We exist to help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome. It is not easy, but it is possible, as evidenced by the thousands of men and women who have walked this difficult road successfully.



But your goal is still to make gays straight, right?
That is a gross and narrow oversimplification. We aren’t here to “make” anybody do or become anything; we are here to offer a biblical and experiential perspective on the issue of homosexuality that is, sadly, underreported in the mainstream media. Our goals include aiding parents who want to learn how to better love their sons or daughters without compromising their faith; helping people who want to better understand the many factors that can lead to someone adopting a homosexual identity; and assisting those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions and want to discover how they might also start upon the path ― a difficult path, as noted above ― to overcoming those desires.



Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
We do not believe anyone chooses his or her same-sex attractions. We concur with the American Psychological Association’s position that homosexuality is likely developmental in nature and caused by a “complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors” (www.apa.org). We would also agree with the American Psychiatric Association when it states “some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.” If you ever hear us use the word “choice,” it is in relation to men and women who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions choosing to steward their impulses in a way that aligns with their faith convictions.



Doesn’t God love everyone? Even homosexuals?
Absolutely. Jesus died every bit as much for those who protest our conference as for those who speak at it. You have never heard, and will never hear, any Love Won Out speaker say that God doesn’t love gays and lesbians. What you will hear is that God designed human sexuality to be enjoyed solely within the bounds of one-man, one-woman marriage. Any sexual relationship outside of that design – heterosexual or homosexual – falls short of God’s standard.


Love Won Out Stories

" I have been struggling for 20 months with the fact that my son tells me he is gay. I have gone through all of the first three stages of grief. I found this conference on the internet. We drove from Orange, TX, last night to the conference in Atlanta to begin on the reconstruction phase of our grief. Thank you for giving me hope for a loving relationship with my son. "


Until you get to the bolded part, it all sounds like sunshine and roses. But that sentence is the key to their whole POV. They also fight against equal rights for gays, while saying they support gays at the same time. No wonder some people fall for this crap. It's so sad to me.

Also notice that there is no mention of method or statistics on the entire site. You just gotta BELIEVE! :rolleyes:

The very last quote really upsets me for too many reasons to mention.

[smwatson]

Just factor in religion and the question becomes a lot less stressful on the synapses.

Why do we have to factor in religion?
Why can we not just declare them all clinically insane and get them out of society.

[kaiwai]

I would have thought the rate of Homosexuality amongst Christians would be similar to the general public,unless of course you have access to some studies I'm unaware of.

Many gays unfortunately run to religion to sort out problems in their lives which tend to come from their inability to accept who they are. Its an attempt to impose order in their otherwise chaotic lives. It is like a person who escapes his past by joining the foreign legion.

For me, I guess I was lucky, although raised as a Catholic, my parents were at the liberal end of the spectrum. When I did come out, I was accepted by my parents - with my mother telling me, "I always new". It seems that it was insider knowledge that the family though I was gay. I was the last person to find out ;)

[Queso]

Why do we have to factor in religion?
Why can we not just declare them all clinically insane and get them out of society.
Vote me in as world leader and you can consider it done :p

[Prof.]

I saw this pic on TinyPic and I wanted to share it. I agree with it 100%.

http://i35.tinypic.com/2rwm5ue.jpg

[solvs]

Jesus Christ quits Christianity after viewing Republican platform (http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2008/09/08/jesus-christ-quits-christianity-after-viewing-republican-platform/)