Homosexuals imposing THEIR Values on Christians - Political Forum

Ygorl · #1 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 03:57 PM

* My comments in red between stars *

Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

There is a maelstrom brewing around High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Church officials had offered to host a funeral for a homosexual man, Cecil Sinclair, even going so far as to agree to feed 100 guests and create an elaborate photo presentation about the man's life. However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair's homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display. Understandably, the church would not be party to the exhibition of sin, and its offer was rescinded.

The family is mad, some of the media is mad, and I'm mad too. What irks me, though, is an invidious double-standard: Homosexuals and their sympathizers often expect a special dispensation from rules that apply to everyone else, while Christians are expected to dispense with their rules.

* Why do Homosexuals and their sympathizers expect dispensation from the rules that apply to everyone ELSE ? *

I'll first echo a point church officials have made, only my example will be different. It's understandable that Christians may offer their services to known homosexuals, as we're all sinners; however, most of us sinners don't expect our characteristic sins to be on display in a church service held on our behalf. Why, if a man had been a compulsive philanderer, would we expect that a church shouldn't have a problem displaying sexually suggestive photographs of him with gaggles of gals? It's absurd.

* isn't it ? *

If this would be readily understood if the individual in question were a fornicator, why not when he is a homosexual? Do they want to be treated like everyone else or don't they?

* That's what they keep telling us. Then they demand special TREATMENT *

This situation reminds me of the case of Rev. Eugene Robinson, the cleric who declared his homosexuality and was then was elected bishop by some Episcopagans. It was such a grand victory for inclusiveness, such a bold show of tolerance, allowing the Brave New Worlders to puff up their chests and boldly go where no half-man had gone before. Seldom pointed out, however, was that Rev. Robinson had left his wife and children upon receiving his netherworld epiphany. If a normal man had done so to be with another woman, would he be exalted and elected bishop? No, the attitude would be quite different, as he just might be labeled unfaithful and irresponsible - if not a pig. Rev. Robinson, though, well, was "brave." I guess being a homosexual means never having to say you're sorry.

* And never having to admit that you're wrong. Perversity hiding behind the tenets of "diversity" again. *

Getting back to the church - the one that can still be called Christian - it's time for some perspective. Let's say that a mosque had agreed to host a service for a family but balked upon learning that the party would insist on including roast pork and bacon in its food selection. In our politically correct climate, I can't imagine too many journalistic Jacobins placing the onus on the Moslems. Multicultural imperatives would hold sway, and the poseurs would disgorge platitudes about respecting differences and Islamic sensitivities. For that matter, would anyone find it anything but laughable if someone expected Moslems to brook homosexual displays? So, why are the religious convictions of Christians not similarly respected?

* Yes, why IS that ? Islam gets a free pass but Christianity doesn't ? What's up with that ?*

Then, you'll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you're a confirmed secularist, shouldn't you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can't imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you'd be told to expand your cultural horizons.

* What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? We're to think that didn't mention it because, supposedly they didn't thinkk it NEEDED mentioned. We're supposed to beleive that they are/were just stupid or ignorant.

Because stupidity and ignorance are MUCH more forgivable than agressive tactics used to push perverse behaviour in the faces of religious Christians. *

Thus, who, if anyone, should be offended? A teacher is thought insensitive and offensive if he brings a crucifix and Bible into a public school and relates a religious message (although, homosexual content seems to be just fine); after all, it is said, some of the students may be of another faith and may take offense. Well, what are we to say about the act of bringing images into a church that will likely evoke the same reaction?

* We're supposed to say nothing obviously. *

But I suspect that a sort of cultural ignorance is the issue, along with a certain kind of provincialism. Many people are so awash in relativism nowadays that they just can't imagine anyone who embraces authentic Christian doctrine; that is, not anyone with whom they could possibly consort. Why, those snake-handlers may exist in some backwoods region of stills, spells, unkempt hair, rotting teeth and home-birthing, but the evolved people modernists such as themselves encounter would never subscribe to antiquated notions like sin or Truth. Of course they'd espouse the tenets of the times. Doesn't everybody?

* ???

Doesn't everybody ? *

It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

* the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

Does it NOT ?*

Homo-expect-us: Imposing Values on Christians

Quirinalian · #2 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:00 PM

Well, go on, tell us the content of these apparent images.

Unless it showed him anally penetrating another man, I'm hardly convinced.

Ygorl · #3 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:05 PM

Did you bother reading the article ?

Here's what was said:

However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair's homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display.

What ?

Anything but a close up view of a penis going into another mans hairy ass is supposed to be acceptable ?

Sorry if you feel that way. That's your problem not mine.

Izzibeth · #4 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:30 PM

Hehe, do you post these to bait me? It's a one-man conspiracy.

Quirinalian · #5 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Did you bother reading the article ?

Here's what was said:

However, the family neglected to inform the church that Mr. Sinclair's homosexuality would be featured prominently, with pictures containing obvious homosexual content on display.

Did you bother investigating the article. What the hell is 'obvious homosexual content' - it's quite simply mashing words, which makes me very suspicious indeed.

Lazy journalism from a biased source... forgive me if I want more information when they try to hide something.

Quote:

Anything but a close up view of a penis going into another mans hairy ass is supposed to be acceptable ?

Well, the sin is buggery, not 'being gay' or having a same sex companion. So pretty much,yes.

Quote:

Sorry if you feel that way. That's your problem not mine.

It's clearly your problem. People are going to be doing it no matter what you say; I don't care what others do.

Alun · #6 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:37 PM

Displaying homosexuality would include him kissing or hugging his partner; the church would've had no problem with that had he been heterosexual. People don't get to tell other people what to believe, but people do get to argue about what other people believe. If the family didn't believe homosexuality was a sin, it's understandable that they'd be angry the church did.

That you're making generalized descriptions of what homosexuals and proponents of gay rights are asking for based on this one incident is absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ygorl

Why do Homosexuals and their sympathizers expect dispensation from the rules that apply to everyone ELSE ?

They don't; in fact, they generally expect homosexuality to be accepted just like heterosexuality. This isn't about breaking the rules, it's about being identified as an equal despite a difference in sexual preference.

Quote:

they demand special TREATMENT

It's only special if you think homosexuality is wrong. They don't. You're allowed your own opinion, but you can't rightfully say other people are being hypocritical because they contradict your beliefs.

Edit: "Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging" (Dallas Morning News).

Ygorl · #7 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 04:51 PM

Right.

If anyone is interested in addressing the following, it might be worthwhile. I can see that most of what is going to be said here is attacking the poster of the article (that being me). Which is of no interest to me:

Then, you'll have to forgive my lack of benevolence toward the bereaved, but just how dull are these people? Even if you're a confirmed secularist, shouldn't you at least suspect that a Christian church just might have a problem with overt displays of homosexuality? What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? After all, I can't imagine there would be any expectation that Moslems should make a concession simply because you pleaded ignorance about their prohibition against pork. On the contrary, I think you'd be told to expand your cultural horizons.

* What are we to think of their failure to mention such a thing? We're to think that didn't mention it because, supposedly they didn't thinkk it NEEDED mentioned. We're supposed to beleive that they are/were just stupid or ignorant.

Because stupidity and ignorance are MUCH more forgivable than agressive tactics used to push perverse behaviour in the faces of religious Christians. *

It's funny, though, our askew conception of rights and responsibilities. I can hear it now, "Oh, those intolerant Christians! Always imposing their values on others." So, before this refrain is regurgitated once more, let me say something. If the Christians entered the family's house or business and insisted that photographs with homosexual content be taken down, they might be guilty of imposition of values (I would say "morals"). In this case, though, who was invading what with whose values?

The issue here really is what fashions dictate is the greatest value: Broad-mindedness. Many people treat prejudice as if it's the first and last Deadly Sin, and through their impugnment of their age's unpalatable variety convince themselves of their sanctified state. Prejudices, though, are funny things; being a reflection of the bearer's deepest, most ingrained feelings, they often are noticed by him no more than a blind man sees his own blemishes. And the prejudices that will truly influence one are seldom those everyone warns of, but those constituting dark shades that remain unseen by a color-blind world that's afraid of the light.

One prejudice nowadays that characterizes those on the left involves a certain assumption. It is the idea that anything they choose to remove from the closet must be accepted by all, and no objection to the disposition of the junk is to be respected. In their philosophical chauvinism, however, a very important principle eludes them. You have a legal right to empty out your closet as much as you want. This right ends, though, where my property line begins.

Ygorl · #8 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 05:01 PM

As usual "rodog" wears his confusion on his sleeve.

Sorry man. The rest of us aren't going to get confused just because YOU are..

Bradgriff · #9 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 05:16 PM

The author...Selwyn Duke......any possible relation to David Duke? Then there is the Duke University thing.....Bad year for the name Duke

Ygorl · #10 (**permalink**) 09-07-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

It doesn't matter what the christian churchES think about overt displays of homosexuality. They don't have to accept it, just tolerate it, just as I have to tolerate their spreading their ideological hatred and ignorance. Just like I have to tolerate seeing people with tattoos over their body, or their pants hanging down their asses, or breast feeding their child. Not that I am concerned about any of these things because I'm not, but if I was I would still have to tolerate it no matter how much I bitched or whined.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The christian churches open their mouths and speak their minds all the time and in fact say many things that are stupid and ignorant. It is not until they speak that you can truly know how ignorant or stupid somebody really is anyway.

What the #%* are you talking about. What aggresive tactics? The one's gays use for equality. Give them what they want, the right to marry. I'm sure there were people saying the same thing about blacks during the civil rights movement and women during the women's rights movement. And the matter of perversion is a personal opinion you have that does not in any way consider factual scientific evidence that people have no control over their sexual orientation no more then they have control over who they fall head over heels for.

This is a ridiculous example. It's not like people regurally have pornographic material on walls and in fact no one is under any obligation to remove anything regardless of whether or not it has homosexual content so long as it is in a private setting or in a public setting and is not sexually explicit. The Christian in question can always leave if they are so disgusted and then proceed to post the usual hateful rhetoric that you do in order to vent your unfounded and unneccesary phobias.

You think you are some kind of poet don't you. You should really submit this one though. At least you notice your own problems though which means you have no excuse to behave in the manner of the people you describe in this poem.

Sounds like an issue the right struggles with too and to a far more significant degree since it absolutely must be their way or hell's way.

Here, you do well at showing the world how complete your confusion is.

Obviously every single point I made went right past you.

OR, you're pretending they did so you won't have to directly address them.

Either way, I'll will waste no more time with you. Maybe someone else will ?

You proved AGAIN that you belong on my ignore list.