Seperation of sex and state.

[AlAyeti]

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Government" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

Why should leguslative governemt be in the business to define a persons civil rights by their sexual behavior?

If government becomes involved in defining personal rights practiced in private, should the people vote or be allowed to amend the laws that govern society as a means to define and/or re-redefine societal norms practiced in private and between "Consenting Adults?"

Or should government be seperated from sexuality and have nothing to say about an adult persons private behavior?

[AlAyeti]

Bug,

"Family."

You fail to see the forrest for the trees.

Christians are not the only people that see "family" as immutable.

It is now government through liberal politicians that want to elevate a sexual act to the level of a protected cultrural class of people.

Seperation of sex and state should have been something to expect. But now the state wants to redefine normality, and the family.

Christians are registered voters for a reason. But even the will of the populace is not enough to stem the tide and the relentless agenda to redefine truth.

I'm sure it was the same things faced by decent people in Greece, Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Bugmaster]

Christians are not the only people that see "family" as immutable.

So it sounds like I was right, then.

Seperation of sex and state should have been something to expect. But now the state wants to redefine normality, and the family.

But but... if sex and state are separated, then the government is powerless to stop gay people from having sex. Or getting married. Is that what you want ?

[Jose]

Now, Communist-Atheism does find support AND license from Darwinian beliefs, to eliminate any weaker lifeforms. That is documented. Victims are just not "fitter." Whereas victims of murders by "Christians" convict the Christian of murder.

Just as weaker peoples have been destroyed (pardon me, "ethnically cleansed") on the basis of being the wrong religion. There is no point, IMHO, in "blaming" Darwinian belief or religious belief for murders or massacres. Both have been used by wackos to support their agendas. All this tells us is that just about any kind of principles can be misrepresented, and then used as justification for atrocities.

The topic of cultures and beliefs come up often as round table discussions in many class rooms do they not?

Sure. And why shouldn't they? Especially as the population increases, and we are forced into a global economy, we must discuss cultures and beliefs. If we act like arrogant dorks, claiming that we are the only ones who are right, and everyone else is scum, we won't do very well in the global competition. And, somehow, I don't think god will come down and smite everyone else so that we'll win.

How does a Bible-believing Christian dare speak anymore?

On anything?

Please tell me how? Without the Christian position being labeled as hate speech or, like so many do now, just labeled as ignorance and bigotry?

It depends on what you speak about, and how you say it. if you say that you are commanded by your god to hate homosexuals, and to hate Democrats, and to hate anyone who is different from you, then yeah--you're going to be asked to stop spreading hate. However, if you ask the homosexual how he or she came to be the way they are, and what it's like being tormented by others, maybe you'd be able to learn something. Your speech will only be labeled as rudeness (or hate) if you automatically condemn "others" on the basis of no other rationale than "they don't follow the bible"--by which you mean your own, personal interpretation of that tremendously complex work.

Now, a Christian student is silenced BY LAW to talk about anything in the Bible but the fluffy and warm and fuzzy.

Just as you would not want Scientologists proseletyzing your kids in school, so do others not necessarily want their kids proseletyzed in school. Forcing kids to pray to a god they don't believe in is just plain weird, and should be forbidden. But there is no law that prevents students from talking to others about their religion. There may be laws that state that students shouldn't talk about sex acts in excruciating detail, but then, the bible doesn't tell us to do that so it's not really relevant. Around here, the Christian students don't necessarily just talk about their faith; they set fire to the hair of kids who don't share it, and who might "look funny."

Yet, sex and state are intertwined (like a pedophile and children) and yet, nothing can "question" that.

You're over-reacting here to something I don't see. Perhaps (did you mention this somewhere in these threads?) you're referring to the sex ed classes in which condoms are described--sometimes with a plastic model to teach how to use the darned thing. Is this pedophilia? Or is it empowering students by helping them learn about things they would otherwise learn only on the street, and probably wrong?

Our paper, this morning, had a report on the effects of our abstinence-only sex ed classes. The result has been a dramatic increase in students' participation in oral sex. This has been accompanied by an increase in teen pregnancies (probably not from the oral sex), and a decrease in overall understanding--like girls wondering if they will get pregnant from oral sex or anal intercourse. The poor kids are foundering, with no clue as to how life works. They are reduced to figuring it out on their own. Unfortunately for your view, several different reports provide the data that sex ed works best when it is comprehensive, and that exposing students to things like that pedophilic condom demonstration actually decrease sexual activity among teens. This is quite the opposite of the non-Liberal abstinence-only approach, which is based on the logic that "I know it's true" and not on actual evidence.

What do you want here? Do you want there to be less sex and less teen pregnancy, or do you want kids to hear only one philosophy from only one form of Christian belief? Is the religion the important thing, or is the result?

[micatala]

I have not been following this thread at all, but thought I would weigh in on the initial post.

Should the govenrnemt be in position to decide sexual matters or define what is and what isn't acceptable in regards to privately practiced sex acts?

No, as long as those acts are practiced between consenting, competent adults. I would include homosexual acts in this.

Unless the issue is with children living at home and under the authority and responsibility of their parents, should "Government" be excluded from being involved in the sexual practices of individuals?

Yes, again, unless underage persons, coercion, violence, etc. are involved.

What a person chooses to do in private should stay in private as long as it is not an illegal behavior. Should laws be passed giving "cultural status" and cultural recognition to an individual under the label of a "Culture" if it is private and independent behavior defined by individuality and not birth ethnicity?

No. However, if we are talking homosexuality, I would hold that this is largely if not completely determined at birth. Now, I don't think this means we should give 'homosexuals' 'cultural status,' whatever that means. I would point out that it has not typically been governments which ascribe 'group status' to homosexuals, but usually private citizens or groups of private citizens.

Some denominations of CHristianity seem to ascribe to homosexuals a sort of 'group status'. It is interesting that other groups mentioned in the Bible (idolaters, drunkards, greedy people, murderers, etc.) in the very same passages where homosexuality are mentioned (see especially Romans and other letters of Paul) are not referred to in the same way as a 'group of sinners' by Christians in the same way or to the same extent as homosexuals are.

Much is made of the personal choice of religion, and how that effects a persons way of viewing society, but nothing is more personal than sexual behavior in regards to how it effects a persons views on his or her in society. All people engage in commonly occuring sex acts no matter their ethnic or country of origin. Can an individual sexual practice be embraced by a group of people and then be elevated to an exclusive cultural indentity?

Why should leguslative governemt be in the business to define a persons civil rights by their sexual behavior?

To answer the second question, this is necessary because many private citizens and groups of private citizens have already created a sort of 'group identity' for homosexuals, and then have discriminated against them, often violently, on the basis of this identification. Because of this discrimination, governments here in the U.S. and elsewhere have found it necessary to pass laws to protect these citizens. This is not unlike what has happened with respect to race.

Since part of the reason for the discrimination against and oppression of homosexuals has to do with the attitudes of those doing the discrimination, it makes some sense for private citizens interested in justice, and the government, to at least address the existence of these attitudes.

If government becomes involved in defining personal rights practiced in private, should the people vote or be allowed to amend the laws that govern society as a means to define and/or re-redefine societal norms practiced in private and between "Consenting Adults?"

Or should government be seperated from sexuality and have nothing to say about an adult persons private behavior?

I think these have already been answered. The government should not in general pass laws prohibiting or regulating private sexual behavior. THe population at large should not be allowed to pass restrictions on private sexual behavior through the ballot box, just as we would not allow the citizenry to reinstitute Jim Crow laws through the ballot box.

THe government should take reasonable measures to protect citizens when they are the target of violence or other abusive treatment, especially if this treatment is based on prejudicial attitudes.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Thank you for citing some specifics Al. Not to imply that I agree with all of them, of course.

I feel that most of the points in that review merely point out the restrictions put on Christians seeking to force their views on the un-believing populace. Such restrictions are completely justified, as far as I am concerned.

I agree that many laws induce a partiality against Christian free speech. Not quite to the degree that you claim, however.

Seperation of sex and state should have been something to expect. But now the state wants to redefine normality, and the family.

I was just wondering... how do you go about defining "normal"? Can such a term really be applied to a race as diverse and individual as humanity? IS there a "normality"? And if there is such a thing, why should we be expected to conform to it's standards?

"Family". If you consult the dictionary, you will find a rather broad spectrum of meanings.

"Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place."
"All the members of a household under one roof."

According to these definitions, I may be lead to believe that a "family" may be comprised of any number of persons and things. The Christian definition, whatever that may be, holds no weight in a society where religion is a matter of personal choice.


Seems to me that the people resisting this deviation from "normality" and "traditional family values" simply refuse to accept the right of everyone to conduct their lives in whatever fashion they choose. Yet again, tolerance seems to be the issue.

I may have a vision of what should be considered "normal". However, I am certainly not arrogant enough to think that everyone is obligated to conform to my belief. Personal freedom does not harm the sanctimony of my values. The same for yours.

[micatala]

A review about David Limbaughs book about the relentless attack on Christians . . .

http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/b ... 4#continue

This does look like an interesting book. If I can locate a copy locally I may look it over.

I would concur with PP's description of the review for the most part. I would also point out that the review is made from a decidedly sympathetic viewpoint. The people quoted at the end of the review are also decidedly conservative (Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, et al). There is certainly nothing wrong with this, but I would be interested in getting another more objective viewpoint on the book.

Here are some Editorial Reviews from Amazon.

From Publishers Weekly
They may not get thrown to the lions any more, but today's Christians endure subtler forms of martyrdom, argues this strident manifesto. Limbaugh (Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department) recites a litany of abuses and insults perpetrated, he claims, by separation-of-church-and-state absolutists and the forces of secular humanism. Most of them are familiar complaints of the Christian Right: school children are forbidden to pray before football games; nativity scenes are banned from municipal property; the media ridicule Christian politicians, and Hollywood caricatures Christians as Bible-thumping yahoos or axe-wielding fanatics. At universities where Darwinism, relativism and "sexuality studies" hold sway, Limbaugh says, vocal Christians get packed off to the psych ward. Most insidiously, Christians are continually subjected to sensitivity training-which often promotes a "homosexual agenda"-and silenced when they object. Many of the cases Limbaugh cites raise legitimate questions about society's hypersensitivity to religious expression (although the really serious abuses were often remedied after the inevitable lawsuit). Unfortunately, he tends to equate political controversy with religious bigotry, and Christianity with fundamentalism. Many of the issues he cites, like Democratic opposition to pro-life judicial nominees, or laws requiring Catholic employers to cover contraceptives in health insurance, amount to political disputes pitting conservatives like Limbaugh against liberals, feminists, gays or users of contraceptives, with Christians ranged on both sides. Limbaugh has a point: there are anti-Christian tendencies-rigid school bureaucrats, militant atheists and an often profane and irreligious popular culture-in American society. But there are plenty of pro-Christian tendencies too, such that Limbaugh's persecution complex seems overblown.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.



From AudioFile
The point of view is that persecution of Christians in the media and public life is not recognized with the same consistency it is when other groups--such as minorities and gays--are similarly persecuted or criticized. The articulate author says that attacks on Christian expression, often framed as a concern about separation of church and state, have gone too far in removing God from our educational institutions. Since many kinds of controversial expression are being suppressed these days, the essay is a welcome effort to open up the marketplace of ideas we call public discourse. Though provocative and even captivating, the arguments still fall short of the sound and nuanced discussion this topic deserves. The audio also would have been helped by a professional speaker. T.W. © AudioFile 2005, Portland, Maine-- Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine--This text refers to the

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I would count this as showing there at least exists some evidence that some people attack Christians. I still don't see any substantiated evidence that Christianity is in any way outlawed.

[Jose]

The point of view is that persecution of Christians in the media and public life is not recognized with the same consistency it is when other groups--such as minorities and gays--are similarly persecuted or criticized. The articulate author says that attacks on Christian expression, often framed as a concern about separation of church and state, have gone too far in removing God from our educational institutions

It is interesting to note that the Constitution states that the right to criticize public figures "shall be particularly protected." When figures from the religious right make themselves public figures, as many have, they should expect criticism. When one interjects oneself into politics, and calls for the establishment of laws that favor a particular view, one should expect criticism. The establishment of gay marriage created a storm of criticism. The efforts of the religious right to establish laws concerning the teaching of Christian views in science classes should likewise be criticized.

The media and the public in general tend not to criticize Christians who simply go about their business. Nor do they say much about gays who simply go about their business. It is when people try to change the law to match their ideology that the criticism appears--as well it should. Ideology rarely provides for the greatest good for the greatest numbers. More commonly, it forces a minority view on those who do not share it.

In the case of religion, forcing a view onto others is exactly what our country was founded to avoid. Unfortunately, there is no longer a "new" continent to flee to in search of religious freedom. Therefore, we must establish the rule of law in order to protect religious freedom. One result of such freedom, as it turns out, is that no particular religion, or denomination, or sect, or cult should be allowed to push their particular rituals into public schools or government. If Christian fundamentalists really want to push their views this way, they should expect opposition because they deserve opposition.

This is not attacking Christians or Christianity. It is protecting our freedom.

As for the sex part of this...

I'd be grateful if someone could explain just what they mean when they talk about the "homosexual agenda" that they complain so strongly about. What is this so-called agenda? What is the evidence that it exists?

[AlAyeti]

That homosexuality CANNOT BE CHALLANGED.

By law!

The homosexual agenda comes from the history, the well-documented history of Pederasty. It has now gained modern power by the ACLU.

You would think, that once an individual comes out into the open (or closet) about their private world of sexuality, that common debate could be engaged.

But somehow, homosexuality has ben elevated to a cultural and protected class.

Where is the belittling of homosexuals in any school anywhere? Certainly not in the percentage of lierature we get ALL of the sexuality/pro-homosexuality indoctrination in our public schools.

If we can "graphically" challenge people's religious beliefs, we most certainly should be able to challenge their sex acts.

But not the homosexual agenda. It is an absolute totalitarian dogma and doctrine that will not tolerate logical skepticism.

Physiology, biology and anatomy are ignored for the Homosexual Agenda to claim more and more misguided members of new children to its ranks.

Now, the LGBT organizations and activist clubs, have openly declared "Questioning Youth" nas members of the sexually deviant. Without the slightest respect for parental rights.

There is an Agenda.

Where is morality heralded? Where is chastity championed? Certainly there are no role models of virginity taught in our public schools!

Condoms are taught to promote sexual activity and the danger of degenerates teaching our children about sexuality is at least as prevelant as proselytizing sneaky religionist's wanting children to wait until their married until having sex.

Now, the government wants to "Legalize" not outlaw homosexual marriage. Let us not forget that the vast majority of voters in this democracy are being forced to have normality comprimised and indeed absolutely wiped away. There are already laws silencing any questioning of homosexuality as unnatural, wierd and wrong - even though science can prove that it is - and anyone that dares challenge a homosexual is risking a trip to jail.

That is not paranoia talking. That is American "law."

Their "Agenda" is almost completed.

And the most young in our society are at the heart of The Agenda. The pr

There is no morality in an absolute lifestyle based and defined by sexual activity alone. class of "citizens."oof is where the sexuality battle is being waged. In oiur schools and in our new definition of "family."

But now, "somehow" homosexuality is a protected class and culture.

It is fair to ask: When will the madness end and where? Pedophiles marrying their child lovers? Multiple wives? Animal spouses?

Hate speech or logic?

[Bugmaster]

The homosexual agenda comes from the history, the well-documented history of Pederasty. It has now gained modern power by the ACLU...

Ok, you make some very bold claims in this rant of yours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Specifically, here are some claims that you've made:

1). Pederasty and homosexuality are equivalent.
2). All, or at least most, homosexuals belong to the same shadow conspiracy; the ACLU is its media branch.
3). Homosexuality must be belittled in schools.
4). Homosexual sex between two consenting adults is immoral.
5). Science (which science ?) can prove that homosexuality is unnatural, whatever that means.
6). Science (which science ?) can prove that homosexuality is morally wrong.
7). Homosexuality will inevitably lead to "Pedophiles marrying their child lovers", "Multiple wives", "Animal spouses", cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria.

You have made some very strong claims. Until you back them up somehow, you should consider avoiding making any new ones. Seriously.

[Jose]

I'd be grateful if someone could explain just what they mean when they talk about the "homosexual agenda" that they complain so strongly about. What is this so-called agenda? What is the evidence that it exists?

That homosexuality CANNOT BE CHALLANGED.

By law!

This is not true. Anyone may say "homosexuality is wrong." Go ahead. Say it. See? No homosexuality police came to get you.

The homosexual agenda comes from the history, the well-documented history of Pederasty. It has now gained modern power by the ACLU.

What does pederasty have to do with it? That's not what we're talking about here. You refer to the "homosexual agenda" not the "pederasty agenda." Stick to the point.

You would think, that once an individual comes out into the open (or closet) about their private world of sexuality, that common debate could be engaged.

As it can, and is. Have you chosen not to talk with gays?

But somehow, homosexuality has ben elevated to a cultural and protected class.

I asked for evidence, not bald assertions. Where is your proof of this?

Where is the belittling of homosexuals in any school anywhere? Certainly not in the percentage of lierature we get ALL of the sexuality/pro-homosexuality indoctrination in our public schools.

Why should there be "belittling"? Do you seriously suggest that we should belittle everyone with whom we don't agree? Now there's Christian tolerance!

If we can "graphically" challenge people's religious beliefs, we most certainly should be able to challenge their sex acts.

What do you mean by "graphically challenge people's religious beliefs"? Hmmm...it seems to me that you've kinda implied here that sex acts are more important than religious beliefs. I'd say they're both private.

But not the homosexual agenda. It is an absolute totalitarian dogma and doctrine that will not tolerate logical skepticism.

You are assuming that there is a homosexual agenda. I've asked for evidence that such a thing exists. Prove your point.

Physiology, biology and anatomy are ignored for the Homosexual Agenda to claim more and more misguided members of new children to its ranks.

I humbly suggest that you're all wet. Please tell us what physiology, biology, and anatomy you're talking about, and how they prove your point. I also suggest that we used to think that these branches of biology might, indeed, indicate that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, but that was a very long time ago. We know more now. These sciences demonstrate the biological basis of homosexuality. You may, if you like, cling stubbornly to the old view, but your doing so won't change the facts. Even passing legislation that "marriage" is between one man and one woman won't solve your problem, because you will have to determine how to define "man" and "woman." Do you just stand there and look at their genitals? Do they have a say in it? Does the neuroanatomy of their brain have any bearing on this? Or is it just the presence or absence of a little tag of flesh?

Now, the LGBT organizations and activist clubs, have openly declared "Questioning Youth" nas members of the sexually deviant. Without the slightest respect for parental rights.

So let's see here...given that sexual orientation is biologically determined, and given that sexual orientation isn't always obvious until puberty, and given that society "expects" certain stereotyped behaviors, do you expect that youths who don't have those behaviors should not question what's going on?

There is an Agenda.

The Agenda I see is one of trying to overcome centuries of persecution for something that god does to people.

Where is morality heralded? Where is chastity championed? Certainly there are no role models of virginity taught in our public schools!

All of these things are actively taught in those famous "abstinence only" sex education systems that fail so miserably. These things are there. They are being taught. The reality is that this teaching does not achieve the goals we all want. Why not accept the reality, and choose an education system that does achieve the goals we want?

Condoms are taught to promote sexual activity and the danger of degenerates teaching our children about sexuality is at least as prevelant as proselytizing sneaky religionist's wanting children to wait until their married until having sex.

If you refuse to see reality, that's up to you, of course. But, the reality is that condom use is taught to decrease teen pregnancy (which increases in abstinence-only education). It's taught to decrease STDs. It's taught because teens have sex whether we want them to or not. It turns out that sex ed programs that do this tend to decrease the frequency of sex as well as the frequency of teen pregnancy. Your notion that condom use is taught "to promote sexual activity" is flat-out wrong.

Now, the government wants to "Legalize" not outlaw homosexual marriage. Let us not forget that the vast majority of voters in this democracy are being forced to have normality comprimised and indeed absolutely wiped away. There are already laws silencing any questioning of homosexuality as unnatural, wierd and wrong - even though science can prove that it is - and anyone that dares challenge a homosexual is risking a trip to jail.

Huh? So, to you "normality" is pairing people up on the basis of their plumbing alone. No consideration for the rest of them?

You will find, if you actually look that science does not prove that "homosexuality is unnatural, wierd and wrong." Again, you have simply made bald assertions, with no hint of support. Where's your evidence?

That is not paranoia talking. That is American "law."

Please quote the law.

Their "Agenda" is almost completed.

What agenda? You have yet to show that there is such an agenda.

There is no morality in an absolute lifestyle based and defined by sexual activity alone. class of "citizens."oof is where the sexuality battle is being waged. In oiur schools and in our new definition of "family."

What lifestyle, anywhere, is based on sex alone? There is certainly a fascination with sex in these little discussions here, but even that is not the entirety of your lifestyle. At least, so I hope.

But now, "somehow" homosexuality is a protected class and culture.

Proof?

It is fair to ask: When will the madness end and where? Pedophiles marrying their child lovers? Multiple wives? Animal spouses?

We already have multiple wives. Those who have them call themselves Christians. They insist that the name of their church is The Church of Jesus Christ, or simply The Church. You'll note that those nasty Liberals and that horrid homosexual agenda consider this to be wrong, since it forces young girls into bondage as junior wives. The government even supports it--these girls are "wed" only by the church, and not by law. Therefore, they get lots and lots of "unwed mother" support from the government. If you try to suggest that they do otherwise, they accuse you of attacking Christianity.

By the way, you won't find pedophiles wanting to marry their child lovers. The neurological abnormality that leads to pedophilia makes these people like young boys. Once the young boys grow up, they are no longer young boys (odd, but true). Once they are no longer young boys, they are no longer of interest to pedophiles. Pedophiles won't want to marry their child lovers, because they are not children long enough. Rather, they prey upon children they can find wherever they can find them. I agree with you 100% that this is wrong, immoral, and should be prevented. The children are not consenting adults any more than the young girls who are married off to old geezers at the age of 12.

Hate speech or logic?

I haven't seen the logic, I'm afraid. I won't call it hate speech, either. Worried, certainly. Unsupported by evidence, yes. Paranoid, perhaps. You obviously want the right thing for society and for children. However, by insisting on a vision of "what should be," and divorcing that vision from the facts of the world in which you live, you are doomed to frustration.