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]

From magus:

Homosexual agendaists do not want "equality." They want rule and dominance.

If you can't back an assertion with evidence, then don't make it. If you have any proof of this, go ahead and post it.

///

Let's go with "Changing the immutable" why don't we?

Through the "leadership" of Bill Clinton, his vision is a 21st. Century America where homosexuality is a normal lifestyle.

Mr. Clinton repeatedly addresses homosexuals saying, "I have a vision, and you are part of it." On Nov. 8, 1997 President Clinton became the first sitting president to address a homosexual rights group when he spoke at a sold-out dinner speech to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual and lesbian group. In the speech he urged Congress to pass legislation against homosexual job discrimination. "Should we change the law? You bet. Should we keep fighting discrimination? Absolutely," Clinton said. "But we have to broaden the imagination of America. We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning."

Let's look at that again shall we. . . "We (Democrats and homosexuals) are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning

I think that would be a good start about the "refedinition of truth" aspect.

Please look up the word "immutable."

Changing the unchangeable is not just Liberal, it is Satanic.

"From the beginning." That should make you shudder but I somehow do not think it is.

And what was the first question?

And who asked it?

It was questioning God's Word and it was from Satan.

Male and female He created them! And for this reason a man leaves his mother and father (different sexes) and unites with his wife (opposite sex) and the two become one.

That is what the Liberals and the Democrats (and the "father of all lies") want to change.

Have a good time with your Biblical beliefs. Run this by your Pastor if you'ld like.

I am not being "arrogant" just accurate.

[MagusYanam]

Satan is also known for distorting the meanings of the words even as they are spoken by someone else. And yes, it did make me shudder, but it was more your interpretation of it than anything else that struck me as Satanic.

Clinton's speech was referring to the immutable ideals of America - that is that all men are created equal - that have guided this country from its beginning, and that they need to be clarified in context. As was done in the 1920's with women's suffrage and as was done in the 1960's with Black civil rights. Reading this, I see it has more to do with again clarifying the ideal of equality of all people than with changing the Word of God.

Don't twist Clinton's meaning by twisting his words. If you're so against redefinition, don't be hypocritical about it.

Should we change the law? You bet. Should we keep fighting discrimination? Absolutely, but we have to broaden the imagination of America. We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning.

(Italics added by MagusYanam)

[AlAyeti]

Perfect interpretation of what America "is."

I have been declaring that for a long time in my posts. Sodom and/or Rome?

I thank you for the clarity.

I also see you learned your politics from Clinton. Making a purse out of a pig's ear is what my mom used to call it.

The homosexual agenda is set and quite clear. By Liberals.Even you won't try to paint over that. Anymore.

[MagusYanam]

I also see you learned your politics from Clinton. Making a purse out of a pig's ear is what my mom used to call it.

The homosexual agenda is set and quite clear. By Liberals.Even you won't try to paint over that. Anymore.

I don't answer to Clinton for my political views, but he did have a lot of good ideas. Doesn't mean I have to like him as a person.

As to the 'homosexual agenda', I'm still not entirely sure what it is they're trying to do, or what you're trying to prove, or what I'm trying (in your view) to paint over. Enlighten me. State it clearly and back it up.

[AlAyeti]

I have been quite clear on the view that children are the main focus of the sexualization of society. Historically, homosexuals and pederast's were one and the same.

I have to prove that?

Greece. Rome.

Look up Aristotles views on society becoming homosexualized. Google it. You simply WILL NOT believe me. And, the use of slaves as sex objects is all too well known about Roman ways. Again, you see for yourself.

Enough said.

You don't want to be enlightened. You feel more warm and fuzzzy with your "diverse" friends.

Now think about the Apostle Paul and those sexual deviant Romans that beheaded him in Rome. You know, the ones he was so accepting of in the book of, well, Romans.

By the way, we're Christians, so you can consider that another specific fact.

[MagusYanam]

I looked up both homosexuality and paedophilia in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (a reliable source) and they still appear to be two different things entirely. Paedophilia seems to be a deviance related to a mental illness, like depression. Homosexuality is not easily described a mental illness since homosexuals tend to display vastly different psychological patterns.

Paederasty is a deviance (and a crime in modern societies) which is by definition homosexual (relations between an adult man and a young boy), though not even in Ancient Greece or Rome was this typical of all homosexual behaviour (homosexual relationships between adults also being relatively common). So you are factually wrong that paederasty and homosexuality are (or even historically were) one and the same. Slavery is a different issue altogether, however, and sexual abuse was not uncommon for either gender.

On Aristotle's views you are probably right, since you probably know more than I do: I searched Aristotle's discourses on ethics in Wikipedia and in the Britannica and found nothing pertaining to homosexuality.

Paul was arrested by the Romans for breaking Jewish law (by bringing Gentiles into the Temple, where only Jews were allowed) before he was executed. Sexual deviance seems to have nothing to do with Paul's arrest and death.

[palmera]

Let's go with "Changing the immutable" why don't we?

Not only is it wrongfully taken out of context (which I've come to expect from you) but it still wouldn't in any way validate your claim of a homosexual dominance agenda.

Changing the unchangeable is not just Liberal, it is Satanic

This makes no sense, much like your "accurate" not arrogant claim. If you're not arrogant, then why the condecension in your responses?

[AlAyeti]

Let's go with "Changing the immutable" why don't we?

Not only is it wrongfully taken out of context (which I've come to expect from you) but it still wouldn't in any way validate your claim of a homosexual dominance agenda.

Changing the unchangeable is not just Liberal, it is Satanic

This makes no sense, much like your "accurate" not arrogant claim. If you're not arrogant, then why the condecension in your responses?

///

I have taken nothing "out of context."

Clinton used the words "from the beginning" in his spech to change the immutable. Magus, applied that to America's start. In the beginning God created them Male and female he created them. It has to do with facts. What used to be called immutable facts:< (?).

Use logic please. Clinton wasn't talking about the shot heard round the world. (Or, then again, maybe he was!)

I am smug often. It is a bad character trait. But nothing is more laughable than what the "Progressive-Liberal" proclaims today. Exactly what the Bible points out as people behaving in the worst situations in the Bible.

I use science, and it is somehow dismissed. "My" anatomy and physiology is somehow bigotry. That is even more amazing coming from evolutionists! Logic lends credence to my positions unless, it goes against the Political Correctifying of the Left.

I view the Left as Sodom-like. It is proveable. Empirically and literally. Oops, Sodomy is no longer a big deal huh? In fact, it is "legal."

Sorry, but the obvious nature of what the world HAS become at the hands of Liberalism is as obvious as genitalia. Oops. Wrong again ain't I?

So much for empirical facts.

No, I am not going to concede that evil does not exist. Not while my calculator still has batteries.

[AlAyeti]

[AlAyeti]