RE: POLITICS Sinners - Suze

[Guest guest]

> Re: Sinners - Suze

>

>

><Homosexuality would fall under

>>lust as defined by strong sexual desire.

>

><....oh lordy....

>

>Suzie, if you want respect for your beliefs and who you are, give

>it back. That definition of lust is standard dictionary definition

>and what I was expressing would be the criteria that Christians

>(whether I am one or not) would or might derive belief that

>homosexuality was a sin.

mary, you're missing the point - homosexuality is not about lust.

homosexuals are no more lustful than heterosexuals, although that seems to

be a common misperception among heterosexuals. therefore, homosexuality

*should not* fall under " lust " whether the church puts it under that

category or not.

as for giving respect, it was your lack of respect that i was responding to.

granted i could've been more expressive than " oh lordy " and discussed the

points i disagreed with. that is what i am doing now.

>

>In contrast to the sins

>>are the great virtues of humility, generosity, love, kindness,

>>self control, faith and temperance, and zeal.

>

><i'm sure there are no homosexuals who possess these qualities...<rolling

>eyes>

>

>Rolling eyes? Again Suzie, if you want respect for your beliefs

>and who you are, give respect back. This is another reason I have

>lost any empathy for your cause - I repeatedly see a group that is

>self serving, self centered, narcissitic, who seek priveledge, and

>hold no respect or regard for people with values different than

>their own. Why should I care about your issues?

and *this* is respectful discourse??? this is the type of rhetoric i was

responding to in the first place. you have to understand that your rhetoric

started out as disrespectful, as others have pointed out. so i'd suggest

taking your own advice before advising me how to conduct myself.

secondly, you don't know what " my cause " or " my issues " are and i never

asked you to care about them. you are assuming you know what they are, and

that i'm demanding something of you. you have no basis for these

assumptions.

Why should any

>heterosexual when you have such horrid attitudes about us?

LOL! sorry to burst your bubble, but i AM one of you. you just assumed i was

gay without basis. which makes it all the more interesting that you perceive

me having " horrid attitudes " toward people of my own sexual orientation.

Reread

>what I posted. In Christian ideology, all humans are sinners.

>There is nothing that qualifies or separates a homosexual or a

>heterosexual from this human condition. It actually implies that

>we are all equally the same in our state of humaness.

then why are you so opposed to gays having the same right to marry as

heterosexuals?

I wouldn't

>be surprised if you have a problem with that too as you seem to

>have need to categorize and separate people by virtue of sexual

>orientation, make one good and one bad.

i learn something new about myself every day! now i've separated people of

my own sexual orientation into the " bad " group. LOL! i haven't got the

slightest idea how you could've presumed so much from the few sentences i

posted, all of which was said with a heavy dose of sarcasm and none of which

implied my own sexual orientation, which, btw, is irrelevant to the

discussion. but you have assumed what you think it is, and made an issue out

of it.

>

>Self control would

>>mean we do not necessarily act out sexual desires simply because

>>we feel inclined to do so.

>

><then everyone, including heterosexuals, need to stop engaging in sex.

>

>Reducio absurdum is the term for this. Are you telling me that

>you determine whether all actions are right or wrong based on

>whether you " feel " like doing it or not?

that's not the point. you're implying that homosexuals should use self

control and not engage in sex simply because they desire to have sex with

the same gender. so what - should all homosexuals be celibate for life? and

if heterosexuals used self control and not acted on their sexual desires

then we wouldn't be here. obviously, heterosexuals often act on their sexual

desires. why should gays be denied acting on theirs? because they should

abide by *your* religion's teachings? surely, you must see the absurdity of

this premise.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Suze, I'm serious. Give it up.

>mary, you're missing the point

-