I could only watch about 5 minutes. I'm afraid I am not as mature as some you brethren and sisters. But, the Lord is sovereign, and as in the days of Noah...
Same with me. I could watch a couple minutes and started getting ill. As I have said many times, if people truly understood the "gay lifestyle" they would not be so supportive. People have been hoodwinked to their own detriment. And as always, women will suffer the brunt of the damage.
It's sad that the gay atheist is the only one recognizing that the "tolerant" liberals are creating an intolerant tyranny for everyone else.
Sir Aaron,How is it that women will suffer the brunt of the damage?
I watched the whole thing because I found it to be an interesting and intelligent (albeit secular) discussion. I also know that these debates are coming to these shores at any time. I appreciate the cautionary stance from a couple of them regarding a state-determined, stated-enforced "liberal morality" and its description as tyranny. So we watch, and we pray. Our children and our children's children are at stake.
Wendy: I'm glad you ask. There are always victims of sin. First is the person who commits the sin. But that person reaps what he sows. But those around that person also reap consequences. In this case, women will have more difficulty fulfilling their God designed roles and because women are more aware of their emotions then men, I believe they will be far unhappier. I also believe that women are much more influenced sexually by the culture around them and therefore, will experiment more. Of course, such experimentation reaps horrible consequences.BTW, I feel the same way about the criminals I put away. The criminal suffers for his crime...many years of prison time is no easy thing. But I always feel that the people who suffer the most are the wives and children they leave behind.
@Barbara: "our children's children" concern me greatly."You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me."
I watched the whole thing. And what really discouraged me was the appalling lack of any coherent argument on either side, save Starkey. A tenth grader ought to have been able to call out the woman in the audience offering up her own moral stance on "homophobia" as an "imposition of values". Starkey's statement at the very end was the only one that exposed the absurdity of of the idea of parenting being devoid of teaching values.Unless pacifists, vegans and people who believe in UFOS are also forbidden to foster-parent children, the entire argument is a joke. Good grief. This is the country of Shakespeare and Milton and Spurgeon and Churchill. God help them.
Men and women are NOT the same.Ideally children should have BOTH a mother AND a father.
Rachael, God help us indeed. I speak to Christians here who see no problem, either. Reminds me of the shackled men Christian encounters in Pilgrim's Progess that see no danger.
I think the problem of those who favor the outcome is that they're trying to put us (Christians) in a vacuum when it comes to what we believe. In other words, they say it's okay for us to believe what we believe, they just don't want us to act as if our belief is a reality to us, and this is simply absurd, since what you believe WILL impact what you do. It just does. They're asking us to do something that's simply impossible. After all, if I say that I believe something to be true but my belief isn't consistent with the way I raise my kid (if I had one), then I don't really believe it.Also I think that woman in the audience committed the "begging the question" fallacy by assuming that the Pentecostal parents were homophobic. I am opposed to homosexuality because it sullies the theology behind the relationship of Christ and his church, but I'm not afraid of homosexuals. Words have meanings.
I just don't get how these people don't know that any parenting involves the passing of values and beliefs from parent to child. What parent could be considered loving who does not tell his/her child what the truth (at least in their mind) is?
There wasn't anyone arguing the opposite concern: if a "heterosexual child" were in the foster care of a homosexual couple. I imagine the conversations that could be overheard or movies/media that could be watched in such a home would be damaging, but people seem to have numbed their brains on the issue!And it still bogs my mind a bit that I found myself agreeing so much with the self-acclaimed homosexual and atheist!Before I watched this video in full, I thought it would touch on the issue of spanking, since many Christians (myself included) use it as a form of discipline. A friend of mine adopted two children from China, and had to sign something stating that they would not use corporal punishment as a form of discipline. I could not sign such a thing, in good conscience. (That is a different rabbit trail, but similar in that it is yet another avenue to discriminate against Christian foster/adoptive parents.)
Or what of Christian children entrusted to homosexual "parents"?Good Q, Merrilee.
Sir Aaron's comments about how women are affected by this issue are interesting. I was recently perusing Craigslist for ideas of ways to make extra income. There are an abundant number of adds for women to donate eggs or be surrogate mothers, and they pay upwards of $30,000.00. I imagine a woman desperate for money might consider it an easy way to make money (at least by donating), and not consider the larger affect that it is having on our society.I also read some adds for Democrats looking for activists to canvas neighborhoods and do some kind of political activist deeds, and the TWO motivating issues on the agenda were related to SEX: abortive rights and gay rights. Health care was mentioned third.
Post a Comment
Amazon also has it available for immediate download on Kindle
Also at Amazon
See details at Kress
NEW! Also now available for download at Logos