would you vote for a homosexual candidate?

[jad123]

So SOME socialized medicine is OK…but not others.

Can you tell me what the difference is?




Tell me…have you actually read the proposed health care plan?

Never said medicare was OK.

Yes I have read the plan and do not like it. Universal health care. No thank you. Required health care. No thank you. So how would the gov't make up the cost of these discounts? To fund her plan, projected to cost $110 billion annually, Clinton would roll back GWB's income tax breaks for households earning more than a quarter-million dollars a year. Her plan slowly brings the gov't into the fold and is the beginning of her early plan of the 1990's. More gov't involvement is not the answer. They can't properly manage what they got.

 

[Zaac]

So it's only a "relationship" if they're having sex?

That doesn't really make sense.

That's not what I was saying, and because Ii have said it so may times in the past, I simply didn't specify. Yes, you can be in a relationship and not have sex.

It's called a friendship.

And if they tell you that it's really none of your business?

Just another reason not to vote for them. If you can't be honest and forthright about this part of your life, I'm not trusting you with that which impacts my life.

So in other words, you're happy to assume the worst?

David.

The Bible says in 1 Thessalonians 5:22-23:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

If you're telling me you're in a "relationship" and it's someone of the same sex, it is you who would be giving the appearance of evil, and I have to righteously judge based upon what you have given me if you don't answer the question.

Does it mean that I assume you are having sex? No. It means that I know that you are giving the appearance that you are and that in itself is enough reason for me to not vote for ya.

 

[David Brider]

That's not what I was saying, and because Ii have said it so may times in the past, I simply didn't specify. Yes, you can be in a relationship and not have sex.

It's called a friendship.

There are many kinds of relationship other than friendship which don't involve sex. My relationship with my fiancee, for example, doesn't involve sex, and won't until we get married. Nevertheless, it's not just a friendship.

It's more than possible for a married couple to not be sexually active, for that matter.

Just another reason not to vote for them. If you can't be honest and forthright about this part of your life, I'm not trusting you with that which impacts my life.

Or maybe it's just not really any of your business what two consenting adults get up to (or don't) in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The Bible says in 1 Thessalonians 5:22-23:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

If you're telling me you're in a "relationship" and it's someone of the same sex, it is you who would be giving the appearance of evil, and I have to righteously judge based upon what you have given me if you don't answer the question.

Actually, there's no appearance of evil at all. Even if you make the assumption that certain passages of scripture necessarily apply to male-male sex, they very definitely don't have any application to a situation where a male couple are an item but are not sexually active.

Does it mean that I assume you are having sex? No. It means that I know that you are giving the appearance that you are and that in itself is enough reason for me to not vote for ya.

Then you're at fault for instantly leaping to the assumption that just because two people are an item, they must de facto be sexually active. Flawed assumption.

David.

 

[dpartlow]

Would you go to a gay doctor?

Probably not if there was a choice.
But if I were a doctor, I would be glad to serve anyone.

 

[Zaac]

There are many kinds of relationship other than friendship which don't involve sex. My relationship with my fiancee, for example, doesn't involve sex, and won't until we get married. Nevertheless, it's not just a friendship.

Until you're married, that relationship is just a friendship. You Biblically have no right to do anything in that relationship than you do with someone who is NOT your fiancee.

It's more than possible for a married couple to not be sexually active, for that matter.

But given what God says about married couples and who their bodies belong to, it would not be an unrighteous judgment to assume that they were using their bodies for each other and not withholding their bodies as the Word of God states.

Or maybe it's just not really any of your business what two consenting adults get up to (or don't) in the privacy of their own bedroom.

If the person wants my vote to be my representative, then yes it is my business what two consenting, unmarried and married adults are doing. I wouldn't vote for someone I knew to be an adulterer anymore than I would vote for someone I knew to be in a homosexual fornicative relationship.

What the two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes will be dictated by their moral core. And if what's going on in their home does not honor Christ, then I have the right to not vote for them if the information is known.

Again, Rudy Giuliani is the perfect example. He openly carried on an adulterous affair and then married his mistress. Can't have my vote for anything.

Actually, there's no appearance of evil at all. Even if you make the assumption that certain passages of scripture necessarily apply to male-male sex, they very definitely don't have any application to a situation where a male couple are an item but are not sexually active.

There may not be an appearance of evil to you. If two gay guys tell me they are in a relationship and living together, it gives the same appearance of evil as would you and your fiancee living together.

Then you're at fault for instantly leaping to the assumption that just because two people are an item, they must de facto be sexually active. Flawed assumption.

David.

I didn't leap to anything. I even alluded to not judging by mere appearances and asking. But in the case of sexual immorality, it's still wong to be doing that which gives the appearance of evil.

Nothing flawed about that.

But again. I responded based upon the OP, and not the caveats you keep adding.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

If his ability to practice medicine hinges upon moral vs medical decisions, then nope, I wouldn't go to him.

A gay minister who like other gay "Christians" who affirm same-sex sex has no witness. There is nothing that he could say about sin that wouldn't come across as hypocrisy.

How about a gay accountant or a gay lawyer? A gay cop?

All of these professions require ethical choices and behaviors. Do you think that homosexuality is a moral defect? Do you think that gays are incapable of making right (however you choose to define that) ethical choices?

 

[jad123]

How about a gay accountant or a gay lawyer? A gay cop?

All of these professions require ethical choices and behaviors. Do you think that homosexuality is a moral defect? Do you think that gays are incapable of making right (however you choose to define that) ethical choices?

I do go to a gay barber.

 

[Zaac]

How about a gay accountant or a gay lawyer? A gay cop?

Accountant? Nope. If he's sexually active and unmarried, I would have a hard time hiring him as a personal accountant as I wouldn't trust him to make good moral decisions. Same applies with the attorney and the cop. If you'll ignore God's law, I can't trust you to follow man's law.

All of these professions require ethical choices and behaviors. Do you think that homosexuality is a moral defect?

Homosexuality is an orientation. There is nothing defective about it. The defect is one that all men are born with. SIN.

Do you think that gays are incapable of making right (however you choose to define that) ethical choices

As a Christian, it's rather difficult, for me to trust themoral fortitude of someone who CHOOSES to commit a sin without repentance.

So no. I don't think that gay people are any more incapable of making right choices than are heterosexuals. Be you a heterosexual or homosexual, if you willfully choose to ignore what God says about a sin and there is no repentance because you don't think you're doing anything wrong, then I'm going to doubt your ability to listen to God in making decisions.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I do go to a gay barber.

I don't know why this made me smile. But it did.

 

[OllieFranz]

That's not what I was saying, and because Ii have said it so may times in the past, I simply didn't specify. Yes, you can be in a relationship and not have sex.

It's called a friendship.

It's sad that modern American men cannot have any relationship deeper than "friendship." All because of homophobia which was deliberately fostered by "sporting gentlemen" (heterosexual upper-class rapists and child molesters) in the late 19th century and intensified by the political machinations of the McCarthyites in the Fifties.

They can no longer have a David & Jonathan type relationship without everyone assuming that they are gay lovers. They cannot obey Peter's and Paul's instructions to greet one another with a holy kiss.

If you're telling me you're in a "relationship" and it's someone of the same sex, it is you who would be giving the appearance of evil, and I have to righteously judge based upon what you have given me if you don't answer the question.

No, it's your dirty mind. Just as it was Saul's (literally)sick mind that led him to accuse Jonathan of a "relationship" (in the sense you mean) with David.

Does it mean that I assume you are having sex? No. It means that I know that you are giving the appearance that you are and that in itself is enough reason for me to not vote for ya.

So you would not vote for David. Nice to know.

 

[MrPirate]

Never said medicare was OK.

Yes I have read the plan and do not like it. Universal health care. No thank you. Required health care. No thank you. So how would the gov't make up the cost of these discounts? To fund her plan, projected to cost $110 billion annually, Clinton would roll back GWB's income tax breaks for households earning more than a quarter-million dollars a year. Her plan slowly brings the gov't into the fold and is the beginning of her early plan of the 1990's. More gov't involvement is not the answer. They can't properly manage what they got.

Ahh…so you want to get rid of Medicare. So what will you do with the millions of elderly dependant on it?

 

[MrPirate]

Probably not if there was a choice.
But if I were a doctor, I would be glad to serve anyone.

How about a Jewish doctor?
A Muslim doctor?
A black doctor?

 

[jad123]

Ahh…so you want to get rid of Medicare. So what will you do with the millions of elderly dependant on it?

Yes, I think we should get rid of medicare. Any plan cannot remove it overnight, but a phased approach of removal along with a revamped private health alternative.

 

[Zaac]

It's sad that modern American men cannot have any relationship deeper than "friendship."

What is sad is that modern men and women think that because they are secular progressives, that God's Truth has to change to accommodate their secularism.

Is there a Biblical reason for two men to have a relationship deeper than friendship?

All because of homophobia which was deliberately fostered by "sporting gentlemen" (heterosexual upper-class rapists and child molesters) in the late 19th century and intensified by the political machinations of the McCarthyites in the Fifties.

I say what I say because it's what God says. SPorting gentlemen didn't come into play.

They can no longer have a David & Jonathan type relationship without everyone assuming that they are gay lovers. They cannot obey Peter's and Paul's instructions to greet one another with a holy kiss.

I know plenty of people who have a David & Jonathan relationship. And like David and Jonathan, it's a FRIENDSHIP bonded in the love of Christ.

No, it's your dirty mind. Just as it was Saul's (literally)sick mind that led him to accuse Jonathan of a "relationship" (in the sense you mean) with David.

You can make all the excuses in the world. It is what it is. If you're gay and in a "relationship" and living together, you give the impression that something is going on just as do a heterosexual couple.

So you would not vote for David. Nice to know.

David wasn't given the appearance of evil. David was not in a gay relationship with Jonathan. David wasn't living with Jonathan and in a gay relationship.

So how could you conclude based upon what I said that I wouldn't vote for David?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Yes, I think we should get rid of medicare. Any plan cannot remove it overnight, but a phased approach of removal along with a revamped private health alternative.

While this is completely off topic (apologies all around) I just have to wonder if you will, in 23 years, refuse any and all such benefits…things such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare for your self and your family?

 

[Brieuse]

So a quarter of the voters in the poll have already judged a personal based on his/her sexual preferences.

 

[jad123]

While this is completely off topic (apologies all around) I just have to wonder if you will, in 23 years, refuse any and all such benefits…things such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare for your self and your family?

Social security, no. If the gov't wants to give me a check today for what they have taken then I will be glad not to contribute anymore. As for medicare and medicaid I feel I can answer no. My parents and my in-laws have never used either as they have positioned themselves not to need it.


By the way, I must look back to see how I got myself into this conversation.

 

[OllieFranz]

What is sad is that modern men and women think that because they are secular progressives, that God's Truth has to change to accommodate their secularism.

Is there a Biblical reason for two men to have a relationship deeper than friendship?




I say what I say because it's what God says. SPorting gentlemen didn't come into play.



I know plenty of people who have a David & Jonathan relationship. And like David and Jonathan, it's a FRIENDSHIP bonded in the love of Christ.




You can make all the excuses in the world. It is what it is. If you're gay and in a "relationship" and living together, you give the impression that something is going on just as do a heterosexual couple.






David wasn't given the appearance of evil. David was not in a gay relationship with Jonathan. David wasn't living with Jonathan and in a gay relationship.

So how could you conclude based upon what I said that I wouldn't vote for David?

I have aquaintences and business associates. I have a circle of friends. And there are some people who are closer to me than just "friends." And yet I do not (yet) have anyone as close to me as David was to Jonathan. A soul-mate. And one of the reasons is that I am guarded in extending myself emotionally to other men, and they are also guarded. Becuase it is seen as something "only women and queers do." And it has been discouraged in our society because of the homophobia whose history I described in my last post.

Admit it. If you saw two men hugging each other and weeping together the way David and Jonathan did, you would assume that they were gay and that their relationship was a "relationship." And if one were running for office and the newspapers captured them together in an emotionally inimate moment you would not vote for them. After all that is exactly what you described as "giving the appearance of evil."

 

[Zaac]

I have aquaintences and business associates. I have a circle of friends. And there are some people who are closer to me than just "friends." And yet I do not (yet) have anyone as close to me as David was to Jonathan. A soul-mate.

They weren't soul mates.

And one of the reasons is that I am guarded in extending myself emotionally to other men, and they are also guarded. Becuase it is seen as something "only women and queers do." And it has been discouraged in our society because of the homophobia whose history I described in my last post.

It has been discouraged for the same reason adultery has been discouraged.

Admit it. If you saw two men hugging each other and weeping together the way David and Jonathan did, you would assume that they were gay and that their relationship was a "relationship."

Are you kidding? You need to come visit a Baptist church. We hug everybody, and I'm man enough to cry. I've seen too many instances where people WISH they could let folks know how much they love them only to never have the chance because something happens.

I hug guys and tell them that I love them just like I would a girl. There is nothing that solidifies a Christian brother relationship than baring yourself to the point that you're okay with crying in front of and with another guy.

And if one were running for office and the newspapers captured them together in an emotionally inimate moment you would not vote for them. After all that is exactly what you described as "giving the appearance of evil."

Nope. Unless they are exchanging spit the way a certain celebrity did with his male beau, why would I think that? And I didn't describe any such thing as the appearance of evil.

Ain't nothing different from an intimate emotional moment between two guys who are friends as there would be between a guy and a girl who are friends.

 

[Trashionista]

Other.

I don't care. What other people do in the bedroom is none of my business.

Don't drag a politician's personal life into their public one. That shouldn't be something I should be basing my decision on. Its about being the best leader for the job - I don't need to know nor do I care what their sexual preference is. It's none of my business.

ETA: I would vote for a homosexual candidate if I felt they were the best for the job. I would vote in a heterosexual or a bisexual politician for the same reason as well. Focusing on the sex lives' of politicians takes time away from the real issues.