Monday, July 03, 2006

Gay Marriage Debate on Pundit Review Radio

Click on the Pundit Review icon above and listen to a heated debate between Kris Mineau of Vote on Marriage.org and Marc Solomon of Mass Equality on the controversial topic of the Massachusetts Protection of Marriage Amendment.

I am caller number "8" under the false name of "Mike" beginning at 29:33 on the time clock of the Hipcast.com radio bar. Click the play > icon to listen to me and other callers.
You need to click on the words "Gay Marriage Debate on Pundit Review Radio" many times until you see the Hipcast radio bar at the bottom of the post.

39 Comments:

Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

Good for you, my friend...I listened to the program. Good stuff...

9:59 AM, July 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I listened to the broadcast too. I wondered what using a false name gained you? What is the big secret? Tyler doesn't seem to have and problem with standing behind his beliefs? It seemed to take away from the believability of your message.

4:44 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

If you and your family were harassed as mine have been then you go stealth. Plain and simple. So, sit back and let democracy takes its course.

6:22 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

IF my family was harassed... what an ignorant statement. If you want to know what it is like from the other side maybe you should walk down a busy street, or a mall, or a park holding hands with another man. Watch how quickly you start getting looks, and watch how it shames you into wanting to stop holding hands. This is not going to change whether or not gay marriage goes through. It will only change when we choose to treat people better. Christ calls all of us to be brave and bold in our acts of faith, even for those who we don't appreciate.

I dare you to take my social experiement seriously so you can truly see what it is like out there. Bring mace just in case, I don't want to see anyone get hurt.

10:05 PM, July 04, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Society gives you looks because your behavior is un-natural to society.

Yes, I think we all need to try and accept this behavior more because it would lead to less violence in this world. That is something that we ALL need to work on.

Good points John, thanks for stopping by.

6:53 AM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I am stunned by your frankness and ability to recognize the danger a violent atmosphere creates for both of us.

I think most people want to be able to live their lives by their own terms unhindered by the lives of their neighbors. That's really all I want, and I am willing to make sure I don't step on the toes of my neighbors that are equally respectfull.

I see this as a start and hope for further discussion in this direction.

Thank you. I have tried to talk to different people at different times and sincerely wish to resolve the "boogie man" mentality some have created around the gay community, and that starts with dialog.

9:48 AM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

John, getting strange looks from people is NOT a form of harassment.

Getting signed up for dozens of magazines, however, IS a form of harassment.

1:33 PM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Why don't you live it before you try and tell someone with first hand experience what they know is wrong. Your magazines are part of your postion as a leader in civil rights. You don't hear me bitching about the KY I find on my door knob, (yuck by the way). It did make me laugh... the first time.

3:30 PM, July 06, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

John, once again, getting strange looks is NOT harassment.

3:59 AM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Did I say that is all that happens Tyler, or are you just assuming things? Are you trying to imply acts of discrimination do not happen to gays? People commit hate acts against people that just SEEM gay, they don't even have to be in my club. I think that you understand the spirit of my post enough that we don't need to argue symantics, or I could be a lot more clear in the future if you need me to be.

Hatred leads to violence and violence is wrong no matter who it is committed against. You wouldn't argue that would you?

3:19 PM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

SCIA, don't let Tyler sideline where our conversation was going. Please continue with your thoughts.

3:22 PM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Let's change the focus of this conversation.

I would like to ask Tyler, Anonymous, John or anyone for that matter: What solution is out there that would please both sides on the issue of marriage/rights? What do we as a society need to do to A) Keep the definition of marriage as it has been, as that of a union between one man and one woman and B) Give homosexual relationships more privileges/rights and respect as a committed couple should have no matter what sexual orientation they are made of?

Let's keep out the following defenses for argument sake because I think we can see that we are going to agree to disagree on: 1) religion and translation of scripture to suffice an argument 2) Name calling and emotional run-offs on discrimination experiences to suffice an argument. These rules of engagement also go for me.

Give some hard-nosed solutions that we could actually work TOGETHER on. Let's come together and brainstorm and not focus on the verbal wars of God and hate speech and emotional bantering.

I look forward to what you all have to say. Ask others to join in but as long as the rules of this debate are followed. I would just like to try something different.

Before you begin take a deep breath, let the past comments to each other go and turn over a new leaf to thinking and coming up with solutions.

Thanks,
SCIA

6:01 PM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I welcome the debate SCIA. I would give up on the word marriage in a second and call it civil union. Then someone is going to ask me why there is a need. I honestly don't know what to say to this question, as I don't see the need myself. That is why I fight so hard for what I believe in. I don't see the need. If I could see how this benefits society I am not selfish, I would want the greater good to be served. Purhaps there are specific things the heterosexual world are afraid we are going to do that they could verbalize and thus avoid via my cooperation.

9:32 PM, July 07, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

What do you think about the Benefits Fairness Act? Have you heard of it? I have talked about it before in my post titled "Daily Show - Jon Stewart vs. Bill Bennett".

Do you think if this act was set into place that a majority of the homosexual community would be satisfied? Why or why not?

12:14 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

1. Most gay people are not going to agree that their marriages constitute a threat to the public. It is my personal belief that many gay people understand the seriousness of the contract, and that this civil marriage they enter can make their lives seem more meaningful, happier. We should hold gay marriages to no greater a standard than we hold our own.

2. Benefits are great, and if we could get our government to recognize our significant others so they could recieve the SAME EXACT benefits as if we were a heterosexual married couple I think it would be a huge step in the right direction.

3. Seperate but equal has no history of working long term, and for there to be another name put to the union of two people in love there should be a very clear explanation. Even so, in time a civil union or benefits package is only going to be a transitional position as our society gets used to the idea that gays are out of the closet now.

I ask you to answer something for me now. How many gay married couples have you met and had dialog on this issue before you decided to start fighting agianst gay marriage? What was the common bond they shared that makes them unworthy of civil marriage?

Dick and Dana down the street are married. Ray and I are not. What is the difference from an outside point of view? It seems to me that marriage has nothing to do with the positive or negative impact a person or couple has on society, but rather their actions and attitude.

2:30 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

John, would you just get married to Ray and stop whining about it, before the laws are changed? You CAN marry him now, you know?

4:35 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I didn't realize having an intelligent discussion with SCIA bothered you so much. As far as getting married, we will in due time, and we will have more respect for that union than you did your own.

5:23 PM, July 08, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

Boy, this place became busy since I last checked.

John, how are you? Sorry for not checking in with you all. I have been busy in Nevada at a conference.

I think John that you not marrying Ray, if that is your intention, is interesting. Are you seeking an answer from yourself regarding your relationship or are you not ready yet for that type of commitment? You can E-mail me privately if you do not want to share with others at Reverand_Scott@yahoo.com.

In Him,
Rev. Scott

5:34 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Good to hear from you Reverend, I hope the conference brings you closer to God, and in doing so bring all of us closer to Him.

Since I read about KnowThyNeighbor.org in the Boston Herald I have made it a point to make my life an open book. Ray and I have decided to get married after we know are rights are solidified in this state. It would be too much for us to bear if the state stripped us of our marriage after being together for twelve years. I am sure people like Tyler are ready to jump up and say that this petition, this vote will not strip gay married couples of of their marriages. It is extremely short sighted to think that our laws will tolerate grandfathering marriage. It will end up being all or none.

6:14 PM, July 08, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

John, that's a low blow. I had respect for my marriage. My ex wife did not. End of story...

10:04 AM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

We only hear your side of this story Tyler, I hardly think it fair to judge what happened on this lack of information. I have no idea if any of what you say is true. For all I know she divorced you because you are gay.

As for the low blow comment, review your own words over all the blogs you've hit and get back to me.

10:27 AM, July 09, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

Let's ALL try and stick to the answer to my question.

Tyler, what are some of your solutions?

11:17 AM, July 10, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See you all on the Hill Wednesday

Paul Jamieson

2:24 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger Tyler Dawbin said...

I believe that the Benefits Fairness Act is a good idea, because it does not discriminate against anyone seeking "partner" benefits...and that could be two elderly sisters, or an elderly father and his elderly daughter.

It's a fair solution. I believe that two people that care about each other enough to form a partnership should have legal rights to be able to speak on behalf of their partner, and make decisions for their partner.

3:31 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

The benefits fairness act, does it provide all the same benefits, or are there differences?

Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

7:02 PM, July 10, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Sorry for not responding to your question sooner. I have been very busy since I last posted a response to you.

Yes, I agree that most gay people are not going to agree that their marriages constitute a threat to the public.

Marriage is not an institution to enter to make someone’s life more “meaningful” and “happier”. People do not get married to increase their self-esteem or to simply feel better about themselves. Marriage to many means more than that. I have touched base on the purposes of marriage with you in previous posts.

I am also for MORE benefits for same-sex marriages but not the SAME EXACT benefits of traditional marriages. This will in turn just make same-sex marriages as equivalent to heterosexual marriages and…. poof traditional marriage is magically redefined without the people that make up a culture having a say on it. This holds true for civil unions.

I feel that just because gays do come out of the closet they should not be rewarded for their choices because it is still deemed an un-natural behavior by society. Yes, we all need to come together and do away with gay bashing, violence and hate crimes and speech. But just because the radical homosexual community is fighting for more benefits/appreciation/recognition that does not justify a small subgroup of people to redefine an institution that was not intended for them in the first place.

My decision to fight to protect the values of traditional marriage had nothing to do with who I know or met it has to do with how marriage was redefined without ANY say from the people who make up the Commonwealth. The total abduction of an institution by a small subgroup of people is not right especially when four un-elected officials of the Supreme Judicial Court make a decision for the rest of Massachusetts without even having the people have a say on the issue. That is not democracy, that is totalitarianism. This same argument also goes for abortion, but that debate is for another day.

If homosexual marriage is legalized, it is only a matter of time when other non-traditional “marriage” unions are allowed. When four men and four women move in next door to Dick and Dana in a “legal” polyamour “marriage” and each of the polyamours have children together although their arrangement won’t directly effect the quality of Dick and Dana’s marriage, it could strongly effect the well being of Dick and Dana’s children who now live next door to the polyamours.

What will be the effects on children when they are told the polyamours next door are just another type of “family” and there are a great many diverse families in our country, that each person must decide what is “right” for them, that exclusive marriages between one man and one woman is outdated, intolerant and homophobic. This whole “whatever works” concept to what can make up a family is dangerous.

Do the “rights” of a very small minority of radicals transcend hundreds of millions of citizens in this country who don’t want to have the homosexual agenda imposed on them?

The claim that a homosexual’s marriage doesn’t hurt anybody else is based on false logic. The same assertion could be made about other modes of behavior. As long as there is mutual consent and none of these behaviors are unlawful, shouldn’t everyone be about to enjoy all the same legal protections traditional marriages enjoy? After all, “how does a threesome or person wanting to marry his animal affect the married couple across town?”, the cynic might ask.

Anytime we as a society condone specific modes of behavior, we tacitly acknowledge it as acceptable. Just because we may never come into direct contact with a certain type of behavior doesn’t mean we must condone such behavior by granting it legal approval. Citizens can oppose and restrict certain legal relationships based upon the perceived morality of that behavior. I need not live next door to a polyamorous couple to oppose the legality of this type of “family” configuration.

7:03 PM, July 11, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

This was a very well thought out reply, I will try my best to do so in kind.

"Marriage is not an institution to enter to make someone’s life more “meaningful” and “happier”.

I am sure many people agree with you, but the real question this comment raises is are we ready to start letting the majority squelch the voice of the minority? There are many points of view, many traditions to marriage, why is there a need to tell someone else what marriage needs to be for them?

There seems to be a double standard used against the gay marriage issue. On one hand heterosexuals need only to be of the right age, not directly related, and society puts no other meaningful restrictions on their unions. Why all of the sudden is marriage so sacred that the most noble and benign of my community must be denied?

"I am also for MORE benefits for same-sex marriages but not the SAME EXACT benefits of traditional marriages."

What benefits do you not want us to have, and how does it serve the greater good?

"I feel that just because gays do come out of the closet they should not be rewarded for their choices because it is still deemed an un-natural behavior by society."

I think there is room to let grown adults make their own decisions in life, don't you? If you can show me something that I do that hurts you I can stop that action, but I don't think I should put my pursuit of happiness aside because you don't approve. You don't care that I don't approve of some of the things you do, where is my need to give you more ear than you have given me?

Instead of quoting you I will sum up your argument towards the end of your post as "slippery slope". If gay marriage comes next we are going to have polygamy, beastiality and pedophelia.

1. Animals should never be married to humans because we don't know if the animal wants this union. we really don't need to explore this too heavily to see the right thing to do here. This does not, however, protect our children from finding out that there are animal "lovers" out there. We will still need to prepare them for handling this issue when they come across it.

Polygamy is something I have no interest in, but find a hard time in denying to others. What does not work for me may work well for them. It produced his excellency our governor, right? Again, I think the answer is not to deny grown adults the ability to follow their hearts in order to protect the children, but rather to inform the children of what we think is right and wrong, and why we fell that way.

Pediphelia was not mentioned, but since we are going so close to the subject in the slippery slope we might as well address it. Our best scientists and socioligists have determined that children are not mature enough to handle responsibility for their actions until they reach a certain age. This is why we can't marry children, although we used to as part of traditional marriage.

I am for true freedom of religion. That means I get to think what I want about God, and I get to follow my own set of morals. To quote Abraham Lincoln; "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, i fell bad. That is my religion."

It is my personal opinion that the Republican Party has deliberately used the gay marriage issue to their own devise, not because they believe against it. One of President Bush's closest friends recently said said what he thought Bush thinks of it all. Quote "I don't think he gives a sh@# about it."

This whole issue can be boiled down to one thought; left only to speculation about potential damage, can this damamge to society be proven in a court of law well enough to say to all the gay community, "There are no people among you that are worthy of marriage. This has nothing to do with the content of your character, it has to do with the fact you are gay."

11:24 AM, July 15, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

“There are many points of view, many traditions to marriage, why is there a need to tell someone else what marriage needs to be for them?”

What traditions in marriage tell others what it is about? It is the union of one man and one woman. No one is telling others what marriage is, it is just a known institution between the oposite sexes. HOW you live out your marriage is not regulated by some department or government. WHO can marry is only regulated by the government and these laws were made before any sort of government was instituted in this world. Yes, this world, not just this country.

The most “noble and benign” members of the homosexual community are not being denied anything. This community is deemed un-natural and their behaviors are dangerous to socieity, so society has not written them into the law books as being able to handle the roles of traditional marriage. It is THAT simple.

You also said:

“What benefits do you not want us to have, and how does it serve the greater good?

The benefits that a male and male relationship or a female and female relationship can not provide. I think I have answered that question in the response to ‘Anonymous’ in my “Two More "W's" in the Win Column for Traditional Marriage” post. Read that response John and if it does not suffice please let me know. Read it before going on any futher. It will only take a moment. Thanks.

You said:

“Again, I think the answer is not to deny grown adults the ability to follow their hearts in order to protect the children, but rather to inform the children of what we think is right and wrong, and why we fell that way.”

Again, why are we disturbing the natural progression of child development with social experiments that ‘fall’ in a negative direction?

You said:

“This whole issue can be boiled down to one thought; left only to speculation about potential damage, can this damamge to society be proven in a court of law well enough to say to all the gay community, "There are no people among you that are worthy of marriage. This has nothing to do with the content of your character, it has to do with the fact you are gay."



Society has deemed homosexuality dangerous for a reason. There are many abnormalities with the behavior that I have mentioned many a time. I did not make up these facts, society over time has researched them and has found that they are not good for any culture civilized or uncivilized

2:43 PM, July 17, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"Society has deemed homosexuality dangerous for a reason. There are many abnormalities with the behavior that I have mentioned many a time. I did not make up these facts, society over time has researched them and has found that they are not good for any culture civilized or uncivilized"

This debate has never been about marriage has it? Your real desire is to silence the voice of the gay community. You can't. Take away all of our rights, put us in jail, put us to death and we will still continue to crop up, in every culture, in every country, throughout all of time. Sooner or later society will have to deal with the fact that homosexuality is a part of the human condition, and that day comes closer the more we talk.

I pose no threat to you or anyone else, and saying I do is bearing false witness against your neighbor. You don't know me well enough to judge me.

Making global statements about people is an act of stereotyping, and stereotyping is a form of discrimination. There is a reason we have laws against discrimination. Even good people at times do bad things, motivated by fear and ignorance. Maybe you need to expose yourself to more gay people in order to learn why this is wrong.

God doesn't want us to fight, He wants us to love each other. I am not interested in winning an argument with you, I am interested in living peacefully in the same society as an equal. You don't like my ways, that's fine, I don't like yours. There is room for both of us to persue happiness without getting in each other's way. The glass is half full, not half empty... :)

6:58 PM, July 18, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"This debate has never been about marriage has it? Your real desire is to silence the voice of the gay community. You can't. Take away all of our rights, put us in jail, put us to death and we will still continue to crop up, in every culture, in every country, throughout all of time. Sooner or later society will have to deal with the fact that homosexuality is a part of the human condition, and that day comes closer the more we talk."

Here we go again with your assumptions John. I have no intention of silencing the gay community in any way, shape or form or other wise I would not be engaging in an open and public debate with the community on the issue of SSM.

If you think that I am advocating a genocidal elimination of a sub-group of people via the political spectrum than you have not been listening to my advocation of more rights for the homosexual community.

As far as your comments that homosexuality is part of the human condition, there has never been one study replicated time and time again to remotely suggest that homosexuality is a genetically predisposed behavior. On the flip side, neither has their been continously replicated studies that it is not. But there is more evidence to strongy suggest that homosexuality is choice based and not genetically based.

You said in closing:

"You don't like my ways, that's fine, I don't like yours. There is room for both of us to persue happiness without getting in each other's way."

But redefining an institution without the very people that take part in that institution having a say on it is 'getting in our way'. The Commonwealth just wants to vote on the definition of marriage so we CAN go about our lives with a final decision made by the people.

10:24 AM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"Society has deemed homosexuality dangerous for a reason."

Notice how this does not say gay marriage? It says homosexuality. You may be able to vote on marriage but you will never be able to vote on homosexuality. It is better to learn how to live with the things you cannot change gracefully than to steep.

As far as genetics go, I have never once said that my homosexuality was something genetic. I said that accepting it changed my life for the better and allowed me inner peace. I try to share that inner peace with as many as I can. If you look throughout history you can find homosexuality in every country throughout time. It does not need to be proven as genetic to be a part of the human condition.

"But redefining an institution without the very people that take part in that institution having a say on it is 'getting in our way'."

That's the thing though. You are not a part of my marriage, its private between Ray and I. There is a huge double standard here. Heterosexuals get a blanket approval of marriage provided they are of age and not related. To deny them this is against the law. Gays just want the same rights. Denying people marriage because of your opinions of their morality hasn't been used in the past, but purhaps it should have. I see many people who I think have no business raising children. How about if we have a panel overlook all marriage applications and make sure their marriage is in the best interest of society? That would be a little less discriminatory than saying gay people can't handle the responsibility.

12:06 PM, July 19, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

I said in previous comments:

"Society has deemed homosexuality dangerous for a reason."

This statement is geared towards why same-sex marriages, A.K.A legally recognized homosexually based relationships, whatever way you want to describe them as, are not good for society. That is what I am saying.

You said:

"If you look throughout history you can find homosexuality in every country throughout time. It does not need to be proven as genetic to be a part of the human condition."

Definition of the human condition:

The human condition encompasses the totality of the experience of being human and living human lives. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events which are common to most human lives, and some which are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.

If you want to live you’re chosen lifestyle in a philosophical bubble that is up to you. I, on the other hand, am going to live a lifestyle that works because it is what is MEANT to be not what I can philosophically argue for.

You said:

"That's the thing though. You are not a part of my marriage, its private between Ray and I."

If marriage were truly a private affair, which it is not, then same-sex marriages would have little impact on anyone's family. But marriage is just as much about the community as it is about the individuals, perhaps even more so. That's why marriages are public ceremonies, whether in churches or before civil authorities, and are regulated by laws. Marriage is a societal agreement.

No marriage is an island. Every marriage touches the community as a universally human community norm - a rule embraced by society for who we conduct ourselves sexually and domestically, and what we provide for children to meet their developmental needs. And every society must have a norm for what it expects and what it will NOT allow. Marriage is that social norm for the family. As humans, we are all connected and our decisions and actions - both public and private - DO affect other people, even if it is indirect and not always evident. There are no truly private marriages.

4:35 PM, July 22, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I will go one further than you. Every relationship, properly recognized or not, every person, leaves their own impact on society. Extending or denying gay marriage in no way alters the effect the gay community has on society, and I have yet to see you prove otherwise.

Denying marriage to two people that love each other is forcing your morals on someone else. These morals are instilled by your religion, and that is why this is a matter of religious freedom.

We did not know everything we needed to know 2000 years ago, but we did know how to love one another as brothers. Purhaps some old ways are worth saving... :)

3:46 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"Extending or denying gay marriage in no way alters the effect the gay community has on society, and I have yet to see you prove otherwise."

I am not worried about HOW the gay lifestyle affects society, I am worried about HOW the gay lifestyle will affect the sanctity of marriage and HOW that will affect society as a whole as I have explained to you.

You said:

"Denying marriage to two people that love each other is forcing your morals on someone else. These morals are instilled by your religion, and that is why this is a matter of religious freedom."

The gay community is forcing their morals of how marriage should be conducted just because two people love each other. Again, I have explained to you that "love" is not the ONLY KEY to a marriage; there are MANY other values involved.

This is not a matter of religious freedom, as I have not mentioned anything of the sort anywhere on my blog. I will say it again: This debate is not about HOMOsexuality, HETEROsexuality or religion. It is about democracy. Period.

5:14 PM, July 23, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Just because you don't mention religion here does not make this less of a religious issue. This is one group of people saying that the other group does not have the moral fortitude to be married, and they justify this by citing the Bible. Without religion we would not view gay people as bad, the native americans didn't. They valued gays for their ability to contribute to the collective good.

Read these lyrics and think about them:

The Way It Is
B. R. Hornsby
Standing in line marking time--
Waiting for the welfare dime
'Cause they can't buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old ladies' eyes
Just for fun he says "Get a job"

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them

They say hey little boy you can't go
Where the others go
'Cause you don't look like they do
Said hey old man how can you stand
To think that way
Did you really think about it
Before you made the rules
He said, Son

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them

Well they passed a law in '64
To give those who ain't got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law another's mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar

That's just the way it is
Some things will never change
That's just the way it is
But don't you believe them

I wish you the best, just not at my expense.

7:34 PM, July 23, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

John,

"Without religion we would not view gay people as bad,..."

With religion, we do not view gay people as bad, but as sinful beings that need our love and respect.

Jesus wants us to help the sexually immoral not deem them 'bad'.

Understand that Jesus and I love you John, but we do not love your sin.

8:55 PM, July 24, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." - Saint Augustine

If we are to defend all liberties equally then we have to recognize someone's right not to believe. So long as they do not harm anyone else or their property, they should be able to live life on their own terms. If people go to Hell for not believing, that is their free will, right?

10:24 PM, July 24, 2006  
Anonymous Rev. Scott said...

Why would you want to live in sin and face the judgement of God? What good is that to you to live in eternal pain and suffering?

In Him my brother,

Rev. Scott

3:05 PM, July 26, 2006  
Blogger John Hosty said...

I don't wish to live in sin, but I don't think being gay is a sin. To me it is as natural as the color of my skin and as unchangable as my heritage.

We have to respect each other's right to believe what we want in America if this diverse social experiment is going to work for another 200+ years.

Christ calls us not just to spread the word, but to BE the word in action. You cannot make someone thirst for the love of Christ unless they see something within you they want to have themselves.

In turn I do not turn my back on those who strongly oppose what I stand for. I will fight with them like I would my own family. I will not close the door and say they have trespassed too far, and now God will not have them. It is not up to me.

How is it Reverend, that I can break every commandment known, be a hardened criminal on death row, and still have more right to marry than a gay person? Can you really foo-foo away all these greater sins just to point out a sin that didn't make God's top ten list?

10:17 AM, July 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com