American Family Association

[Andy 60]

Are they a bunch of Nazis?

Someone entered the wrong email when they registered to their newsletter, so I ended up with it. I just reported it as spam, but then I noticed what it says...

[Michael] Steele [...] disputed the view that being homosexual is a lifestyle choice. "I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view that you can turn it on and off like a water tap... You just can't simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay.' It's like saying 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black,'" explained Steele.

In light of Chairman Steele's remarks, should he resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee?

He should resign because he said that homosexuality isn't a choice?

They seem to think so...

In light of Chairman Steele's remarks on abortion and homosexuality,

should he resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee?

Yes, Michael Steele should resign. - 14,546

No, Michael Steele should not resign. - 1,095

[Drake 53]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. The fact that it's a "Family Association" suggests that it's largely made up of mom and dad with two and a half kids. Being America, there probably aren't many gay couple/parents in the group. If they were to poll one of the various gay/lesbian/bisexual groups out there, I'm sure the results would be very different. This seems like it's just an internal poll thing that's clearly biased due to the members all being of one mind on the issue.

I don't think it's something to get too worked up over.

[Chickenman 9]

America is still a fairly conservative country, particularly in the middle and southern parts. As such, there is a sad number of people that believe the Bible is without error, and as such, homosexual sex is a sin, children should be stoned to death if they are disobedient, and slavery is fine. (Except that they don't believe those last two. Well...the South doesn't believe the middle one, anyway.)

Groups like the Family Association and Focus on the Family tend to sugarcoat their homophobia and general disdain for anything they don't particularly subscribe to by making it out to be an open attack on the family unit itself. It's a pretty genius way to make themselves the victims when they're the ones promoting homophobia. Also, by saying that they're trying to protect the family and not that they're trying to force feed Christianity into government policy, they're able to sound more innocent and less theocratic.

After all, marriage isn't a legal contract with the government, it's an exclusively Christian thing. That's why Buddhists, Muslims and Atheists can't marry.

While I agree with Drake that this is an internal poll, I'm actually amazed that a homophobic organization was able to get those 1,000 votes against.

In their defense, however, Michael Steele is an idiot.

[Drake 53]

It was only a matter of time before someone automatically assumed Christianity had something to do with it and generalized my religion into making us look like hate-mongers.

Regardless, I believe that homosexuality is a sin and that the Bible is the truth. However, it's not my place to judge people. I show my faith through my acts, not through forcing my beliefs on others. As my pastor says, we've got to be cool when talking to non-Christians, lol.

It's a shame that the extremists have given people the wrong impressions. I guess that's why they call them extreme.

Wait...what are we talking about again? :p

[Andy 60]

I was prolly a little harsh comparing them to Nazis... In the first sentence, too. lol

[Chickenman 9]

It was only a matter of time before someone automatically assumed Christianity had something to do with it and generalized my religion into making us look like hate-mongers.

Seeing as the American Family Asociation is a Christian organization...yeah, I can't see why I jumped to that conclusion.

My above post was not an attack on Christianity, it was an attack on those who use Christianity to oppress people and who force their beliefs on others.

I was not saying that Christians are hate mongers. I was, however, stating that these people's hatred comes their religion.

As for the Bible being truth, I think I mispoke. There are varying degrees to which people worship the Bible, there are those who see it as a guide and try to live by its teachings, there are those and those that believe every single word to be the absolute truth, and a million other interpretations. All of which is fine. However, if you do subscribe to the notion that every single word is true, then I hope you've got a nice stockpile of rocks for when your kid is acting up. For the people that don't believe every word is true, I find it a little sad that while society has rejected the stone throwing and slavery thing, but when homosexuality comes up, it's evil because the Bible says so.

Hatred isn't okay just because it's sponsored by religion.

EDIT:

I decided to look into the group to see just how hateful they are.

According to wikipedia, the group supports

the criminalization of homosexuality;[12][13][14] lobbying against same-sex marriage, and in opposition of equal-rights and hate-crime legislation that would include sexual orientation and gender identity under categories already protected

That's right. They believe you should be arrested if you are gay, and that if you beat someone to within an inch of their life just because of their sexual orientation, you shouldn't be penalized for it.

Also, scrolling down, they believe that non-Christians are un-American, and also they're anti-Semitic.

But other than that, it's a fine organization. :roll:

Edited March 13, 2009 by Chickenman

[Drake 53]

A common misconception amongst many non-Christians, while making their arguments, is that the Bible is one whole rule book. In fact, it's split into two sections...the Old and New Testament. The Old is about the history of God's chosen people, the Israelites, and how God led and delivered them through hardship and oppression. The New Testament is about the coming of Jesus and how he changed the way followers of God did things. We don't stone people any more because we don't have to. Like I said, we shouldn't judge people (not saying we don't...nobody is perfect). Some of the "rules" got changed when Jesus took on the sins of man. Not in what was wrong but in how they should be dealt with. In the OT, homosexuals would have been put to death. After Christ died, they have the opportunity to change.

Also, to correct something you said, Christians don't worship the Bible.

EDIT: In response to your research, I would classify them as extremists and nut-jobs. :p

Edited March 13, 2009 by Drake

[Chickenman 9]

I just find it interesting that an entire group of people is denied the same basic human rights that others over a scant few lines of translated and retranslated text, is all. Especially when, you know, homosexuality is a kind of love. That thing that Jesus preached about.

And when you say Non-Christians don't really understand the Bible...most Atheists I know tend to know it pretty well, lol.

As for Christians not "worshipping" the Bible, you're arguing semantics. Don't do that. :p

[Drake 53]

We worship God. We follow His Word.

And I said "many non-Christians" not "all". Good for your friends? They fall into the category of the few. :p

Edited March 13, 2009 by Drake

[James the Defender 7]

Especially when, you know, homosexuality is a kind of love. That thing that Jesus preached about.

And when you say Non-Christians don't really understand the Bible...most Atheists I know tend to know it pretty well, lol.

Without getting into anything offensive about homosexuality, one can understand that in the Greek language, in which the Christian-Greek Scriptures--or New Testament--was translated, there are 5 different words for love. The three of which Jesus spoke were 1: Agape, which is the love we have for God, the love he has for us, and Jesus also spoke of it as the love we have for fellow followers of God. 2: Philos, familial love. 3: Eros: romantic love.

Jesus preached about love mostly in the sense of Agape. He talked some about Philos, too, but most was Agape. He didn't talk of Eros much, which would be romantic love. And it was never applied to same-sex couples.

Another thing, he disliked everything his Father disliked, and since his Father did not approve of homosexuality, neither did he. He said that his Father's Word is truth. (John 17:17) Since earlier books of the Bible speak out vehemently against homosexuality, we can be sure that Jesus felt the same.

And as for knowing the Bible: there is a great difference in knowing something, and understanding something. Just the same as Dax put it, when Obi-Wan visited him: the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

[Chickenman 9]

Especially when, you know, homosexuality is a kind of love. That thing that Jesus preached about.

And when you say Non-Christians don't really understand the Bible...most Atheists I know tend to know it pretty well, lol.

Without getting into anything offensive about homosexuality, one can understand that in the Greek language, in which the Christian-Greek Scriptures--or New Testament--was translated, there are 5 different words for love. The three of which Jesus spoke were 1: Agape, which is the love we have for God, the love he has for us, and Jesus also spoke of it as the love we have for fellow followers of God. 2: Philos, familial love. 3: Eros: romantic love.

Jesus preached about love mostly in the sense of Agape. He talked some about Philos, too, but most was Agape. He didn't talk of Eros much, which would be romantic love. And it was never applied to same-sex couples.

Another thing, he disliked everything his Father disliked, and since his Father did not approve of homosexuality, neither did he. He said that his Father's Word is truth. (John 17:17) Since earlier books of the Bible speak out vehemently against homosexuality, we can be sure that Jesus felt the same.

Hmm. Hadn't heard that particular argument before. Interesting.

And as for knowing the Bible: there is a great difference in knowing something, and understanding something. Just the same as Dax put it, when Obi-Wan visited him: the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

I'd guess that you would argue that only Christians (or any religion) could truly understand the Bible (or that any religion's holy book) then. While I would argue against that, my point was that other people do make the attempt to understand other cultures. Not that I was really trying to say anything by it, lol.

Anyway, I've gotta say that I applaud Steele for his remarks on homosexuality and abortion (and this is coming from someone against abortion) for recognizing the other side even if he's against both. It's actually kind of funny that, for the abortion comments (to my recollection, I only skimmed them a bit), he's getting in trouble when he was actually saying that it should be up to the states to decide, which is an argument the conservative movement's been using for decades. But he's under fire because in his the statement he recognized abortion as a legal choice, which it is. Even though he was repeating what the rest of the party believes. Made me giggle. :p

[Radioactive Isotope 29]

Groups like the Family Association and Focus on the Family tend to sugarcoat their homophobia and general disdain for anything they don't particularly subscribe to by making it out to be an open attack on the family unit itself.

The way I see it, there IS an attack on the family unit. Maybe not necessarily from homosexuality itself, but more so from society's attitude toward the traditional family of a mom, dad, and kids. How many intact families do you know compared to the number of divorced or single (as in never married) parents? How many mothers do you know that stay home and actually raise their kids instead of pawning them off on schools and daycares? Yes, I realize that there are many instances where both parents HAVE to work in order to make ends meet. However, my definition of "making ends meet" does not include brand new cars, fancy houses, boats, pools, expensive vacations, cable, and game systems. I really feel that many families would be just fine financially if they reduced the frilly stuff and lived on one person's salary. Not that there's anything wrong with having nice things, but nice things shouldn't come at the expense of the family.

Coming back to the subject of moms staying in the home. I'm all for equal rights for women in the workplace. I don't believe either gender is superior to the other (usually ). I believe men and women are equal, yet have different responsibilities. Traditionally, it was the father's job to provide for the financial needs of his family and the mother's job to raise and nurture the children to become civilized and productive members of society. Neither role is inferior, and yet my mom caught all kinds of flak when people asked her what she did for work and she told them she stayed home with her children. My mom is my hero. She agonized over the decison to stay home with me when I was born, but she did it. My family was never really rich moneywise, but we always had what we needed. We are still pretty close-knit because instead of allowing TV and video games to babysit us, she actually spent time with us. We played games and she taught us how to cook (well, taught ME how to cook). She was there to help us with our homework and put band-aids on our skinned knees. She set aside her own college education and is only now getting a degree because raising us was more important. And I like to think we turned out okay. Certainly we turned out better than a lot of other people.

So as far as the attack on the family goes, perhaps it's not an attack of criticism but rather the attitude that families aren't important and raising your kids is somebody else's job. And that attitude goes against everything I believe.

[Andy 60]

I agree that the family is under threat in today's society; I just disagree that homosexuality is causing it.

Civil Partnerships (the term used for 'married' gay partners in the UK) in particular... How does this affect anyone?

After Christ died, they have the opportunity to change.

Not much of an opportunity is it though?

[Drake 53]

I don't think a thing I say will avoid coming out sounding preachy or crazy, lol.

I know a few former homosexual people who, after turning to the Lord, gradually lost the desire to be with the same sex and some even eventually found partners of the opposite sex, married and had children. It was not an immediate change and they were, at first, stubborn in their refusal to give up their lifestyle...but, in time, their hearts changed.

And my meaning of the opportunity to change is that everyone is given a choice. Chose to follow God or don't. I would say chose to be gay or don't but I understand that it's not like a flip of a switch.