Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Dangerous Agenda
freedomthirst.com — "So, why would someone like me, who normally is not very interested in other people ’s sexual behavior, take such a keen interest in the Homosexual Agenda? Is it because they are just wrong? Is it because God hates sin? Am I a homophobe? None of the above..." ThirstyJon tackles the Homosexual Political Agenda.
ThirstyJon- 43 diggs
- digg it
- MrDuke77, on 05/02/2008, -2/+18Great, rational, thoughtful post...Thanks for shouting it!
- Dawnofanewday, on 05/03/2008, -1/+10ditto, excellent job!
- alanhlake, on 05/02/2008, -2/+16Jon, I think that you are too young to have the wisdom shown in this article. I suspect that you have gotten your words from Him whose wisdom is from eternity.
- IconoclastStill, on 05/02/2008, -4/+19Jon, while I am not a believer, I do believe you have expressed a very accurate description of the vast majority of evangelical Christianity based on those of my friends and family who have those beliefs. It is, as you note, much different than the image concocted by many non-believers, particularly that intolerant majority of the left, whose "tolerance" extends only to those who hold the same values they espouse.
- CTRaider, on 05/02/2008, -5/+17@IconoclatStill
I like your line "intolerant majority of the left, whose "tolerance" extends only to those who hold the same values they espouse". Well I'll let it be known here and now, and never having stated this before in a forum post. *gasp* I was once a bleeding heart liberal . I grew up in CA, nuff said. And I believed and acted upon exactly what you have stated and so did every other liberal. You are on the money.- lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -6/+8"...and so did every other liberal" You cannot possibly know that. He's right on the money for you, but you cannot speak for others.
- GodzGurl59, on 05/02/2008, -1/+9perhaps every other liberal he knew or heard speak?? Most liberals i know are very tolerant of things they agree with. What's the problem?
- lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -6/+5It could be that that was his interpretation (and yours), that they wanted intolerance of those who didn't have the same values, but it would be a biased view because there are definitely liberals who are tolerant of things they don't agree with. And same goes for conservatives.
The problem is that he said he knows these things, and he can't know them beyond what he observes. And he clearly cannot know if what he experiences meant anything about an "intolerant majority," because he can not meet the majority of all liberals and listen to if they're tolerant of those with different values. - eir574, on 05/02/2008, -6/+6"Most liberals i know are very tolerant of things they agree with."
I assume that you mean to imply that they're only tolerant of the things they agree with, and are intolerant of things they disagree with. Sometimes, though, people confuse disagreement with intolerance, and criticism of a person's opinions with intolerance towards the person. - Nannybell, on 05/03/2008, -3/+7"The problem is that he said he knows these things, and he can't know them beyond what he observes. And he clearly cannot know if what he experiences meant anything about an "intolerant majority," because he can not meet the majority of all liberals and listen to if they're tolerant of those with different values."
Nor can you base your views of the biological cause of homosexuality on the anecdotal *evidence* of your own private experience regarding a few homosexuals or on inconclusive evidence from the APA. Yet that is precisely what you do. - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2I can't say I "know" them, but I can base them off evidence. You can't say you "Know" god exists, but you can base that off evidence.
- GodzGurl59, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4eir said: "I assume that you mean to imply that they're only tolerant of the things they agree with, and are intolerant of things they disagree with. Sometimes, though, people confuse disagreement with intolerance, and criticism of a person's opinions with intolerance towards the person."
I agree witht his statment, but how come is it you on the left say chrisitans are "intolerant" when we just DISAGREE with your positions or opinions on things, say homosexuality. It cannot be both ways. When YOU disagree it is disagree, but when WE disagree it is intolerance and hate.
You'all need to make up yer minds! - lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3"How come is it you on the left say Chrisitans are "intolerant" when we just disagree." Are you saying eir says this? Or are you saying some on the left say this? It's not what "the left" as a whole says.
Nobody's saying everyone on "the left" is perfect, sometimes some people will think that just by disagreeing you are intolerant. But it's fine to just disagree. If you can't tolerate that others do something you disagree with, then it fuels a need for you to speak out against those who do it, and that's an intolerant behavior.
Don't tell me all of "the right" has perfectly made up minds.
- lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -6/+5It could be that that was his interpretation (and yours), that they wanted intolerance of those who didn't have the same values, but it would be a biased view because there are definitely liberals who are tolerant of things they don't agree with. And same goes for conservatives.
- GodzGurl59, on 05/02/2008, -1/+9perhaps every other liberal he knew or heard speak?? Most liberals i know are very tolerant of things they agree with. What's the problem?
- lydecker, on 05/02/2008, -6/+8"...and so did every other liberal" You cannot possibly know that. He's right on the money for you, but you cannot speak for others.
- CTRaider, on 05/02/2008, -4/+12Which has just been proven by the comments getting dugg down.
- GodzGurl59, on 05/02/2008, -2/+11Dugg back up mate. Welcome to the fold. LOL!
- keltin, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1Icon - good supporting comment. I'd have to add my friends who are evangelicals with similar beliefs - they suppport this viewpoint, and even more radically.
- CTRaider, on 05/02/2008, -5/+17@IconoclatStill
- GodzGurl59, on 05/02/2008, -2/+12Well spoken John. We do need to show love, but we also need to vote! LOL! Cause though we don't fight flesh and blood, the devil USES flesh and blood folks to do his will. They are his slaves just as sure as we belong to Christ. It makes me sorry to see so many going down such a dark path and trying to drag us and our kids with them.
I for one, am not standing still. I teach my kids it is wrong, but that they need the love of God and help just like all humans do. We are to judge one another in the Lord, not the sinners. That is God's job. They just be being what they are. Is anyone surprised??
Great article. - TYRONEBR549, on 05/02/2008, -2/+12Very thoughtful article. Well thought out and accurate.
- Nannybell, on 05/03/2008, -3/+8My greatest fear for this country is the emergence of *hate speech* and *hate crimes* laws. Can anyone honestly fail to understand that such laws are a stab in the heart to the very liberties our nation was founded upon? When we no longer have the right to express what we think, then we no longer have rights. Who is it who is defining *hate* for us? And even if a person does feel *hate,* does he not have that right? I don't condone hatred, but I also don't feel it is any of Big Brother's business what an American citizen feels. If a person commits a crime, then he commits a crime -- punish him for that crime. We have plenty of laws already to address that. But punishing him more severely because he is thought to have felt *hate* in the commission of the crime is just too Orwellian. And there is a double standard involved. How many homosexual activists rationalize their own apparent hatred of conservative Christians who disapprove of their lifestyle? Seems to me that is precisely what they do. Do they want their own free speech shut down regarding that? If not, why not? If they want *hate speech* laws, do they think those laws ought not apply to them? No, of course not. So they had better think twice about it, because the tide can turn, and the very laws they sought can shut them down instead. Go here to watch a video of homosexual activists shutting down the speech of someone from the opposing point of view: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_ga ...
- lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Yes, I don't approve of hate speech laws, because the laws leave too much room for interpretation among normal people. I know lawyers will have a better grasp, but it still doesn't seem like it can ever firmly be ironed out. I don't understand how it can be considered a crime by our constitution to speak out hate and intend to incite violence on groups of people, because it's just words.
In punishment for crimes though, we always look at motivation. So I understand hate crimes a little more, though I fluctuate on whether they are necessary or not. And I don't think they are, because punishing people more because they targeted someone based on hate doesn't help anything. Motivation is important, because we wouldn't punish someone the same who murdered an intruder as we would someone who murdered an intrudee. But I'm not sure that we need to punish someone more because they decided to commit a crime on someone from a group and then found someone to do it to. Hate crimes aren't just about who feels hate, which is also why it's a problem for the general public to understand hate crime legislation.- Nannybell, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2I agree with your assessment (if I am understanding you correctly) that it does seem to take the responsibility off the people who actually commit the violence, sort of like "The devil made me do it." It's like the govt. is saying those people are so stupid that we have to protect society from their stupidity by making it a crime to say certain things to them because they have no self-control. Besides that, I am completely at a loss to understand hate speech laws such as those recently passed in Canada, where it is now unlawful to criticize a religious group or to say that homosexuality is wrong. That is the sort of law that Ted Kennedy and his compatriots have been desperately trying to pass here. If either Hillary or Obama becomes president, that law will be passed.
I don't like the concept of hate crimes because I perceive them as too Orwellian in nature. It's too much Big Brother, too much social engineering. Just be neutral and punish the crime. Never mind why it was done. Penalties for premeditated crimes are stringent enough to cover the issue.
- Nannybell, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2I agree with your assessment (if I am understanding you correctly) that it does seem to take the responsibility off the people who actually commit the violence, sort of like "The devil made me do it." It's like the govt. is saying those people are so stupid that we have to protect society from their stupidity by making it a crime to say certain things to them because they have no self-control. Besides that, I am completely at a loss to understand hate speech laws such as those recently passed in Canada, where it is now unlawful to criticize a religious group or to say that homosexuality is wrong. That is the sort of law that Ted Kennedy and his compatriots have been desperately trying to pass here. If either Hillary or Obama becomes president, that law will be passed.
- lydecker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6Yes, I don't approve of hate speech laws, because the laws leave too much room for interpretation among normal people. I know lawyers will have a better grasp, but it still doesn't seem like it can ever firmly be ironed out. I don't understand how it can be considered a crime by our constitution to speak out hate and intend to incite violence on groups of people, because it's just words.
- groovsmyth, on 05/03/2008, -2/+7The incident which Nannybell links to is not uncommon anymore. The group "Act Up" has disruption as its main tactic. Civil Disobedience and Free Speech are not the problems. One viewpoint at the expense of all others is the problem. Liberation Theology=Anarchy, and it's all contrary to the First Amendment Rights of our Republic. People who think McCain is the lesser of the Hillbama evils need to take a closer look at McCain/Feingold.
- these3remain, on 05/04/2008, -2/+4Good article, Jon. Prayerfully written and full of grace and truth. Homosexuals and gay activists are not our enemies; they need the truth of the gospel just like the rest of the world that is mired in sin. The real enemy , satan, is having his "season" here on earth but his time is limited. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but against principalities and spiritual wickedness in high places - thank God that He has provided the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us be faithful in spreading the gospel message "as we go" and not be discouraged by the wickedness that we see all around us. And let us confront in all humility and gentleness those who oppose God's purposes and plans, including those who are in bondage to the homosexual lifestyle. We don't need to be antagonistic or provocative but we also should not be complacent when challenged by its immorality - Jesus was not antagonistic nor complacent in the face of immorality.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by