Bush Aligns Himself With Southern Baptists (homophobic?)

[World Order]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122795,00.html

What really concerns me about Bush:
But he hit the hot-button issue in his address to the Southern Baptists, who are the biggest Protestant denomination in the country with 16 million members. Conventioneers rewarded Bush with the longest applause of his remarks.

Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Convention started an initiative to "liberate" gays from their homosexuality by befriending them and convincing them they should accept Jesus as their savior. Church leaders asked their 42,000 churches to reach out compassionately to gays, focusing on how Christianity can save them.

Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and is trying anew to bridge the divide between his conservative base and critical swing voters. Some advisers fear any hint of intolerance would alienate middle-of-the-road Americans.

[MODU]

It's about time that one of the larger demoninations stepped up to stop the liberalization of the Church.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

of course Bush is a homophobe. Anyone with half a brain already knew that. Who besides a homophobe would want to desecrate the Constitution to ban gay marriage?

[MODU]

Does that make me a homophobe?  

[Ben.]

Does that make me a homophobe?  

Technically he's not a homophobe, he doesn't hate people because their gay, hell! "hate" isn’t even the right word imho, he dislikes it because he sees it as a contravention of "gods will" as set forth in the bible, also at some level he saw this as a way of warding off Roy Moore entering the race, then again Moore opposes a constitutional ban so actually the position is to the right of Moore...  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

also at some level he saw this as a way of warding off Roy Moore entering the race, then again Moore opposes a constitutional ban so actually the position is to the right of Moore...  

so Bush is to the right of Moore. How is NOT a right wing extremist then?

[Ben.]

also at some level he saw this as a way of warding off Roy Moore entering the race, then again Moore opposes a constitutional ban so actually the position is to the right of Moore...  

so Bush is to the right of Moore. How is NOT a right wing extremist then?

You asked weather it was "homophobic" not if it was "right wing extremism"... its rightwing, but in larger sense its playing to a section of his base a Democrat might play to the "pro-choice" lobby and for many conservatives and some moderates that could be viewed as left wing extremism... either way the move succeeded on one level (securing the religious right) but failed as it was patently unconstitutional. Yeah it was a very selective partisan thing to do (as many republicans disagree with it) but "extremist" not as radically as you may think, radical would be a better word the same goes for a Dem who might pander to the secular-liberal Left... thing is the GOP can't win with just the religious right and the Dem's can't win with the Secular-liberal Left....    

[??????????]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122795,00.html

What really concerns me about Bush:
But he hit the hot-button issue in his address to the Southern Baptists, who are the biggest Protestant denomination in the country with 16 million members. Conventioneers rewarded Bush with the longest applause of his remarks.

Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Convention started an initiative to "liberate" gays from their homosexuality by befriending them and convincing them they should accept Jesus as their savior. Church leaders asked their 42,000 churches to reach out compassionately to gays, focusing on how Christianity can save them.

Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and is trying anew to bridge the divide between his conservative base and critical swing voters. Some advisers fear any hint of intolerance would alienate middle-of-the-road Americans.

The church has a right to be AGAINST a homosexual lifestyle because the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If a church wishes to try to help gays recover from their bad decisions and help them seek medical treatment for a obvious mental condition then I have no problem with that either.

[Lunar]

States is right on that point.

Probably the biggest "head scratcher" for me was when Governor  Bush vetoed expanding hate crime rules to sexuality.  That would be ok if you oppose the hate crime system in general, but obviously Bush hasn't said anything about that.

[Ben.]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122795,00.html

What really concerns me about Bush:
But he hit the hot-button issue in his address to the Southern Baptists, who are the biggest Protestant denomination in the country with 16 million members. Conventioneers rewarded Bush with the longest applause of his remarks.

Earlier this year, the Southern Baptist Convention started an initiative to "liberate" gays from their homosexuality by befriending them and convincing them they should accept Jesus as their savior. Church leaders asked their 42,000 churches to reach out compassionately to gays, focusing on how Christianity can save them.

Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and is trying anew to bridge the divide between his conservative base and critical swing voters. Some advisers fear any hint of intolerance would alienate middle-of-the-road Americans.

The church has a right to be AGAINST a homosexual lifestyle because the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. If a church wishes to try to help gays recover from their bad decisions and help them seek medical treatment for a obvious mental condition then I have no problem with that either.

As it looks like we're getting on to the nature vs nurture debate...

Here's my two cents...

Attitudes to sexuality are largely a result of the society we are members of… ie. Homosexuality was the norm in Sparta and many Ancient Cultures, In the Renaissance period Homosexuality was seen as a way of “testing” you sexual ability and up until the eighteenth centaury all sexuality other than sex for the purposes of procreation was seen as equally sinful (no differentiation made between men and women, women and women or men and animals).

This would strongly suggest that no one is "born gay" just as no one is "born straight", to a degree we could be genetically predisposed to be one or the other but just as that which repels us is derived from our experiences and the various social “mores” the same is true of that which we are attracted to.

That all said while there is no genetic reason for a person to be attracted to one person or gender or species, equally it would be difficult to discern from person to person what factors in their lives lead them to their present orientation, as these factors differ radically from one person to another. That said this very likely situation means that those on the Conservative Right side (people are born straight ) and those on the Libertarian Left (people are born gay) are both wrong you are not born either, you simply draw conclusions, aversions, attractions from your experience throughout life and that leads to your changing perceptions and attitudes being a certain way, you are no more born gay or straight than born conservative or liberal.        

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I am so sick of this nonsense... both the criticism of the left... and what Bush is doing to himself.

Bush is NOT a homophobe.  I believe he has actually appointed more gays to prominent positions than Clinton did. (or that we allowed him to do, anyway )  In fact, President Bush has faced criticism from the far-right, including from evangelicals like Ed McAteer, for doing so.  President Bush has taken political risks for some level of support for gay rights, and for that he deserves at least some credit from his detractors.

The problem lies in the need to get re-elected.  The President could have done the right thing and ignored the nutty harps from the "religious" right.   But he didn't, he couldn't.  Hell, I probably would have fallen for the pressure.  He fought the FMA for as long as he could until he just couldn't stand it anymore.  He cracked, but I respect him for holding out for so long.

The President has to find the votes in order to get re-elected.  He can't count on moderates (as so many of us are so wishy-washy on our partisanship and loyalty to a candidate *stares at bullmoose*)... so he had to find a base to count on.  And if you can count on anything, its that Christian conservatives will VOTE and will stay loyal.

I guess the ABB crowd around here will never understand President Bush. I know where his heart lies, and that's why I support him so strongly.  I know he hates bigotry and discrimination.  But I also know that he has to do what he has to do.  We must keep his leadership in office.  If he has to throw a bone to the conservanuts in order to do so, its still worth it.

[Lunar]

After reading that post htmldon, all I got stuck in my head is an image of little Timothy with his crutches, trying to ward off some muggers assaulting him.  The whole time he has these big blue puppy-dog eyes that are just a tad wattery..staring at you as he fends them off.

He's a politician dude.

[Alfie]

I am so sick of this nonsense... both the criticism of the left... and what Bush is doing to himself.

Bush is NOT a homophobe.  I believe he has actually appointed more gays to prominent positions than Clinton did. (or that we allowed him to do, anyway )  In fact, President Bush has faced criticism from the far-right, including from evangelicals like Ed McAteer, for doing so.  President Bush has taken political risks for some level of support for gay rights, and for that he deserves at least some credit from his detractors.

The problem lies in the need to get re-elected.  The President could have done the right thing and ignored the nutty harps from the "religious" right.   But he didn't, he couldn't.  Hell, I probably would have fallen for the pressure.  He fought the FMA for as long as he could until he just couldn't stand it anymore.  He cracked, but I respect him for holding out for so long.

The President has to find the votes in order to get re-elected.  He can't count on moderates (as so many of us are so wishy-washy on our partisanship and loyalty to a candidate *stares at bullmoose*)... so he had to find a base to count on.  And if you can count on anything, its that Christian conservatives will VOTE and will stay loyal.

I guess the ABB crowd around here will never understand President Bush. I know where his heart lies, and that's why I support him so strongly.  I know he hates bigotry and discrimination.  But I also know that he has to do what he has to do.  We must keep his leadership in office.  If he has to throw a bone to the conservanuts in order to do so, its still worth it.

You praise Bush for being "Gay neutral" and for resisting the godcon's pressure to (I guess) crack down on those uppity Gay folks.  You the state Bush "just couldn't stand it anymore.  He cracked, but I respect him for holding out for so long."  Well, I guess I'm confused, because it two different themes come to mind.

The first Gay "theme" is that Bush is not a homophone, that he is not anti-Gay, that he has appointed a number of Gays to government positions.  

I agree with all of this.  I think George W. Bush, much like George HW Bush and a whole generation of northern Republicans (Chaffee, the late great Senator from Rhode Island, Olympia Snowe, R-ME, former VP Nelson Rockefeller, etc) have shown very little interest in vilifying gays; some have been very supportive.  Hell, even Barry Goldwater, in his later years, advocated rescinding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".  GWB's history just doesn't show a pattern of anti-Gay politics, or of being in any way homophobic.

The second Gay "theme" is that Bush couldn't hang on any longer -- the heat in the kitchen just good too hot to handle.  As a result, he then went ahead with the radical godcons and hit the "Launch" button for amending the constitution to prevent Gay marriage.  In this "theme", you admire Bush for having "held out" for so long.

So both "themes" make sense.  But what does "theme" #2 say about George W. Bush?  To me, it raising a concern about the price at which he is willing to sell his beliefs down river.  Yes, most politicos make these decisions.  If they need to "gain altitude" they'd dump their grandmother overboard.  But the difference is that few politicians become president, and few politicians have the evangelical fervor and certainty that Bush seems to possess -- the certainty of being right, and of the rightness of their beliefs.  In short, if the non-homophobic, non anti-Gay George W. Bush threw Gays overboard (and he clearly did), what does this say about the clarity of his beliefs, the true "value" in which he holds these beliefs.  

Even more to the point: does George W. Bush really have a moral compass?


- Alfie

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".

I have asked this question for months on end within this forum and have yet to receive an answer.  Why has my question gone unanswered?  Is my question too difficult to understand, do I need to reword it to make it more comprehensible?  Or is the answer to the question so obvious and revealing that it silences all response?

So consider yourselves ignorant of your own bigotry against anyone taking a moral stand.  But know this, your inability to answer is duly noted.

You have itchy ears - believing only what you want to believe:

2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I am so sick of this nonsense... both the criticism of the left... and what Bush is doing to himself.

Bush is NOT a homophobe.  I believe he has actually appointed more gays to prominent positions than Clinton did. (or that we allowed him to do, anyway )  In fact, President Bush has faced criticism from the far-right, including from evangelicals like Ed McAteer, for doing so.  President Bush has taken political risks for some level of support for gay rights, and for that he deserves at least some credit from his detractors.

The problem lies in the need to get re-elected.  The President could have done the right thing and ignored the nutty harps from the "religious" right.   But he didn't, he couldn't.  Hell, I probably would have fallen for the pressure.  He fought the FMA for as long as he could until he just couldn't stand it anymore.  He cracked, but I respect him for holding out for so long.

The President has to find the votes in order to get re-elected.  He can't count on moderates (as so many of us are so wishy-washy on our partisanship and loyalty to a candidate *stares at bullmoose*)... so he had to find a base to count on.  And if you can count on anything, its that Christian conservatives will VOTE and will stay loyal.

I guess the ABB crowd around here will never understand President Bush. I know where his heart lies, and that's why I support him so strongly.  I know he hates bigotry and discrimination.  But I also know that he has to do what he has to do.  We must keep his leadership in office.  If he has to throw a bone to the conservanuts in order to do so, its still worth it.

Then why as Texas governor did he oppose:

-repealing the sodomy law (he said he would veto any repeal of it by the legislature)
-expanding hate crimes to cover sexual orientation (this would make sense if he claimed to oppose hate crimes altogether, but he didn't)
-expanding workplace discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation (a couple of Republican nuts here wanted to remove that part of the law last year, but even our idiot Republican governor said he wouldn't sign that bill if it passed. of course it got nowhere.)
-allowing gay adoptions

P.S. I bet if you told that nonsense to a gay they still wouldn't forgive Bush.

P.P.S. - As said above, even Roy Moore opposes the FMA.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".

I have asked this question for months on end within this forum and have yet to receive an answer.  Why has my question gone unanswered?  Is my question too difficult to understand, do I need to reword it to make it more comprehensible?  Or is the answer to the question so obvious and revealing that it silences all response?

So consider yourselves ignorant of your own bigotry against anyone taking a moral stand.  But know this, your inability to answer is duly noted.

You have itchy ears - believing only what you want to believe:

2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

...nothing but silence!  How predictable.

[Nym90]

I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".

I have asked this question for months on end within this forum and have yet to receive an answer.  Why has my question gone unanswered?  Is my question too difficult to understand, do I need to reword it to make it more comprehensible?  Or is the answer to the question so obvious and revealing that it silences all response?

So consider yourselves ignorant of your own bigotry against anyone taking a moral stand.  But know this, your inability to answer is duly noted.

You have itchy ears - believing only what you want to believe:

2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Well, I'll take a crack at it. I know I've answered this before.

A lot of people don't get their sense of what is right and wrong from the Bible. I personally don't consider homosexuality a sin, while I do consider the other things that you listed to be sins. That's why.

I realize that your entire view of morality is rooted in Scripture, but I'm a Christian too, and I've prayed to God for moral guidance many a time myself. The message that I feel I am getting from Him is to follow my own moral conscience, even if it contradicts what the Bible says. Call me a nut if you'd like, but that's what I feel that God has spoken to me, and I can assure you that I feel just as strongly that that is God's message as you feel that God's message to you is to follow every word of the Bible literally. The message that I have gotten from God from my prayers to him has been that he instilled in me a good, strong moral compass, and that I should follow it. I know I've fallen short of doing this 100% of the time, as we all have, but I can assure you that I feel just as strongly that my beliefs come directly from personal communication with God as yours do.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nym90,

You addressed why you don't follow the bible, but you didn't answer why those who take their stand against homosexuality are homophobic.  

In fact, you seem to be admitting that the bible does label the behavior as a sin.  So, are you saying that those who choose to put their faith in the bible are homophobic?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nym,

Consider for a moment what you wrote and then answer these basic questions:  

---

The message that I feel I am getting from Him is to follow my own moral conscience, even if it contradicts what the Bible says.

If you believe God is instructing you, a Christian, to ignore scripture, then what is the purpose of scripture?

---

The message that I have gotten from God from my prayers…

You say you have received a message from God.  So what do you have to compare this spiritual message to in order to determine that it really came from God?  Shouldn’t a supposedly spiritual message from God be compared with another spiritual message from God?  For example:  Paul had something spiritual to compare to what he thought the Spirit was telling him.

1Cor 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

---

Basically, if scripture has no purpose, then what weapon do you have against your imagination?

2Cor 10:4-5   (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

Luke 1:15 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

[Alfie]

I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".

I have asked this question for months on end within this forum and have yet to receive an answer.  Why has my question gone unanswered?  Is my question too difficult to understand, do I need to reword it to make it more comprehensible?  Or is the answer to the question so obvious and revealing that it silences all response?

So consider yourselves ignorant of your own bigotry against anyone taking a moral stand.  But know this, your inability to answer is duly noted.

You have itchy ears - believing only what you want to believe:

2Tim 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

That's an interesting question -- one I'd never asked, or been asked about.  I'll need more data.  "Phobia" does relate to mental health issues, but prejudice is more of a social disease, a misdemeanor compare to the felony of phobia.  

You state that you "stand against homosexuality."  How do you "stand" against it -- what do you do?  At one extreme, if this "stand" takes form of dragging Gays from the back of your pick-up truck.  Would that be homophobia, or political expression?"  

If your "stand against homosexuality" causes you -- compels you --to visit Gay places and people (try your local florist or hair stylist if you don't know of any), when you arrive at these locations, does your heart pound in...anger?  Do you threaten Gay people while in their space?  Or do you say and do nothing at all, or nothing offensive, and just observe?   Or have you never really felt , or had, any need to seek out Gay people in a curious sort of way?

I ask these questions more to prod my own thinking, because in asking myself, "what is homophobia", and, "who is a homophobe", I think homophobia is like art, or pornography, in that it’s hard to define, but you know it when you "see" it.    


you wrote;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?  I don't know -- I'm new here.  Too difficult?  No, it would take time, and a lot of thought.   And to what end?  Re-read what you stated:

"I would love for any of you hypocritical liars to explain why taking a stand against homosexuality is a "phobia", while at the same time taking stands against fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, murder, etc are not considered "phobias".[/b]

So why not drop another turd into the punchbowl?  You as yet to be defined "Stand" is still unknown, but your anger is showing, in spades... the equating of Gays with fornication and affiliated bullsh!t just leaves reasonable people cold.  It stops them in their tracks, as they think: "What kind of homophobe would write THAT?"  My answer would be, "A homophobe who wants to start an argument."  That's what my answer would be.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's an interesting question -- one I'd never asked, or been asked about.  I'll need more data.

OK

---

You state that you "stand against homosexuality."  How do you "stand" against it -- what do you do?

I "stand" against it just like I stand againt any immorality -  I do what the bible tells me to do:

2Tim 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

---

you wrote;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?  I don't know -- I'm new here.  

Ok, then we'll start afresh.  My anger was more of an attention getter in order to spur a response.  And I think the lack of logic behind the “phobe” label is evident.  So let’s continue.

[World Order]

A response for jmfcst:

IS IT A CRIME TO BE GAY? NO

IS IT A CRIME TO STEAL, COMMIT MURDER, LIE? YES

thats the difference. If a person chooses to be gay thats his free choice to do so. If someone objects to that person being gay there is nothing in law that can stop the person from being gay. People who are homophobic in my opinion are frightened of the impact that gays have on its society. homophobics want homosexuality banned from our society. No spin. the church IS in my view becoming more acceptable to gays. its the extremist religious groups like Jehovah witnesses who believe being gay is some sort of disease.

If a person choses to steal he can go to jail.
if a person choses to lie he can go to jail.
if a person choses to commit murder he can go to jail.

If a person commits adultery then he will more than likely be vilified by the society and regret what he has done. But homosexuality isnt illegal. its allowed in our society. gay people are being suppressed by the religious right. i was talking to a black person who has always voted democrat and its not because he supports democrats but because he is frightened that if its not gays it could be blacks next.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

A response for jmfcst:

Your response was off-topic.

My question was how are those who view homosexual activity a "sin" homophobic.  It had nothing to do with whether the activity was legal or not.  Fornication is legal, but that doesn't keep me from viewing it as a sin.

[World Order]

does God play a huge role in your life?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

does God play a huge role in your life?

yes, but that is not the question.  The question is asking why I am labeled a homophobe but not labeled a phobe for my stand against other sins.  And the issue is not legality since fornication is legal yet I still view it as a sin.  Furthermore, I have never advocated making homosexual activity ILlegal (late edit).