It was almost 20 years ago, but they were the same then as now.

see parrot the thing is, that only the lefties try to peddle their sexual or personal preferences for political purposes, EXCUSE ME??? IS BEING STRAIGHT YOUR PREFERENCE?? ARE YOU TREATED UN-EQUALLY BECAUSE YOU ARE STRAIGHT??? ARE YOU DEPRIVED OF MARRIAGE, RIGHTS THAT COME WITH MARRIAGE, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, BECAUSE YOU ARE STRAIGHT? The beauty? THESE DAYS ITS UGLINESS of being a conservative is that you want and expect to be treated as an individual and not part of a movement ( RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS TRYING TO TELL EVERYONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY!) I mean they are so many groups for me to choose. Female, lesbian, hispanic, disable etc….I’d rather stick to conservative principles of freedom? FOR ALL – UNLESS YOU ARE GAY… less goverment? THATS A JOKE AND A HALF! and less taxes…FOR THE RICH! These things benefits us all ( DO THEY NOW–HOW???) in spite of our particular sub category.

As far as churches having rules….well they do so join the one that agrees with your particular vision of God and the after life. Or better yet don’t join one at all. It’s your choice and one of the many perks of living in America. – THEY CAN STAY THE HELL OUT OF POLITICS OR BE TAXED!

Now:
“I am sorry but i can’t undersand why would anybody want to be part of any religious institution that has never been too shy about expressing their disaproval of homosexuality.” – Republichick

Hmm, kind of like the Republican Party? I’m sure their arguments for why any gay person would be involved in either institution. Ask GP.

“Please replace “religious institution” with “political party” and ask again.”

see parrot the thing is, that only the lefties try to peddle their sexual or personal preferences for political purposes, much like the race pimps try to do. The beauty of being a conservative is that you want and expect to be treated as an individual and not part of a movement or specific group. I mean they are so many groups for me to choose. Female, lesbian, hispanic, disable etc….I’d rather stick to conservative principles of freedom, less goverment and less taxes. These things benefits us all in spite of our particular sub category.

As far as churches having rules….well they do so join the one that agrees with your particular vision of God and the after life. Or better yet don’t join one at all. It’s your choice and one of the many perks of living in America.

The fact of the matter is, there is a subculture within seminaries full of gay men who are not celibate. Furthermore, the pederasty incidents are overwhelming male-to-male in nature. To attempt to separate the two seems irresponsible at best. People …

Absolutely GPW. Just because I’d fight to the death for their right to control who attends their private school doesn’t mean I approve of their actions and that I should refrain from critizing them.

And to me, this seems so much worse than the banning of gay priests (as if that isn’t bad enough). Priests are representatives of the church, students are just kids.

Maybe I am not as blog savvy as you, but why are you advertising another thread that seems (at least by my observation) to have almost no relavance to this thread ? The thread you reference is still shown on the main page, so people interested can still go to it.

Are you looking to get create discussion in this thread’s topic, or create interest in yourself ? Of course I realize that by responding I am fulfilling the latter, but I think I am on to something here.

And even while I say they’re wrong, I oppose any (and all) legislation which would punish these institutions for (what I claim are) indefensible actions. That’s what freedom’s all about; letting the institutions be free to set their own policies without state coercion. And letting bloggers like Dirty Harry and me criticize them for it.

There are plenty of gay-friendly churches. Why join one that is not? Why send your kids to some bible-thumping bigot school? As several commenters have written – they’re private clubs. Don’t join them if they don’t suit you.

BTW is Synova the same as “syn?” I just love reading syn’s comments.

Here’s the start of that most interesting reveal:

http://gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=583#comment-4705

Assuming we do, let’s deal with a much more interesting and ultimately far more impactful discussion going on in a lower thread (“Getting Gay Marriage The Old Fashioned Way – Earning It”), where one ardent Gay Patriot has revealed himself to be, not a homosexual — but a bi-sexual simply making a choice at this time to be homosexual — which implies what the bigots have always said openly, that it being a choice, any human rights accruing to homosexuals must be “special rights” granted to a single group — i.e., bad policy. For the time being, this particular Gay Patriot has chosen to be a homosexual and is rightly very proud of who he calls his current “husband”. What’s interesting about the conversation is that it sheds more light than I’ve seen in my two weeks here on at least one person proudly wearing the sash “Gay Patriot”, while also criticizing virtually every initiative of gay leadership in this country. What do we have here? A partisan operation designed to make Gay Americans feel they’re asking asking for too much, too soon?

Queer Patriot has seen much more skillful subversion in his day and is therefore a bit skeptical of what he’s reading here from the Gay Patriots.

Remember, the thread is: “Getting Gay Marriage The Old Fashioned Way – Earning It”. Thanks plenty to the site masters for having introduced the subject matter.

I do not think GPW was attacking thier religious freedom. He was attacking their decision, not the right to make it. Just as this institution has the freedom to do this (I am reluctant to call it a church), Dan has the freedom to call their actions appalling.

I have that freedom too … and I do call their actions unexcussable and detrimental to the faith as a whole. But I understand this institution has the right to be bone-heads, and eventually will have to answer for it on the last day.

I thought it was tenets of faith. Silly me.

Quote republichick:
I am sorry but i can’t undersand why would anybody want to be part of any religious institution that has never been too shy about expressing their disaproval of homosexuality.
_____________________________

Please replace “religious institution” with “political party” and ask again.

Come on, they are all types of churches to accomodate all types of beliefs. Some are gay friendly and some are not. Nobody forced those mothers to send their kid to a fundie school anymore than any body forced gay men to join the Catholic Church. A little common sense goes a long way.

You know, its funny. You defend Arnold Schwarzenegger from his veto of a religious freedom bill, and you attack religious freedom here.