[The Urban Sombrero]

You can be sure that, in the typical church service, you will find people meeting the descriptions of the "sinners" you mentioned in your earlier post. I would add that that would be the case at any gathering of six or more human beings past the age of majority at any given time.

However, I don't worry about gossips, tax cheats, liars, etc. infecting me with disease just by being in their presence. I am not convinced that that is the case with the homos regardless of what the politically correct CDC may tell us. I believe in freedom of association, I choose not to associate with homos. And, therefore, I won't.

And, I choose not to put same sex folks in a whole other category of "all have sinned."

[TheRealThing]

And, I choose not to put same sex folks in a whole other category of "all have sinned."

Same sex folks? Oh that just sounds so warm and fuzzy.

You missed the key to understanding the scourge of homosexuality, not that you are interested in learning, but as the judgment which befell Sodom demonstrates, God does choose to put same sex folks in a whole other category.

Romans 1:28 (KJV)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Since they (the homosexual crowd) did not like to think or give any sort of credence to God in their considerations and turned their backs to Him, He gave them over to a reprobate mind and turned His back on them. What could be more clear?

This is both a forecast and a warning of the scourge of homosexuality.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Same sex folks? Oh that just sounds so warm and fuzzy.

You missed the key to understanding the scourge of homosexuality, not that you are interested in learning, but as the judgment which befell Sodom demonstrates, God does choose to put same sex folks in a whole other category.

Romans 1:28 (KJV)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Since they (the homosexual crowd) did not like to think or give any sort of credence to God in their considerations and turned their backs to Him, He gave them over to a reprobate mind and turned His back on them. What could be more clear?

This is both a forecast and a warning of the scourge of homosexuality.

Were you following along? The idea was put forth that hangin' with gossips and liars and thieves is one thing, but even being around homosexuals is another. The notion was presented that the CDC might be misleading the public, and being around "homos" might expose one to HIV through casual contact. The tone and verbage of the post dripped with a disdain that strikes me as not of the Mind of Christ. Nothing you posted does anything to change that.

[TheRealThing]

Were you following along? The idea was put forth that hangin' with gossips and liars and thieves is one thing, but even being around homosexuals is another. The notion was presented that the CDC might be misleading the public, and being around "homos" might expose one to HIV through casual contact. The tone and verbage of the post dripped with a disdain that strikes me as not of the Mind of Christ. Nothing you posted does anything to change that.

I started that line of thought if you'd care to go back through the posts.

Run said homosexuality is a mental disease.

Memo said he wasn't concerned that gossips and whatever give us diseases by just being in their presence.

You side stepped that point entirely, and returned to your assertion, (to which Memo had not addressed BTW) that homosexuality is pedestrian in nature by comparison to your list.

I redressed your error with another post.

That sound about right RV?

So, allow me to point something out to you. The posters are all talking past each other just a bit there. Everyone making the points they chose to emphasize. And I can appreciate that. My point was not to castigate or call for the shunning or isolation of homosexuals, but to point out that God spoke of the significance of a preeminent surge, or acceptance of, the practice of homosexual activity in any society. Such marks the end, and in the same argument ending terms as being buried in fire and brimstone.

Let me try to put it in different terms. Some things change people in a way that cannot be undone, ever. Talk to a Dad who had taken his young son out on a hunting trip, only to see it end in horror. The gun went off and the son ultimately died of his wound. From that day forward, life as that Dad knew it was over. He cannot go back even though he'd give anything and everything to do it. That day was a signpost in the life of that Dad and his precious son.

As I pointed out, marked homosexuality such as we see in our day serves as a signpost. God has pointed that out, and I for one can see it for what it is apart from liberal talking points. Men are inherently flawed and they are born dead in trespass and sin. Only God's perfect sacrifice in the Person of His precious Son's death on the cross will save any of us. His world, His Creation, His rules. Therefore God's warning to the homosexual on an individual level. He says man, if you do this, I will have no choice but to turn my back on you. Hence, some things cannot be changed in eternity as well.

The signpost for all mankind is the Cross. God cannot and will not forgive those who reject so great a salvation. The measure of the horror and the penalty for sin, is reflected in the measure of sacrifice of God giving His own precious Son to die in our place. Because we deserve to die. So, the homosexual already has the Advocate of advocates in the Person of God's Son. If He can't get it done I doubt sincerely that you can.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I started that line of thought if you'd care to go back through the posts.

Run said homosexuality is a mental disease.

Memo said he wasn't concerned that gossips and whatever give us diseases by just being in their presence.

You side stepped that point entirely, and returned to your assertion, (to which Memo had not addressed BTW) that homosexuality is pedestrian in nature by comparison to your list.

I redressed your error with another post.

That sound about right RV?

So, allow me to point something out to you. The posters are all talking past each other just a bit there. Everyone making the points they chose to emphasize. And I can appreciate that. My point was not to castigate or call for the shunning or isolation of homosexuals, but to point out that God spoke of the significance of a preeminent surge, or acceptance of, the practice of homosexual activity in any society. Such marks the end, and in the same argument ending terms as being buried in fire and brimstone.

Let me try to put it in different terms. Some things change people in a way that cannot be undone, ever. Talk to a Dad who had taken his young son out on a hunting trip, only to see it end in horror. The gun went off and the son ultimately died of his wound. From that day forward, life as that Dad knew it was over. He cannot go back even though he'd give anything and everything to do it. That day was a signpost in the life of that Dad and his precious son.

As I pointed out, marked homosexuality such as we see in our day serves as a signpost. God has pointed that out, and I for one can see it for what it is apart from liberal talking points. Men are inherently flawed and they are born dead in trespass and sin. Only God's perfect sacrifice in the Person of His precious Son's death on the cross will save any of us. His world, His Creation, His rules. Therefore God's warning to the homosexual on an individual level. He says man, if you do this, I will have no choice but to turn my back on you. Hence, some things cannot be changed in eternity as well.

The signpost for all mankind is the Cross. God cannot and will not forgive those who reject so great a salvation. The measure of the horror and the penalty for sin, is reflected in the measure of sacrifice of God giving His own precious Son to die in our place. Because we deserve to die. So, the homosexual already has the Advocate of advocates in the Person of God's Son. If He can't get it done I doubt sincerely that you can.

And, yet again, I am not serving as an apologist nor advocate for homosexuality. If you are suggesting that the widespread trumpeting of the homosexual lobby to be recognized as a group facing discrimination symbolizes that the end is near, you will really get no gruff from me. However, if you are suggesting that a nation's Constitution, deeply reverencing freedom of conscience, is meant to function like a southern Baptist deacon board, I disagree. Every Christian Church can refuse to marry same sex couples, refuse them membership, excommunicate them. That is their choice and right if conscience compel. However, the United States of America is not a church, was not intended to be a church, and by law is not governed as a church.

[Memo Luna]

And, I choose not to put same sex folks in a whole other category of "all have sinned."

Some call it "horse poop" while others call it "horse manure". You call them "same sex folks" while I call them "queers".

In the end we are referring to the same abnormal ilk.

[TheRealThing]

And, yet again, I am not serving as an apologist nor advocate for homosexuality. If you are suggesting that the widespread trumpeting of the homosexual lobby to be recognized as a group facing discrimination symbolizes that the end is near, you will really get no gruff from me. However, if you are suggesting that a nation's Constitution, deeply reverencing freedom of conscience, is meant to function like a southern Baptist deacon board, I disagree. Every Christian Church can refuse to marry same sex couples, refuse them membership, excommunicate them. That is their choice and right if conscience compel. However, the United States of America is not a church, was not intended to be a church, and by law is not governed as a church.

Well, it certainly seems that way. And frankly, any who would dare to advocate for the homosexual must take his case before the Living God. In fact, even if he should win-over every last person on the planet, he'd still be wrong because God certainly makes no mistakes.

Likewise the homosexual lobby means nothing to this conversation. Rather it is society's acceptance of the practice that proves the end is near. Homosexual lobby, hardly. No, it's the acceptance of homosexuality by society which is proof positive that the end is near. And by way of offering proof of US acceptance, consider the recent activities of our President, who reportedly just got through blowing 700 million in an effort to advocate for acceptance of homosexuality, not here in the US where victory is perceived to be already in hand, but overseas. Not to mention that I have personally heard him make proud reference to his efforts on behalf of the gay population on a number of occasions.

EXCERPT---
"One African activist describes this as “blowback.” And Obama’s effort has been very aggressive, with the administration making the homosexuality agenda “an integral part of American foreign policy,” as the Times puts it, and tying development aid to acceptance of it."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/for...t-ill-will

In other words, if they want our money they'll have to comply with homosexual acceptance. Added to that are Hillary's all-in proclamations out on the campaign trail. Where she seizes every opportunity to contrast what she sees as tolerant Democrats against the supposed, intolerant racist Republicans. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for same sex marriage in every state with their very unfortunate affront to God. And little tin horn governors like Steve Beshear in gleeful anticipation of what was to come, actually locked up a court clerk who would not issue gays marriage licenses in Kentucky. The house of cards is falling to the joy and merriment of the Lord's enemies.

And lastly, the deacon board is guaranteed the right to function out of sight of the prying eyes of government. The wall of separation was built around the Church to keep government out, not keep the Church in. No true Christian I have ever met thinks the US is a theocracy and no suggestion or faintest inference to that end has been hinted at in this thread.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Some call it "horse poop" while others call it "horse manure". You call them "same sex folks" while I call them "queers".

In the end we are referring to the same abnormal ilk.

We might be referring to the same people, but not in the same spirit.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, it certainly seems that way. And frankly, any who would dare to advocate for the homosexual must take his case before the Living God. In fact, even if he should win-over every last person on the planet, he'd still be wrong because God certainly makes no mistakes.

Likewise the homosexual lobby means nothing to this conversation. Rather it is society's acceptance of the practice that proves the end is near. Homosexual lobby, hardly. No, it's the acceptance of homosexuality by society which is proof positive that the end is near. And by way of offering proof of US acceptance, consider the recent activities of our President, who reportedly just got through blowing 700 million in an effort to advocate for acceptance of homosexuality, not here in the US where victory is perceived to be already in hand, but overseas. Not to mention that I have personally heard him make proud reference to his efforts on behalf of the gay population on a number of occasions.

EXCERPT---
"One African activist describes this as “blowback.” And Obama’s effort has been very aggressive, with the administration making the homosexuality agenda “an integral part of American foreign policy,” as the Times puts it, and tying development aid to acceptance of it."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/for...t-ill-will

In other words, if they want our money they'll have to comply with homosexual acceptance. Added to that are Hillary's all-in proclamations out on the campaign trail. Where she seizes every opportunity to contrast what she sees as tolerant Democrats against the supposed, intolerant racist Republicans. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for same sex marriage in every state with their very unfortunate affront to God. And little tin horn governors like Steve Beshear in gleeful anticipation of what was to come, actually locked up a court clerk who would not issue gays marriage licenses in Kentucky. The house of cards is falling to the joy and merriment of the Lord's enemies.

And lastly, the deacon board is guaranteed the right to function out of sight of the prying eyes of government. The wall of separation was built around the Church to keep government out, not keep the Church in. No true Christian I have ever met thinks the US is a theocracy and no suggestion or faintest inference to that end has been hinted at in this thread.

Those who from religious conviction believe homosexuality is a sin are not functioning out of bigotry. However, the living of a same sex lifestyle is a matter of freedom of conscience to civil government. It seems to me that the right to have a "marriage" or "civil union" recognized by the civil authority is a basic provision of law. While I agree the Framers thought that mindfulness of God was important to a society, I also know Jefferson, for example, took everything that reason could not explain out of the Gospels and read that. Not exactly an evangelical. Many of the Framers were Deists. Again, not exactly evangelical. I do not think that the civil government granting same sex couples the rights of heterosexual couples is about kicking dirt in God's face. I think it is more about an expression of justice for all, regardless of religious and personal and political differences.

[Hoot Gibson]

There is no right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on marriage, so legislating it should be left to the states. Having marriages recognized by state government is a privilege, not a right. People have a God given right to associate with people of their choice and to procreate. Rights are not created by governments, governments restrict rights, and good governments do so only with the consent of the governed.

[The Urban Sombrero]

There is no right to marriage. The Constitution is silent on marriage, so legislating it should be left to the states. Having marriages recognized by state government is a privilege, not a right. People have a God given right to associate with people of their choice and to procreate. Rights are not created by governments, governments restrict rights, and good governments do so only with the consent of the governed.

At least one Framer Preambled that a union could establish justice, which, it seems to me, equal protection under the law denied to a group because of sexual orientation is unjust.

[The Urban Sombrero]

If Oklahoma wants to relocate homosexuals to a neglected part of an Indian reservation, I believe the federal government has sanction to stop them.

[The Urban Sombrero]

By the way, holding that homosexuals are entitled to equal protection under the law by civil authority does not offend God.

[The Urban Sombrero]

In fact, doing good to those who oppose you and disagree with...now, wait, who taught that?

[Hoot Gibson]

At least one Framer Preambled that a union could establish justice, which, it seems to me, equal protection under the law denied to a group because of sexual orientation is unjust.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the Constitution does not address marriage, so it should not be a federal matter. The 10th Amendment has not been repealed. Couples are issued marriage licenses, just as drivers are issued licenses by their state of residence.

Driving, like a government recognized marriage, is a privilege, not a right. We have a right to be married in a church of our choice and we have a right not to be married at all. It should be left to state governments to define which marriages they endorse with licenses.

Gay marriage is not a big issue for me, but I strongly believe that the federal government has no right to redefine marriage, which throughout history has almost always been defined as a union between one woman and one man. My preference is to have our Constitutional rights restored by the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who do not fabricate law based on wishful thinking or opinion polls. The federal government has way too much power and it is time for the American people take back that power and return it to the states, where it belongs.

If California's residents wants to legalize gay marriage, that is okay with me. If Kentucky wants to make gay marriage illegal, that is even better. The residents of both states should be free to make that decision without any coercion by the federal courts.

[The Urban Sombrero]

"Hey, if California wants to let darkies go to school with whites, that's fine. If Kentucky doesn't, even better. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution the races have to attend the same schools. The Tenth Amendment, man, the Tenth Amendment.". If the Constitution cannot address basic discrimination unless Alabama concurs, or the suffering must wait 140 years, then it is a dead document and belongs on the scrap heap of history as a failed experiment in liberty and justice for all.

[TheRealThing]

At least one Framer Preambled that a union could establish justice, which, it seems to me, equal protection under the law denied to a group because of sexual orientation is unjust.

I knew you could never resist the urgings of your activist circular anti logic for long. Sexual depravity and the unthinkable writhings associated therewith, are not protected rights under the Constitution.

[Hoot Gibson]

"Hey, if California wants to let darkies go to school with whites, that's fine. If Kentucky doesn't, even better. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution the races have to attend the same schools. The Tenth Amendment, man, the Tenth Amendment.". If the Constitution cannot address basic discrimination unless Alabama concurs, or the suffering must wait 140 years, then it is a dead document and belongs on the scrap heap of history as a failed experiment in liberty and justice for all.

Same ole RV, can't discuss much of anything without implying somebody is a racist. I prefer spending my time better and on better people. Good night.

[TheRealThing]

By the way, holding that homosexuals are entitled to equal protection under the law by civil authority does not offend God.

But holding that they are entitled to special protections and privilege because they are homosexual does.

[TheRealThing]

In fact, doing good to those who oppose you and disagree with...now, wait, who taught that?

The same One Who said not to cast our pearls before swine?

[TheRealThing]

"Hey, if California wants to let darkies go to school with whites, that's fine. If Kentucky doesn't, even better. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution the races have to attend the same schools. The Tenth Amendment, man, the Tenth Amendment.". If the Constitution cannot address basic discrimination unless Alabama concurs, or the suffering must wait 140 years, then it is a dead document and belongs on the scrap heap of history as a failed experiment in liberty and justice for all.

You're white.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You're white.

I was born with less pigment. True enough. But, "in Christ Jesus there is no black or white" is my Mind of Christ thinking.

[TheRealThing]

Those who from religious conviction believe homosexuality is a sin are not functioning out of bigotry. However, the living of a same sex lifestyle is a matter of freedom of conscience to civil government. It seems to me that the right to have a "marriage" or "civil union" recognized by the civil authority is a basic provision of law. While I agree the Framers thought that mindfulness of God was important to a society, I also know Jefferson, for example, took everything that reason could not explain out of the Gospels and read that. Not exactly an evangelical. Many of the Framers were Deists. Again, not exactly evangelical. I do not think that the civil government granting same sex couples the rights of heterosexual couples is about kicking dirt in God's face. I think it is more about an expression of justice for all, regardless of religious and personal and political differences.

And you'd be wrong. God established the institution of marriage and He did so between the first couple to grace this planet, Adam and Eve. And framers notwithstanding, no man has the authority to overrule God's law or interlope upon His purview.

Activist judges passed law which countermands His specific and clear instruction to the contrary. That being, in the sexual sense, men working with men that which is unseemly. Not exactly a complex concept.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And you'd be wrong. God established the institution of marriage and He did so between the first couple to grace this planet, Adam and Eve. And framers notwithstanding, no man has the authority to overrule God's law or interlope upon His purview.

Activist judges passed law which countermands His specific and clear instruction to the contrary. That being, in the sexual sense, men working with men that which is unseemly. Not exactly a complex concept.

In a sense, God gave every man the choice to follow or usurp his law. God made Adam. God made Eve. God made Rick. God made Steve. The purpose of God was that Eve be a companion, a helpmate, to Adam, and that they be united, becoming one flesh. No question about that for Hebrew or Christian. In this dispensation, multitudes ignore the purposes of God. Yet, a civil government still provides EVERYONE "liberty and Justice for all.". I may disagree vehemently with a man's lifestyle, and mourn over the direction of his soul, and grieve over the consequences, clear to the eye and hidden, of ignoring God's ways and purposes; however, I do not force nor compel his conscience, but rather uphold a system of law that protects his liberty to choose the path he desires and ensures he is granted Justice and equal protection under that law. This is the highest vision of human freedom and liberty a civil government can strive for.

[TheRealThing]

In a sense, God gave every man the choice to follow or usurp his law. God made Adam. God made Eve. God made Rick. God made Steve. The purpose of God was that Eve be a companion, a helpmate, to Adam, and that they be united, becoming one flesh. No question about that for Hebrew or Christian. In this dispensation, multitudes ignore the purposes of God. Yet, a civil government still provides EVERYONE "liberty and Justice for all.". I may disagree vehemently with a man's lifestyle, and mourn over the direction of his soul, and grieve over the consequences, clear to the eye and hidden, of ignoring God's ways and purposes; however, I do not force nor compel his conscience, but rather uphold a system of law that protects his liberty to choose the path he desires and ensures he is granted Justice and equal protection under that law. This is the highest vision of human freedom and liberty a civil government can strive for.

Well, once all the smoke from that oratory clears, we are still faced with one inescapable truth. Our government has recently chosen to grant special conditions and privilege to a group whose only distinction is a sexually depraved lifestyle. They had to usurp God's authority to do it. And all that blather about equal protection is straight from the liberal think tank. And I disagree with your last sentence in every way possible. The highest vision of human freedom and liberty was through much blood and sacrifice, handed down to this nation by the founding fathers in form of a document called the US Constitution.

You want to see it on the 'scrap heap of history', another phrase you picked up from me BTW, because you despise traditional America. And it's like I keep telling you, hang in there. Everything you desire is coming by way of the Tribulation.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well, once all the smoke from that oratory clears, we are still faced with one inescapable truth. Our government has recently chosen to grant special conditions and privilege to a group whose only distinction is a sexually depraved lifestyle. They had to usurp God's authority to do it. And all that blather about equal protection is straight from the liberal think tank. And I disagree with your last sentence in every way possible. The highest vision of human freedom and liberty was through much blood and sacrifice, handed down to this nation by the founding fathers in form of a document called the US Constitution.

You want to see it on the 'scrap heap of history', another phrase you picked up from me BTW, because you despise traditional America. And it's like I keep telling you, hang in there. Everything you desire is coming by way of the Tribulation.

The Framers "highest vision" of freedom and liberty allowed human beings to be held as chattel. But, viewing the Constitutional "we" to include everyone, in other words expanding the vision of the Framers, can bring about the highest vision of freedom and liberty a civil government can offer.

[TheRealThing]

SOMBRERO POST #6

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, women could not vote, had no legal standing, and those with black skin could be counted as property like a cow or a couch. It may be convenient to ignore history, but it isn't honest or helpful if we want to accurately assess the Constitution and the people who wrote it, who were white men, not gods in waiting. Pump the brakes, folks, on America as The City of God.

It's election season again and you're out to do your civic duty, I got that. And thus as the quote from above reveals, we are again coming full circle. Forgive me, but I already saw my stop whiz by a couple of times, as have Truth and Hoot. And as fate would have it, I see in the quote below, that it is coming up again. So I'll be getting off the circular logic express about where I got on. Not to despair though, you can always sign on under one of your 'other' personalities on here. I saw that you already 'liked' one of your own posts, the one above in fact, when you made your Mexican debut in the Scalia thread, so that should keep you occupied for a few minutes.


SOMBRERO POST #122

The Framers "highest vision" of freedom and liberty allowed human beings to be held as chattel. But, viewing the Constitutional "we" to include everyone, in other words expanding the vision of the Framers, can bring about the highest vision of freedom and liberty a civil government can offer.

[Hoot Gibson]

^Some people get a kick out of wasting other people's time while at the same time making themselves almost irresistible targets. I decided to give Mexican Hat a chance to show that he had changed but it did not take long for him to revert to true form. His obsession with homosexuality is not my problem and I refuse to allow it to become my problem.

[TheRealThing]

^Some people get a kick out of wasting other people's time while at the same time making themselves almost irresistible targets. I decided to give Mexican Hat a chance to show that he had changed but it did not take long for him to revert to true form. His obsession with homosexuality is not my problem and I refuse to allow it to become my problem.

Isn't that the truth? I'll show up to vote against the lunacy every chance I get, and I'll call out sin. But I've had it with riding the train around CircleVille. :igiveup:

Some months back I happened to see an old rerun of the Twilight Zone. The plot was a bit bizarre, and classically straight from the mind of Rod Serling. A young couple upon awakening one fateful morning, found themselves in a strange but beautiful little town. Everything looked perfect. Every blade of grass, every tree, every house was flawless. The problem? Every bird in the trees was stuffed, as were the dogs and all representations of life, even the grass was mere carpet. After much ado, to their great relief, they finally managed to find their way to the station and got on board a passenger train.

Thinking they had escaped the nightmare, they rejoiced as the train departed. Only to see it pull right back up to the same station in a couple short minutes. It was a circular track, around a town with no heart, no soul, no life and no truth. The whole thing was a sham dreamed up by somebody who believed he knew what was best for everybody.

The short story was tailor made to analogize the hollowness of the liberal vision. That vision the product of shallow people, devoid of life experiences outside of the classroom, but who none the less believe they know what is best for the people of the world.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The whole thing is not trampling on freedom of conscience in a civil Constitutional democracy. You fellers want to tell people what they can't do based on your religious convictions. Also, I have zero other names and am on zero other sites, and that is letting my "yea be yea.". Sheesh.