That’s what happens when discussions, good discussions, take place.

All the best

We did stray pretty far from Lisa’s original post, didn’t we!

Here’s what I wrote at my blog:
http://northwestohio.net/cblog/archives/358-The-Brunner-post,-journalism-and-conservatism.html#comments

Short version. The attack (and it clearly was an attack) on Sec. of St. Brunner through her son was clearly out of bounds. The point I made during my site’s comments was, “If we don’t stand by our conservative values, why bother with the political battle at all?” If conservatives are really “pro-family,” we have to live it, not just claim it.

Getting back to the original post topic, “Are the children of elected officials off limits?”, what are your opinions on the matter, for a Christian point of view, no attacks, I would really not have to repeat this; no attacks as I have not attacked anyone, just discussing is all I am doing.

No, not at all.

Just as you pointed out, some are a bit more dedicated to the conversions.

“When moral debates such as gay marriage or abstinence education arise, we may come to different conclusions on the right course of action, but we have to start from that same point: Love.”

I would agree and also an open mind is needed as there are some that are not so open to a different point of view, some, no attacks on a group, just stating what I have witnessed and had told to me.

And we all should be aware that we do not know what is right for another or as one older than me said to me;

Each one of us have a telephone and when the phone rings we pick it up and say Hello…there may be an answer and there may not. And when the caller says, Hello, the call has been answered.

Range of sexual attractions? You claim it “doesn’t relate” to the choices in lifetime relationships we make. Huh?

The fact that many (probably most) people believe sexuality is a moral as well as physical issue is similarly dismissed by you. You skip down the rhetorical road of my supposedly being “threatened” by the “information” teens “need to make wise choices” and the assumption I am “wish(ing) away the hormonal rush” of adolescence. If you are so much more enlightened than I, filleting my arguments like a chef, then why not explain why schools should be teaching all children that sexuality does not have a moral component? Better yet, explain why you demand gay marriage as right if you don’t believe sexuality has a moral component. As I stated in an earlier post, all the “fringe benefits” of marriage can be attained by a little lobbying for a tax break and a good personal affairs lawyer. If the marriage isn’t going to be built on a monogamous commitment, why get married at all?

I never said the gay marriage debate in any way is about “me,” by the way. I merely pointed out that I was on the same side as you. Yet, in the name of ideological purity, you cannot even accept allies in the debate who happen to be conservative. Is this about doing what’s right or just about exercising ideological power?

By the way, you can’t really get away with saying sexuality has a moral component where marriage is concerned and at the same time support teaching teens in the early years of learning about their sexuality that it does not have a moral component.

I also notice you simply ignore the idea of returning the responsibility of sex education to parents. You instead assume it will be “peers” who provide the sex education. Isn’t that precisely what has happened in the past 30 years WITH sex education in schools? Far too many parents have given up a crucial responsibility to their children because they are uncomfortable with the subject and have an easy out in letting the schools take care of it. The result? Increased single-parent homes, increased disease, increased high school drop-out rates and a crushing cycle of poverty now stretching into second and third generations. Sexual promiscuity among teens has repercussions, and the way teens are “taught” sexuality “information” today clearly encourages them to see sex as just another choice. Unfortunately, that choice, growing the more it is repeated, may well set the stage for a very difficult life for the teen and the resulting children and even grandchildren.

So, what say you? Should or should not parents be returned this responsibility?

The fact you need to give your assumptions about the future emotional well-being of MY children, calling them “timebombs,” is a perfect example of the personal attack method. Why did you stop there? Couldn’t you think of a good insult for my mother, too?

I have no worries about how my little stars will shine through their lives. They know my love – and God’s love – is not conditional on their actions. They already wish to do what is right, for God, for others and for themselves, not merely to please me but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Sure, they need to be disciplined when they stray, as any child does, but they know it is out of love. Why? Because we talk about it. As they grow, they are making more and more choices on their own – and making the right ones.

Just as their mistakes today have no bearing on my love for them, their mistakes tomorrow – on any issue – won’t separate them from my love. They also know the same is true on a much more vast scale in their relationship with God. Indeed, that is the crucial lesson I hope to impart, and hope to see them exercise in their own lives. I’ll make plenty of mistakes along the way myself, after all, needing reaffirmation of their love as much as (or more than) they’ll need mine. The world is full of fallible people.

You assume I think sex out of wedlock is the worst of all mistakes, the “end of the world.” I don’t believe that about any mistake. There is always forgiveness and redemption. My children know this, and are steady and strong, curious and courageous because of it.

Nevertheless, I do believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is a concession to the lie that we are controlled by our desires. It is just one such concession among many. For teens, however, it carries some very serious consequences which can shrink their self-esteem and set barriers to their future choices. Parents are far better placed to discuss this and similar issues than lowest-common-denominator public education.

I did lump “liberals” together, and apologize. I have seen the extremes of viewpoints under people who claim to be “liberal” and should know better.

The specific agenda which I and most other people of faith (Christian and non-Christian) feel impelled to battle against is the consistent de-moralization of all human actions. Use of public education to accomplish this becomes personal because it is aimed directly at our children. Your opposition to abstinence education indicates you, too, find the imposition of an agenda on children is wrong. (And yes, I admit abstinence education makes assumptions which are part of an agenda that sees sexuality as containing a moral component.) Therefore, couldn’t we at least agree that ALL such agendas should be kept out of public education?

NC –

“And now will come, well exactly, tolerance of Christians in short supply. Well this has never been confirmed for me, as there are billboards, churches and so on and the claim further fail to hold water, at least for me, when it is a veiled attempt to make the Christian faith the faith of the land as some are driven by the desire to convert everyone to the same faith as they are driven by scripture to do so.”

I think you are saying Christians are intolerant. Isn’t that attacking a group?

Christians don’t wish to convert “the land.” We do wish to witness to every person, one at a time – not by threats of doom for all but the strictest of denominations (which very few believe, anyway) but by loving, helping, caring, building and being there when no one else is willing – doing the things our Teacher taught us to do. We don’t get any heavenly brownie points for this, nor for conversions credited. We do it because we believe it is the right thing to do, and doing the right thing has internal, emotional and spiritual rewards.

The choice to commit to faith in God is personal, between each person and God. “Conversion” implies switching from one belief to another. I’d say most Christians (there I go, lumping again!) would argue the feeling is more one of “completion” – after searching for spiritual understanding, the basic Christian message of God’s absolute love and redemption through Jesus, God with us, puts all our prior pieces of enlightenment into one beautiful work of spiritual art. We don’t all believe the same details, but we do all believe God is Love. We may not each live up to that ideal in all our actions, myself included. That’s why faith is a reliance on God’s strength and forgiveness.

While we Christians are to be bold in our beliefs and actions, we are not to be judgmental – “intolerant” in today’s lexicon. Eternal decisions are entirely in the hands of the Good Shepherd, and there’s certainly nothing there to fear. We are called to act in love and to speak in defense of love, for God and for neighbor. When moral debates such as gay marriage or abstinence education arise, we may come to different conclusions on the right course of action, but we have to start from that same point: Love.

That you see this in personal terms is clear because you keep returning to the point that you support gay marriage. But this isn’t about you. It’s about the conservative agenda, and that is far larger than you, Sir.

If you are threatened by a teaching tool that begins with the words “If you choose to have sex,” and see that as code for “go have sex, defile yourself, disrespect yourself, etc.” — well, I can see why you’re in a dither about sex education. But I trust kids to see the word “if” and I also trust them to know that, ultimately, the choice is theirs whether we arm them with the information they need to make wise choices or we leave them in the risky position of relying on what they hear from their peers. I trust them to be less apt to make dumb choices when they’re informed.

You cannot wish away the hormonal rush these kids experience, and you cannot control it offering them nothing more than the advice that they just say no.

You might find life easier to withstand if you can get past the idea that having sex without benefit of marriage is the end of the world and the corruption of all that is good in a person. Your children are timebombs that are apt to explode in your face if you don’t — because they happen to be human beings. I hope they don’t go through life thinking they must hide from you an essential side of themselves in order to keep you whole.

That black, white, gray thing you mentioned doesn’t relate to anything I said. And as for lumping whole categories of people together, maybe you should re-read your post to see what you did with liberals. Certainly you understand discussions of this sort are about agendas and not individuals. And certainly you recognize a straw man argument when you use it.

By the way, my world is light and bright and happy, but thanks for your concern.

(With a wink to NC: No down ‘n dirty sex was performed in the production of this blog post.)

This is a thoughtful exchange of ideas and concepts between people.

“It is sad to see people so incredibly skeptical of the good intentions of others, regardless of whether one agrees or not with the specific issue. Why is it that so many liberals simply MUST attack people, rather than issues?

It is also sad that BHL and NC live in such a dark and hopeless world that they feel the need to lash out at whole categories of people.”

I am not attacking anyone. I am merely responding to what you state.

The issues are put forth by people as people make the issues, no attack there.

I am not a liberal, no attack there.

My comments may appear to be liberal, but in real life I am moderate and I try to stay in the middle.

I have never “attacked” anyone on this blog. I am guilty of trying to foster a dialogue to broader our understanding of others, no attack once again.

My world is filled with light and joy and I share in the thoughts of the creator and the prophets and I do subscribe to a “faith” of sorts and please show me where I have attacked anyone, please, and show me where I have labeled a whole group of people the same, please.

You noted that I mentioned Rev. Graham and did not “attack” him or label him the same as Pat Robertson.

There are no attacks from me, unless you consider a counter point of view an attack.

Now, with an attack free atmosphere;

“If that is the case made for gay marriage, certainly it can be made at least as strongly for my right to teach my values to my children without the forced government imposition of liberal values through the education system. After all, I pay my taxes like everyone else.”

“I’ll never understand why liberals feel it is perfectly fine and proper to impose their views through government action on others, often to the point of silencing the opposition.”

And like you I pay taxes and so my neighbors and relatives and I do not understand on the same thought why a group or groups would also seek to advance a value that is religiously based seeks to “impose” their values on the school system when it goes against my thoughts that religion and religious ideas should not be taught in public schools.

And like you I wonder why certain groups try and “silence” the debate by claiming that they are under “attack” when people have a counter point of view.

I am at a loss to understand the stance of allowing gay marriage and teaching religious values in schools.

Marriage of what ever stripe is a institution between adults and all years in school marriage was never discussed nor taught and religion was never taught or discussed except in a historical sense and marriage and religion we discussed that at home or in the church I once attended.

No attacks were made in the production of this blog post.

It is also sad that BHL and NC live in such a dark and hopeless world that they feel the need to lash out at whole categories of people. Isn’t that precisely what you claim to be against (on the gay rights issue)?

Scientific studies have consistently shown a range of attraction from purely homosexual to purely heterosexual for everyone. I would think, BHL, someone so emotionally involved in this issue wouldn’t turn attraction into some black-and-white, no-choice whatever affair, when there is no evidence this is the case. But, as is sadly typical, liberals only promote science when the science is on their side of the argument.

You speak of “control” by conservatives favoring abstinence education. You want your daughter informed of choices of protection should she choose sex prior to marriage. Great! Teach her! I’ll be doing the same for my daughter and son. But why do you feel it necessary to impose your belief that sex prior to marriage is somehow worthy of praise on my children through public education? You claim such protection-oriented education is “objective.” Have you sat through these lessons to see? Have you read the curriculum booklets? They typically begin with a statement, such as “If you choose to have sex …” That statement drains sexuality of all but its physical content. Thus, we are starting with an assumption that sex is a choice without moral consequence. If you feel that way, so be it. But why must my child be taught, with the authority of the school, such a limited, undignified view? Abstinence education makes assumptions based on self-respect – a moral position which empowers teens, particularly girls being pressured. If that moral position is so terrible for many liberals, then I would suggest a compromise which removes sex education from schools and returns the responsibility to parents.

BHL and NC both speak of “constitutional rights” which may not be specifically delineated in the founding document. If that is the case made for gay marriage, certainly it can be made at least as strongly for my right to teach my values to my children without the forced government imposition of liberal values through the education system. After all, I pay my taxes like everyone else.

I’ll never understand why liberals feel it is perfectly fine and proper to impose their views through government action on others, often to the point of silencing the opposition. I know that’s what liberalism is – state control of individual choices – but I don’t understand the “why.”

I don’t seek the “final word,” BHL. I simply wished to further the debate toward some points of common ground. Yet, even in agreeing on the need to include homosexual marriage as government-sanctioned unions, I have received nothing but attacks and rejection from you. Liberals building bridges? You have demonstrated very clearly why it is so difficult to find common political ground even on issues where people AGREE, simply because you label entire catagories of people as unworthy of working with.

Lisa -

I see you’ve moved the debate to its own posting. Thank you for your thoughts and the service you provide by hosting these forums.

There are quite a few fundamental rights that are not mentioned in the constitution and the general consencus is for some that if it is not mentioned then they do not exist and there are others that see that the constition is silent and wish to silence all discussion and all thoughts by passing an amendment that will set out what that right is.

Marraige has been as noted addressed on the state and local levels. Licenses are issued and so on. As things change the more they remain the same when the idea of “permitting” gays to marry there was and is an outcry that marraige will become weakened. As a hetereosexual man with a wife I fail to see how marraige will be weakened.

Yes, some will say that this verse and passage says this or that and there is verse and phrase that claims that beating ones wife is permissible.

And if a leader is shown making a statement that says, and some have, that these and those are not going to be saved as they are not worthy of being saved and it was not a commentary by a newscaster, blogger, quote or what ever and let us say that these people have their own television shows and channels and on, is it still an “attack” by the media when some of the conservative religious people want it their own way and make pretty silly statements that there is only way to heaven, the way they beleif and all others are false, attack then by the media, or is it just showing them in action.

Tolerance of others beliefs and not just those considered to be the mainstream is short supply by some, some.

And now will come, well exactly, tolerance of Christians in short supply. Well this has never been confirmed for me, as there are billboards, churches and so on and the claim further fail to hold water, at least for me, when it is a veiled attempt to make the Christian faith the faith of the land as some are driven by the desire to convert everyone to the same faith as they are driven by scripture to do so.

“If your experiences of judgmentalism were in personal situations (rather than media sources), you have been singularly unfortunate in the people you have met.”

I made it quite clear that my experiences are based on personal events and I will make it clear here once more and I am not alone as I know other people as in acquaintance, family and other friends that have the same, this is the way and yours is false tactics used.