Posted on 03/10/2015 9:17:20 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Why are so many conservatives, not just Republicans but I mean social-conservatives, unable to form communicate a coherent argument against this logic in interviews and debates?
The latest was Ben Carsons meltdown where he was asked on CNN if being gay was a choice and he replied absolutely, then he offered up prisoners who engage in same sex as his example, then later repudiated and apologized for his response, Ben Carson :
I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended
I mean just because some small fraction of Americans have sexual desires or feelings (that sounds so much more sensitive) that differ from the majoritys(us) ; why do we have to be forced to change our behavior to make it look normal and validate it(against our wills) .
A perfect example is Christian bakers and wedding photographers forced to certify gay weddings with their services which is a result of gay weddings for marriages in many states forced upon them by liberal judges.
The whole premise is because they feel differently than we feel, we must change OUR behavior.
Why cant those like Ben Carson who disagree with gay marriage form a coherent argument against this?
Oh, Carson was absolutely scientific and correct.
That does not mean there is no biological aspect as well.
Quite opposite, libs always support their progression with lots of logical and scientific SOUNDING arguments in the political arena,
and the sole political defense to that intellectual assault is supposed to be ‘Because God says NO’
You guys really think that homosexuality is good for society but God created it as a temptation just to test our morality, like the forbidden fruit of knowledge?
In this day and age its like fighting nukes with spears, spears just because that is why they used to fight 10,000 years ago..
There is a reason why Israels use modern weapons to fight the muzzies.
If a male (by DNA) can say “I need to be re-assigned, I feel female. Respect my feelings,” THEN can a white guy (by DNA) say “I need to be racially re-assigned, I feel so black, respect my feelings?” Why not?
They may not be able to control their feelings. At the end of the day, though, they are capable of deciding how to act on those feelings. Under the above, since alcholism is classified as a "disease", then so should being queer. After all, alcoholics aren't responsible for their desires.
Marriages or socially-accepted unions between same-sex partners are rare or nonexistent in other cultures, Judeo-Christian or not. The first laws enabling same-sex marriage were not enacted until the first decade of the 21st century.
Children, families, and societies do not flourish when aberrant (non-procreative) sex is valorized. Every generation has seen this. That's why historic and customary laws are what they are. They never generated volume of explanation, because it was never before considered debatable. To most people it was obvious.
It is now, in about half the states.
Closing your eyes doesn't really make the problem go away.
Please define "bad" without using any moral foundation or your own personal opinion.
Their arguments in favor are almost entirely based on emotion, not logic or reason. Almost all of their arguments revolve around it’s a “civil right”, marriage “equality”, all discrimination is bad, etc. In other words, it’s not “fair” that homosexuals cannot marry one another.
Nevermind the fact that there is no legitimate government interest in same sex “marriage”.
You don’t make any sense.
What exactly are you getting at here? I absolutely believe that homosexuality should be called what it is...wrong. It should not be acknowledged as an "alternate orientation" the way Ben Carson implies. Just as we should continue to say dishonesty is wrong, even though we don't stone kids who cheat on tests or parents who tell lies.
My point was that all law is based on some kind of morality. A deed is used to memorialize my moral obligation to recognize your right to a piece of property rather than "survival of the fittest" or strongest, the way the animal kingdom works. Even something as innocuous as a stop sign finds its support in the Scriptural explanation of the value of human life and preventing unnecessary injury to valuable humans.
Until, or unless, the country in general wishes to return to a morality based law, we will have the drift further and further to "preferences". And, you will never be able to persuade anyone that your preferences are better than theirs.
I trust you were aiming this as sickoflibs. I am all in on your perspective. And, I don’t think you have to say it is your opinion...it is fact. Marriage was initially defined by God with Adam and Eve. All societies have recognized that this is the ideal, although several have added multiple wives as a sort of “property” deviation. From the beginning of time it was one woman, one man...until one of them died.
The campaign to make homosexual marriage legal has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It is an effort to inculcate homosexuality into the mainstream of our culture. To accomplish this marriage must be made meaningless. Marriage should be between a same sex partner, a child, a dog, an auto, a tree or whatever any perv selecst as a significant other. The destruction of morality is the true goal of same sex marriage.
Exactly!
I hear your frustration!
Pick up a copy of U Turn by David Barton & George Barna. They have some excellent stats on homosexuals, & something no one wants to acknowledge: the real agenda is to destroy the institution of marriage totally. That way individuals won’t have a family connection but will see the State as the family. It’s just the communist playbook.
Every FReeper should put a copy of this book in the hands of a conservative legislator.
I like that.
I never hear a Republican (or so-con) on TV pointing out the problem with equating gays to blacks.
Obama equates them regularly now.
Your idea of 'moral foundation' is not the same as everyone else who votes, but...
Like when men raised by two mommies (no daddies) start torturing animals, molesting boys or wearing dresses in repeatable patterns.
Seems like these are great examples of something gone wrong.
Really? In some African tribes, torturing animals is not considered immoral. I believe there is (or recently was) a tribe in New Guinea which valued deception based upon their pagan rituals. How do you argue that your “opinion” of “bad” is the right one. Again, until, or unless, the country acknowledges the moral foundation of law, we will continue to drift into the darkness of “every man does what is right in his own eyes.”.
LOL, I knew you'd have to resort to a ridiculous example to make your case that everyone has to be Christian to oppose homosexual behavior.
And that one is.
Using your ridiculous logic PETA is those most Godly organization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.