Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: biblewonk
Sodomites knew their place back then. -biblewonk
Your phraseology was awkward for me. -NutCrackerBoy
I understand, most people hate the word sodomite. -biblewonk

Heh. It was also the phrase "know their place," which hit me the wrong way, but in the end, I must admit my views amount to a sense in which homosexuals should stay "in the closet."

I categorically reject the notion that it is good for gay marriages and gay adoptions and gay politicians and gay teachers to be openly acknowledged to children and all. I reject the notion that unions between gays are to be held up publicly as equally valuable as marriage. -NutCrackerBoy
But if there is no sin in what they do in private, to which I don't agree, then why do you take issue with the things listed. Otherwise there must be something wrong with two men sleeping together. -biblewonk

I believe my positions are entirely reasonable for a Burkean conservative who is essentially a skeptic with respect to God.

Tradition and religion are the very wellspring of the fiery spirit of a nation. The tradition and religion of this nation are Christian and so great deference should be paid to Christian values. Why? In order to preserve the nation's instituions, which include organized churches, marriage, Aristotelian virtue, and so on. People raising their children within their traditions are what secure our liberties beyond just one generation.

Moreover, so-called prejudices are often distinctions that help preserve a way of life. It is not possible or desirable to remove all prejudice.

With that backdrop, how did our founders go about creating a government of men? And how do we carry on to sustain our liberties? I don't believe they would think it feasible to accomplish much without the American people's good traditions. And neither should we.

The legal institution of marriage helps to preserve traditional and religiously based marriage. Not all married couples will have children. But a stable institution of marriage is invaluable to sustaining stable family structures through the generations.

The word marriage is defined to be about what I have just said. Men and women are not equal, they have different roles biologically and traditionally. Homosexual couples are not equal to married couples. Their coupling plays almost no role traditionally or biologically.

The public roles of men and women and marriage are important. The role models need to be pretty clear-cut. It is not a pretense! Little girls aspire to be like the pretty brides. Little boys aspire to be like the brave soldiers and skillful athletes.

Young adults who are different (e.g. homosexuals or brainy nerds like I was) have ample access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Legal recognition and benefits for gay unions is not needed and is not desirable.

316 posted on 11/19/2003 11:07:47 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]


To: NutCrackerBoy
For a "brainy nerd", your post includes an amazing array of absurd assertions. Feeling a little lazy, I'll simply the easiest:

"Moreover, so-called prejudices are often distinctions that help preserve a way of life. It is not possible or desirable to remove all prejudice."

according to Websters:

prejudice - \Prej"u*dice\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Prejudiced; p. pr. & vb. n. Prejudicing.] [Cf. F. pr['e]judicier. See Prejudice, n.] 1. To cause to have prejudice; to prepossess with ; to bias the mind of, by hasty and incorrect notions; to give an unreasonable bent to, as to one side or the other of a cause; as, to prejudice a critic or a juryman.

Suffer not any beloved study to prejudice your mind so far as to despise all other learning. --I. Watts

2. To obstruct or injure by prejudices, or by previous bias of the mind; hence, generally, to hurt; to damage; to injure; to impair; as, to prejudice a good cause.

So NutCrackerboy: Do you see anything worthy here? By definition: "opinions formed without due knowledge or examination" ...prejudice is an act born of ignorance. You are saying that such ignorance is essential in "preserving a way of life".

The obvious question is: What or whose way of life should be preserved in this manner? Certainly not the one of those who are the targets of such prejudice.

Not your problem, I guess.
317 posted on 11/19/2003 12:29:35 PM PST by Typesbad (Keep it all in perspective)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson