Homosexuality and the Corruption of a Culture

California Republic.org ^ | 02/27/04 | John Mark Reynolds

[SW6906]

Ping!

[Eala]

Thanks.

even in the pulpit, traditional religious teachings will not be safe.

We're getting close to that, I fear.

[BurgessLau]

Individual and governmental morality (which means politics) should be based on a philosophy of reason -- not on fideism, Biblicism, traditionalism, dictation by the majority ("democracy"), consensus (majoritarianism), pragmatism, or multiculturalist averaging. On the issue of "gay marriage" my position is this: I see no justification for government getting involved in *any* marriages -- homosexual or heterosexual. To do so is socialism. The state's only function here should be to adjudicate contract disputes in case of dissolution.

[EdReform]

Bump

An excerpt from "Culture of Vice"

"The homosexual cause has moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. As Robert Reilly notes a society can withstand any number of person who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for whose moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war...

The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right - as heterosexuals have already - to see government and society affirm our lives.” Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want “government and society” to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. “Coming out of the closet” can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered....

The Stamp of Normality

The American Child After Same-Sex Marriage

What "Gay" Marriage Will Mean for our Children

[rj45mis]

"I see no justification for government getting involved in *any* marriages -- homosexual or heterosexual. To do so is socialism."

If this were the case, who or what enforces the laws that hold in check the destructive behaviors of a depraved society?

[rj45mis]

"Individual and governmental morality (which means politics) should be based on a philosophy of reason -- not on fideism, Biblicism, traditionalism, dictation by the majority ("democracy"), consensus (majoritarianism), pragmatism, or multiculturalist averaging."

I disagree. Individual morality is not based on politics, rather, politics is based on morality. If God-fearing individuals relied on a philosophy of reason (as you suggest) we would, of all people, to be pitied. You are speaking from a secularistic mindset and it doesn't match up with Scriptures.

[b9]

Do you believe government should protect children?

[AreaMan]

I question the article's conclusions, because I reject the underlying philosophy.

The articles conclusions are correct for the same reason that your reasoning is defective.

People are not robots made out of meat.

[FormerLib]

The state's only function here should be to adjudicate contract disputes in case of dissolution.

And in doing so the government courts become the enforcers of the marriage contract. Do the people have a right to decide which contracts their government courts will enforce? I say that they do; clearly you say that they do not.

[FormerLib]

I was referring to the comments made by BurgessLau, not the article by John Mark Reynolds.

[FormerLib]

The problem arises when they confuse a secularist mindset with an American one. They are actually quite incompatible.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." --George Washington

[Pietro]

"philosophy of reason"

That's been tried. I believe it was called the Reign of Terror.

[AreaMan]

He has constructed a logical discourse on the corruption of homosexuality, but few will change their thinking as a result.

Unfortunately you are right.

Ultimately I don't think people can refute the logic so they chafe at the moral reasoning. People just don't like being told how to behave even if the rules come from God.

[imfleck]

I have to admit that after reading this article I, for the first time, wondered: Other than moral implications, what really changes if gays are permitted to marry?

[kanawa]

Other than moral implications, what really changes if gays are permitted to marry?

The definition of marriage as understood and passed down to me by my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents...etc.,etc.,etc.

[b9]

"Other than moral implications, what really changes if gays are permitted to marry?"

Other than "light", what defines sunshine?
Other than "harmony", what defines music?
Other than "truth", what defines honesty?

Other than "gravity", what holds the world in place?
What kind of a universe do you live in?

[Paul C. Jesup]

You really need to take a look at this comic and think about where your priorities should be directed: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089897/posts

[AreaMan]

Other than moral implications, what really changes if gays are permitted to marry?

I can sympathize with that. But bear in mind all of our laws utlimately relate to the common good. Homosexuality is destructive to the common good.

For example, I don't want to live in a society where homosexuality is outlawed but neither do I want to live in one where I am forced to call it equal to heterosexuality.

In other words I can tolerate homosexuality just don't promote it or make me promote it.

One more thing.
Saying ,"...other than moral implications..." about something that affects family and society, is like saying what's wrong with jumping off a cliff "other than the abrupt stop at the end"

[b9]

One more thing. Saying ,"...other than moral implications..." about something that affects family and society, is like saying what's wrong with jumping off a cliff "other than the abrupt stop at the end"

worth boldly repeating

[AreaMan]

You really need to take a look at this comic and think about where your priorities should be directed

Yes, I've seen it. Witty but deceptive.

You know, I thought Libertines, Automatons (aka Autonomists), and those that regard Christianity as a tribal superstition were great devotees of Heinlein.

Wasn't it Heinlein that wrote in one of his books, through his character, that,
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Lazarus Long

We can handle the Persians AND the radical left. We are multitaskers, not insects.