Posted on 10/21/2004 1:24:03 PM PDT by Agitate
As an adoptee, I'm firmly against homosexuals adopting children. Why? Again, the liberals have created an environment of action without personal responsibility. If someone is homosexual, they physically cannot have kids...so why do we let them adopt?
Society wouldn't break down if people were held responsible for the behavior. The real slipperly slope is adding more and more government regulation to correct the liberal belief of Action without Responsibility.
Typical libertarian idiocy.
Government has ALWAYS enforced those mores either through the sanction of ostracism and disgrace for those who violated them (and in pre-modern cultures in which status depended on who you could call in favors from, this was socioeconomic death) or now through civil codes. That is because protecting the family isn't a "noble cause". It is the job that government has always been responsible for and is always supposed to do. Society has lost the capacity to protect the family through the weapons of ostracism or worse.
A post-sexual revolution man is no longer under any real pressure to "do the right thing" if he gets a woman pregnant. In an earlier age her male kinsmen would have killed him for disgracing the girl. In a more recent age society would have black balled him as a "scoundrel". Nowadays, he can just waltz away. Societally, this is not acceptable. So we have the state to impose child support laws to protect the innocents. Marriage has always been about a great deal more than "what two people do in their bedroom".
That wasn't "government" it was the will of the people acting without the proxy of government. The Romans and Greeks both had successful cultures and both tolerated homosexuality. Both cultures failed through corruption and action without responsibility.
A post-sexual revolution man is no longer under any real pressure to "do the right thing" if he gets a woman pregnant. In an earlier age her male kinsmen would have killed him for disgracing the girl. In a more recent age society would have black balled him as a "scoundrel". Nowadays, he can just waltz away. Societally, this is not acceptable. So we have the state to impose child support laws to protect the innocents. Marriage has always been about a great deal more than "what two people do in their bedroom".
Again, action without responsibility perpetrated by liberals. Your veering from my point that state-sanctioned marriage would be unnecessary if people were held responsible for their actions.
Should I start my topics off with Christian Idiocy so it would better make my point?
Not that I agree but ok I'll take your challenge
Sex with a minor?
Exposing oneself in public?
Sex in public?
Defecating in public?
I hope you start to see my point - social norms whether you like it or not have to be set by the govt. Eventhough the party doing it may be consenting it may not be in the public interest to allow it. There are some who would say that the issues I raised should be allowed but society (not a minority of individuals) have determined it does NOT serve the greater good. Homos may want to have sex but it should not be sanctioned by a society which considers it contrary to the common good.
snip...consensual activities among adults vs. someone harming another individual).
"Consent' as the measure of whether an act is right or wrong is highly flawed. Recently there was a case in Germany where a homosexual cannibal advertised for a 'willing' human meal. One showed up. What followed was unspeakably foul, but 'consensual'. And because it was consensual, the German court, as morally at sea as ours have become, found itself in a quandary. What on earth can we charge these two with when both paricipants had consented? In the end, the court had to be creative and make up a silly charge in order to jail the cannibal. Heavens!!! Their minds have become so 'wide' that they are adrift in them.
Western civilization has been infected by idiocy.
BTTT
Article XXVIII
With respect to human relationships, the Constitution recognizes the term "marriage" solely to describe the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Would you support that?
Sex with minor (hurts the minor, non-consensual)
Exposing oneself in public (again, NOT in private)
Sex in Public (again, NOT in private)
Defacting in Public (NOT IN PUBLIC)
Apples and Oranges. The point is what people do in the privacy of their own home SO LONG AS they aren't hurting anyone else, should be NONE of the government's business.
Consensual insofar as one person isn't harming another. There's the key. Murder has been unacceptable since the dawn of time. It doesn't matter that the other person consented to being killed an eaten.
It's like assisted suicide (which I'm against). If someone wants to die so badly, why do they need to be assisted?
With respect to human relationships, the Constitution recognizes the term "marriage" solely to describe the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Would you support that?
No, for reasons stated earlier in the thread. I don't think the government should have any business in the marriage business.
Again, action without responsibility perpetrated by liberals. Your veering from my point that state-sanctioned marriage would be unnecessary if people were held responsible for their actions.
HELD RESPONSIBLE BY WHO ? We live in a modern world of mobile wealth and mobile people. We no longer live in a world where people spend all their lives in one place and reputations are etched in concrete. And it is only in such a world that libertarianism could ever work because the fewer fixed cultural norms enforced by ostracism and disgrace you have, the more government you need. Fear of punishment has always been a basis of human virtue, not airy talk of "personal responsibility". When society can no longer punish with fear of ostracism, disgrace, and ruin because the cultural moral consensus has collapsed, it must use state coercion.
True. But the issue is that society is no longer able to ostracize or socially (not physically) punish those who do what the majority feels is wrong. States rights are non-existent (after the Supreme Court overturned the sodomy law). All excesses are praised and permitted by liberals...they don't allow anyone else in society to object to the majority of the issue.
Your solution is to create a law that limits the freedom of individuals without doing anything to reverse the trend of perversion allowed and encouraged by liberals as "normal". My point is that 2 wrongs don't make a right.
Your disdain of Libertarians is apparent. The problem is that we aren't that far apart. I believe the only way we can reverse the trend is by voting conservative so that conservative judges are appointed to U.S. Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court and reverse this lunacy called liberalism. However, a true constructionist would not allow the powers of the federal government to infringe on the rights of individuals.
It would be hard enough to restore pre-1965 morality. Without pre-1965 laws about censorship and obscenity and divorce, forget it. You want to restore traditional morality you had better put in place lots of laws that limit the "freedom of individuals" to pre-1965 levels. For instance, you will have to destroy the entire X rated film industry, and even movie nudity in general. You want to enforce societal norms ? Visibly smash with the full force of law people who violate them. Rules cannot exist if those who flout them are not made an example of.
A society that does not use the law to enforce moral norms will see its culture overrun with deviants. That is what makes your position so ridiculous. If government abandons the defense of marriage, that vaccuum will be filled with the toilets of San Francisco. If government abandons the defense of marriage, it is only a matter of time before society is asked to accept "transgenerational love" and "the sexual rights of children". Without the backup of government, society cannot protect itself from militant decadence.
The problem is that we're so far down the slippery slope thanks to liberals who prophesized "if it feels good, do it" in the 60's. You see the problem as solved by adding more laws. I see the problem as society allowing deviant behavior as normal due to laws created to protect deviant people from being ostracized. There is no concept of personal responsibility. Homosexuals come out of the closet because they know that YOU will be the one ostracized for feeling uncomfortable with them. The system is twisted, no doubt...but if you propose a Constitutional Ammendment, I'm very opposed. However, I'm willing to cede to a State Ammendment to a State's Constitution (as proposed here in Michigan), then I'd be in favor (basically of anything that would weaken the federal government's power over states).
How much less could you care, a little or a lot?
I believe sardines should be able to bring civil suits against sharks and their co-conspirators, dolphins...will you please validate my POV?
snip...Consensual insofar as one person isn't harming another. There's the key. Murder has been unacceptable since the dawn of time. It doesn't matter that the other person consented to being killed an eaten.
In our post-modern society, wherein {it's claimed} there are no moral absolutes {no lines in the sand}, and no higher authority to which man must be obesiant, then what man wants is all there is {Nietzsche}. And secular humanist man has declared that 'mutual consent' is the measure of 'right or wrong.' Furthermore, secular humanist man has declared that each man is, in effct, his own moral sovereign and no other man may force his particular morals upon another man. And finally, secular humanist man has declared that every man has the {man-endowed} right to be 'happy" and to have "love". Now, according to what post-modern secular humanist man has stated as his guiding principles {which is a hypocrisy if every man is indeed a moral sovereign}, the cannibal and his fully-consenting dinner should have been found innocent since each man, being a moral sovereign unto himself, and each man having given his individual consent, were seeking nothing more than to fulfill their particular desire for "happiness and love." Now keep in mind that under these same criteria, sado-masochism and things like "pup and trainer' shows have become "socially acceptable" in America and throughout Western Europe. So if cuttng, slicing, and all other types of human debasement are acceptable social behavior under the foregoing criteria, then so too should be cannibalism when the participants can claim to have met those criteria as well. And unless something occurs to put an end to the insanity that's unleashing these horrors upon us and turning our culture into a running sewer, then eventually, cannibalism Will Become as acceptable as S&M, pornography, homosexuality, transsexualism, and so on. It's just a matter of time.
snip...I believe sardines should be able to bring civil suits against sharks and their co-conspirators, dolphins...will you please validate my POV?
Sense can be made of this once we put our "secular humanist" tinfoil hats on. OK.....I've got it on so here's the nonsense:
Sardines, sharks, and dolphins are each of them, an 'orientation' {race of fish-beings}. Now as we politically correct tinfoilers know, every race/orientation has an 'elitist-man' endowed right to
the pursuit of love, sex, and happiness.
Now when hateful, biggoted, sardineophobic sharks and dolphims dine on sardines without first obtaining 'mutual consent', they are guilty of depriving the sardines of their rights. Had they but obtained consent beforehand, no crime would have been committed. Of course, if they were smart, they would've lied and said they had obtained consent.
Really.....who could prove them wrong?
So do I have a case your honor?! lol (thanks for playing along...)
Liberalslayer....Though I personally could care less what takes place in the bedroom with any 2 consenting adults,
Dave....How much less could you care, a little or a lot?
Liberslayers stance rests upon the presumption of the right to privacy, which is a nebulous affair at best. Why? Consider that two {or more} people can hold a 'private' conversation in a public space, like a bus terminal, for instance. Do they really have 'privacy' or do they have the 'presumption' of privacy?
What they have is the latter, which can also be said to be an 'imagined sense' of privacy. Now if this "imagined sense' of privacy is a "right", and rights are created by secular humanist man, then it logically follows that people who would like to have sex in public should have that right under the criterian set forth by secular humanist man. If 'private conversations' can be held in public spaces, then so too can 'private sex between consenting adults' be held in public spaces. The 'wrong-doers' in this case would not be those engaging in 'private-public' sex, it would be the "eavesdroppers".
This is moral law turned upside-down.
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.