Posted on 01/22/2005 10:37:46 AM PST by Pikamax
I'm sorry, but the brand of conservatism I belong to is not an ideology of hate, and that's what your articles represent.
Saying you are morally opposed to a lifestyle is not equivalent to hating people.
Thanks, ER. I wasn't able to find the exact quote and my copy of the book isn't accessible at this time.
But you wouldn't argue that the dog's desire to "hump" is unnatural? Quite to the contrary, it is completely normal, but the reason we humans don't go around doing the same is that we have evolved intellects that allow us to reason and make the decision that such a move would be socially unwise (to say the least!). But just as the desire for heterosexual gratification exists in both dog and man, so does the existence of homosexual desire.
"Saying you are morally opposed to a lifestyle is not equivalent to hating people."
Agreed. But the articles I was responding to were disgusting tripe attempting to convince folks that homosexuals want to molest their children. Are you prepared to defend that?
Fooled ya!
I'm really from Aldebran. You could visit, someday. Have a few beers down by the shore. Watch the sorority sisters pledge at Cherry Hill Reformatory.......
That is their slam against the Biblically-minded while their secular,ideological cohorts ("who have ventured outside artificial theological constructs") are imprisoning Bible-believers in other parts of the world. These people are the true haters and they especially hate those of the "household of faith."
There's that magic word again: hate. We see it here a lot as a common and very incorrect argument.
He's banned.
Beat ya to it. ;-)
Yet another misrepresentation of the article you responded to. The article said most don't, but a growing segment is pushing pedophilia.
For future reference:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts?page=385#385
You KNOW how I like to archive information!
;o)
Another one bites the dust!
For some reason I thought that post was closer to post 1, so I couldn't find it... I'll post a link to it in the database. And I just love your archives!
As I view it, Longcut, there is no issue simpler than this one.
I have no problem with homosexuals or their behaviors (though their actions don't exactly make me comfortable, per se), and I am probably one of the most "liberal" FReepers on this one issue, opposing any sort of Big-government legislation aimed at denying homosexuals the same legal rights as straight couples. I hate Dr. Dobson and nearly everything he usually stands for, such as his many obsessive quests against all percieved moral "lapses" in the entertainment industry. My respect for him is akin to my respect for the ACLU, Pat Robertson, the modern-day NAACP, and the Christian Coalition--- that is to say, NONE.
That said (and on the record for good), I have to say that I agree that the most basic outrages committed in this case were committed by overzealous, militant gay rights activists. I don't believe that it is now, nor is it ever acceptable for a political group to co-opt a popular children character or children's TV mascot for the advancement of their own agenda, and that is what is being done with SpongeBob Squarepants by his appearance in the tolerance video. Truth is, tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle is something that the government has no right to teach in schools using taxpayer dollars, and it is the specific duty of a child's parents and a child's parents ALONE (provided that the child has parents) to raise up that child within the religious or moral system that the parents may believe in. If this means that the child will grow up with a bigoted opinion of homosexuals, than so be it; the greater threat to America's freedoms in the long run is a government which takes upon itself the right to form the minds and opinions of children that said government neither conceived of, bore, or cares for.
There might be a few good, small-government libertarian 'Pubbies out there who understand what I am saying, but for the rest of you...FLAME ON!
Probably a returning banned poster, too. The arguments looked familiar...
http://www.narth.com/menus/clinical.html
More material for the Index of Links!
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.