Posted on 07/06/2006 5:49:43 PM PDT by Sunsong
It is also called leftist village socialism...
Maybe if it was called what it is it would seem less appealing to those parroting the concept e.g. "Equal Handouts" for any pair of humans licensed by government that engage in any type of sexual activity... LOL
:-)
Isn't that what I just said? :-) Let's look at the quote from me you posted at the top of your post:
No, that is nothing but your opinion. Homosexuality is about a sex act in your mind. The *issue* is about much more than that. I am just repeating myself here - but you are free to keep your head in the sand and insist that everyone look at this the way that you want them to - but you will fail. The discussion and national debate will go on without you. And you will only get more angry and hateful as things don't go your way.
What do I say? Do I say that homosexuality is about more than sex? No. I say:
The *issue* is about much more than that.
What about the word *issue* do you not understand? As I suggested you could benefit from listening to others and actually reading what they have to say. Your attempts to reduce a complex issue to a sex act - are not persuasive. Even you carry on about *a homosexual agenda*. An agenda isn't a sex act, is it? So by your own statements you are talking about more than a sex act.
Perhaps you think you have a better argument if you reduce things to a core idea - like marriage is about procreation and homosexuality is about a sex act. I dunno. But for most people - marriage is about love and family and no matter how many capital letters you shout with - they *know* they are right - because they are entitled to their own opinion - just like you are :-)
You argue that society decides issues like marriage. And so, you must agree - that if society changes its mind about marriage - then that is society's role...and it is up to the majority in each state to make that decision. Connecticut has done that. New York may do that. We will see. And what do you think they will be talking about? Sex acts? Or human beings forming some kind of bond that may be called a civil union?
Well that is quite a loaded statement :-) I think rather than taking it apart word by word - I will simply disagree with it and say that it is your opinion that having civil unions or some such for homosexuals *undermines* marriage. That is your view. It is not a fact.
What a strange statement. How would one go about making a *love test*? But marriage is about love. Legally it may be about legal things - but to the human beings involved it is about love - love and a future together and, of course, other things that are unique to unique individuals.
Homosexuals want more than a co-habitation contract. They want social security benfits and surviver/pension benefits and health care for spouses and all the *goodies* that come with marriage.
Homosexuals should keep their sex acts in the bedroom and away from the public,
I agree and so should heterosexuals.
Oh gee, how clever. Yes hatred can be harmful to the body - those who *hate the sin* for instance - that hatred - could be bad for a human body. And if there are homosexuals who are envious of heterosexuals - that envy could be harmful to them. Or whatever unique individuals may choose such negative emotions may indeed be harmed by them. But you have made a blanket generalization here that only lessens your credibility with me since I now know that you have chosen to be clever rather than accurate. Unless you are claiming to know all homosexuals and to have interviewed them as to their reasons for wanting to marry - you are just assuming based on your own personal biases. Not very impressive.
But since homosexuals have aggressively assaulted traditional values for the last 25 to 30 years, conservatives have been pushed into a corner. The homosexual activists and their assistants in the Democratic party, main stream media, Hollywood movers and shakers, and academic elitists have tried with pretty good success to change the very meaning of morality, family, and normal sexuality.
If homosexuals kept their sex lives private, no one would know or care. But the exact opposite is true, and people who accuse conservatives of not mind our own business are merely parroting a standard "gay" talking point. I didn't give a flying rat's *** what anyone did sexually until they decided they wanted to change the world and shove it in everyone's face, change the meaning of marriage, freely molest Boy Scouts or try to destroy them, teach kids in grade school that "gay is good", and the like.
The MADE it my business. I'd rather they didn't, but if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Your statesments are mere opinions; what is more, they are emotional verbiage with not a single fact to back them up.
Your shilling on behalf of the homosexual agenda is transparent and fools no one.
Carry on.
How did you figure that out :-)
"those who *hate the sin* for instance - that hatred - could be bad for a human body."
How is hating sin and evil bad for one self? That is a far different matter than hating people or having envy, etc.
"But you have made a blanket generalization here that only lessens your credibility with me since I now know that you have chosen to be clever rather than accurate."
LOL. I try to be both. It's better than being an inaccurate dunce.
"Unless you are claiming to know all homosexuals"
Er, I said nothing about homosexuals. I said ... " Those who are advancing gay marriage are doing so under the delusion of envy and hostility against traditional marriage and family."
A homosexual who doesnt feel the need to redefine marriage to include his gay relationships does not fit the category here.
Advocating for undermining and redefining marriage is inherently based on a hostility towards marriage as currently constituted. This is as self-evident as saying that those who want to raze Mount Vernon and build a DisneyWorld there have a 'hostility' towards Washington's homestead. A generalization? Yes, but warranted by the evidence.
Moral relativists [sic] such as you pretend that the points of view you hold are mere "opinions", yet you present them as carved in stone facts. If you thought you just held mere opinions, then my opinion and the opinions of other actual conservatives would be equally valid, since everything is just opinion.
The truth is that my point of view is not my opinion, it is the truth, and your opninion is untruth. I don't hide behind the skirts of phony moral relativism. Moral relativists are living hypocrites. You pretend that the traditional moral absolutes that exist virtually the same in every religion are null and void, and that one can make up one's own truth; yet you present your distorted conclusions as adamantine replacement for the old truth. Your politically correct version of "truth" is a mere hallucination, a mirage, due to be dissolved by time very soon.
Your opinions are wrong, whereas my point of view is factual. The time you can cite any studies, figures, or reason backing up your false assertions will be a red letter day. Actually it won't happen, because you can't.
Read some Stanley Kurtz articles and get back to the discussion with your refutations.
Goldwater married a leftist woman in his old age, and shifted to the left on social issues such as homosexuality and abortion.
So should human-animal marriage be sanctioned? Or do you "obsess over other people's sex lives"? According to you, those are the only two positions available.
Exactly! Homosexuality is nothing more than a deviant sex fetish. It's unnatural, unhealthy, and unholy.
Two people of the same sex can't marry since marriage is the natural bonding of people of the opposite sex. If homosexuals are permitted to "marry", then marriage is no longer what it once was. It's been redefined into something else.
This does have an impact on real marriages because it cheapens it, it endangers the children produced by normal unions (homo unions can't produce offspring), and it leads to expanded government power which threatens us all.
Hatred is hatred. And the emotion, the chemicals that are produced in the body when one *feels* the emotion of hatred can be quite harmful to the body.
In post #60, you agreed that hatred is potentially harmful:
You quoted me: "You harm your body with negative emotions like hatred, jealousy, envy, blame, hostility etc. And the *object* of your hatred, jealousy, envy, blame, hostility etc"
Your response: You are right.
Now you are back tracking - or just playing games?
" Those who are advancing gay marriage are doing so under the delusion of envy and hostility against traditional marriage and family."
That is just your personal bias being expressed as a judgement. Unless you know every person who is advancing gay marriage and have interviewed them as to their reasons - you are simply making this up. Again, not very impressive and deserving of no credibility.
Advocating for undermining and redefining marriage is inherently based on a hostility towards marriage as currently constituted.
Again, just your own bias being expresed through judgement. But that's the way that you and others are trying to scare people into accepting your doom and gloom philosophy - I guess. That is not even very clever. A well worn path for sure.
ROFLOL - Thanks for that! That's got to be one of the funiest lines I've read here in a while.
Truth is that which is unchanging, invulnerable and eternal - right?
And you claim that your opinions and judgements are Truth?
Is homosexuality eternal? If so, you ought to take it more seriously :-)
I notice that you resort to personal attacks in your posts. That's what left-wingers do. Are you are closet left-winger :-)
That is just hatred and rage expressed as a question, imo.
So, should human-animal "marriage" be sanctioned? How about polygamy? How about incest? Since homosexuals can't reproduce, why not allow them to have incestuous "marriages"? No deformed offspring to worry about if two brothers marry one another. Isn't love all that matters? Suppose they love one another and want to anally sodomize one another to express that love? Why can't they marry?
"Hate" is just a leftist code word to avoid debate.
So, in your infinite wisdom, speaking from atop the high mountain from which you can see all, you make your judgments, while pretending that all is relative.
Enjoy the hypocrisy!
There are some personal attacks right in this post. Here is a suggestion for you - why don't you explain your position instead or trying to tell me mine.
"How is hating sin and evil bad for one self? That is a far different matter than hating people or having envy, etc"
"Hatred is hatred. "
Um, no. Sadistic killers and torturers hate their victims, and those victims may hate the acts perpetrated against them, but its not equivalent. Failure to oppose evil has bad effects that go far beyond whatever emotion's impact on body chemistry can do to you.
You are failing to distinguish between mere emotionalism and those emotions consistent with righteous judgements of moral situations and consequences. You apparently are falling for multiple errors of moral relativism. No wonder you are on the wrong side of this issue.
"That is just your personal bias being expressed as a judgement."
Irony alert: That is just your personal bias being expressed as a judgement.
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.