Posted on 03/09/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by Kaslin
LOL, should have hit refresh before I posted #180.
That’s better stated than what I posted.
Actually, those “in power” still believe in right and wrong. It’s just that their vision is a photo negative.
White = black, wrong = right, truth = lies, etc.
Some of these haves some good points, especially #1, but #5 is B.S. If two gays are exclusive*, they are not going to be getting diseases, and no one has found anything harmful that lesbians do.
* not a given, I know
People react to incentives. If people are told that the only ways they will be cared for in their old age are if they (1) raise children in whom they instill sufficient respect that they will provide care when the time comes, or (2) bank enough money to provide for one's own needs, or (3) make themselves sufficiently likable that someone else will support them, then a lot of people will do one of those things, especially if they're allowed to keep enough of their own income to do so.
Unfortunately, many government "safety net" programs have the effect of eliminating people's need to accomplish any of the above. Consequently, people do them less and less.
Certainly a transition back to the proper way of doing things will be unpleasant, but that is the nature of life. Unpleasantness is sometimes natural and unavoidable, and efforts to unnaturally avoid it will ultimately make things worse.
Well, they talk about “moral relativity” and “create your own reality” as though all POV are equal. But really they just want to replace reality with their insanity and evil!
Like I said, I should have hit refresh first and read your post.
I guess I’m not getting where you are coming from. To me, the religious element in marriage is all I care about, a piece of paper from the gubberment doesn’t make someone married. The only way I can see that I might be forced to recognize something that my faith teaches is impossible, like “gay marriage”, is if the gubberment is involved.
Revenging yourself violently upon anyone for any reason is illegal, isn’t it? Or am I very possibly missing something?
Freegards
Unfortunately, many people have been conditioned to think that conservatives regard things as being right and wrong because the Bible says they are; they're not 100% wrong, since there probably are some conservatives who see morality as coming from the Bible, but the reality of good and evil is much deeper. If something is wrong and the Bible says it is, it is not wrong because the Bible says it is; rather, the reason the Bible says it's wrong because it is.
People existed long before Moses transcribed the Ten Commandments. Right and wrong existed then, too.
The more people telling the truth, the better!!!!
YES!
Yes, as you mention -even the ancient residents of Ur knew right and wrong existed, hence the Code of Hammurabi.
Yes, but there are ohers who are better with stating it than I.
And with less typos!
;-)
What moral relativists NEVER consider is when public opinion swings another way. By their logic the Muhammadens are perfectly justified in forcing young girls into marriage and murdering them if they don't comply, by their logic that Nazis were perfectly justified to kill anyone they wanted.
Excellent post!
Before the existence of government, individuals would inflict vengeance upon those who wronged them. If someone (bleep)ed my wife, I couldn't take the (bleep)er to court, but there would be nothing to stop me from killing him myself (unless he was too much bigger and stronger than me, in which case I'd be out of luck). There are no historical records to show how well this worked as a system, but it obviously worked well enough for the human race to survive long enough to invent governments.
Though the religious aspects of your marriage may be most important to you, people of many other religions would regard them as totally meaningless. On the other hand, even people whose religion has nothing in common with yours would generally recognize that your wife is, well, your wife. Not because your religion says she's your wife, or because your government says she's your wife, but because she is your wife.
Well, I would say that it is only a matter of time before gubberment messes up something it is involved with. If it hasn’t yet, give it time.
“...but thanks to special interest groups and the libertarian mindset...”
The institution of marriage should never have been put in a position where those things influencing gubberment could hurt marriage. I bet if marriage was left up to religions you wouldn’t have so many folks willing to believe something impossible can exist (gay marriage) just because gubberment says it does.
Freegards
It seems to me that you are the one advocating for some kind of "Modern Conservatism" as you are the one advocating for gay marriage and gay adoption and acceptance of the gay agenda. That is certainly not a classic conservative position. The classic conservative position is that the Traditional Family is the root of a moral society and it is the liberals who for the last 100 years have been tearing at the fabric of our traditional family advocating such destructive ideas as "no fault divorce" and "domestic partnerships" and gay rights to adoption and child custody. Homosexuality was traditionally considered a mental disorder and was classified as such in the orginal DSM manuals. Now it is considered by liberals to be a valid interpersonal relationship on an equal footing both psychologically and socially as marriage itself.
What kind of society are you promoting anyway? One in which eventually we will have not only gay marriage, but incestuous and polygamous marriages? Don't you think that people who are born with a sexual attraction to a lot of women should have the right to marry them all? If not, they why would you advocate these rights for homosexuals?
BTW you don't have to answer this, because I suspect that if you continue to advocate for the homosexual agenda, you will be Zotted again.
“Though the religious aspects of your marriage may be most important to you, people of many other religions would regard them as totally meaningless.”
Why should I care how others regard my marriage? I reckon they are free to think what they want about it, just as I am theirs according to what my faith teaches. Unless gubberment starts making folks accept stuff they know can’t exist.
“Before the existence of government, individuals would inflict vengeance upon those who wronged them. If someone (bleep)ed my wife, I couldn’t take the (bleep)er to court, but there would be nothing to stop me from killing him myself (unless he was too much bigger and stronger than me, in which case I’d be out of luck). There are no historical records to show how well this worked as a system, but it obviously worked well enough for the human race to survive long enough to invent governments.”
This could be true. I reckon I’m not seeing how gubberment getting its beak outta marriage is connected to it. No civil marriage licenses = no civilization?
Freegards
By insisting the the government not be involved in defining marriage, it ends up not supporting marriage at all.
There is no neutral position on marriage that the government can take. It either supports it or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it's undermining it maybe inadvertently but definitely through inaction.
The Screwtape Letters rocked my world several years back when I read them for the first time. I love CS Lewis’ work!
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.